| > If you're trying to do analysis and not propaganda, you have to look at both routes and see what the differentiators are. Well, the thing I see immediately is that you're not really doing an accurate analysis. Stereoscopic 3D from a fixed point of view is indeed an old concept, and definitely not enough. But we've moved well beyond that already. I think the actual value proposition is immersive stereoscopic 3D + good in-world body-based controls. That changes things in a way something like a 3D TV can't. Eg, for games, you can't really get more immersive than acting out your character's movements yourself. Something like Superhot lets you do Matrix-like moves in VR that just nothing else does. You can find games with slow-mo like Max Payne, but they don't make non-VR games in which you can actively move your head out of the path of a bullet and have that work naturally. Or something like Racket NX is a very real workout that works very naturally. The downside of course is that the tech has considerable limits and constraints that will still take time figuring out. Normal computer games worked out their mechanics over decades, so if you go back far enough to something like Dune 2, it feels very clunky. On a longer term, I'm hoping for the day I can replace my monitors with a VR helmet and just display anything I need anywhere in an arbitrary position and amount. One can't ever have enough terminal windows. |