[wormhoudt]

I will say that we at Dream, hold a pretty contrarian point of view on this. So let me start by saying, it is an opinion, but one we hold pretty strongly. I can talk a little bit about locomotion, but this sort of philosophy applies to many of the design decisions we made, for better or worse.

Dream doesn't allow for locomotion by design. Dream is meant to be a place where people meet to be productive. The environments are intentionally pretty but not distracting. The focus is on interaction with the other participants and the shared content. We feel that removing locomotion and reducing dimensionality is how we will make the interactions with Dream simpler, especially for new users. Mechanisms like teleportation are super fun and certainly add to immersion and are the right choice for all sorts of VR experiences. However, Dream has been built from the perspective that users are here to collaborate and then go back to real life. In that context, something like teleportation is fun and novel the first time you use it, but the 10th time, we feel like most users would just prefer a menu. The overall idea being, reduce dimensionality to increase precision and simplicity.

I'm happy to hear a critique of this philosophy. Ultimately we have to create software people love to use, and we certainly understand that we might be proven wrong about this.

[KineticLensman]

I think that's a great response, nicely articulating that you are prioritising utility over gimmicks.