Even as someone who prefers the Vive in terms of overall experience, I think this article glosses over quite a few points and misrepresents the facts to the point where it shouldn't even be on HN for discussion. There are far less biased articles surfacing in the wake of Oculus Connect that don't for example, highlight Luckey's political leanings in the subtitle.<p>For one, the crux of the article is that the Rift is expensive. And sure, for some people, it definitely is. However, it's unfair to say that Oculus is a "$1,500 to $2,500 gaming platform" and shortly compare it to the $800 price point of the Vive which does not include the also required "$500 and $1,500" computer. Similarly, it seems wrong to compare either the Rift or the Vive to Google's Pixel because well, they're targeting different segments of the market with vastly different experiences. In addition, the article neglects to mention that a big announcement today was Oculus lowering the minimum specs of a VR headset with their new software that (from what I understand) interpolates frames. In fact, Oculus will be selling $500 dollar prebuilt systems which brings the minimum buy-in to experience VR on the Oculus considerably lower.<p>The rest of the article proceeds in a similar fashion; Oculus has quite a few interesting titles announced not even including the free title by Epic Games (makers of Unreal and the Unreal engine and definitely a well known studio) given out with the Touch. In particular, I'm excited about Luna because it was made by quite a few people from thatgamecompany (Journey). Similarly, having non-game media by OK Go (known for their virally popular experimental music videos) and Disney (no other introduction necessary) is huge for both the platform and VR in general. Yes, it's lacking a few big players like Bethesda, but I think the future lineup is far from as barren as the article so blindly suggests.