[rb1]

But we've seen "soft" AR and it appears to be fairly popular - Pokemon Go and Ingress. If you ask players of either of those games, if they would like a "harder" - i guess this means more immersive - experience while playing these games, they'll bite your hand off.

There's also father.io, which looks pretty fun, but I haven't tested that out yet.

For me, in my uneducated almost ignorant understanding of the situation, AR has a massive advantage over VR in that it tends to not make you quite as motion sick.

[mstolpm]

But every player of Pokémon Go that really tries to play the game not just for 30 minutes disables the AR camera first to save battery and because it doesn't add value. People using Pokémon Go with the AR cam enabled are young kids (it's funny) and Asian tourists snapping photos with Pokémon in front of landmarks and tourist spots.

I second your remark on motion sickness. And VR cuts the user/player from the real world, which is a social annoyance outside your own living room.

[moron4hire]

The camera isn't the AR part. It's the real world map with game data overlaid.

[moron4hire]

VR also doesn't tend to make the vast majority of people "quite motion sick". Instances of simsickness are widely over blown and overeported.

We've run thousands of VR demos, both in the road and at our dedicated "arcade" space in DC. Not one person has reported anything more than mild discomfort, and that had been a rare minority.

Simsickness is anti-VR FUD. I don't know why, but there is a small cohort of AR advocates and VR detractors who would be gleeful to see the demise of VR.