[mastazi]

FWIW where the original comment said

> It's not something you can do with kids around

I think the author of that comment meant that if you have little kids, you need to keep an eye on them, and playing with a headset that blocks your peripheral vision is not going to be something a parent can do in that situation.

That comment didn't mean to say that kids would not play VR. It was suggesting that parents wouldn't.

[dmix]

Again all I'm saying is what matters is that enough kids do in fact play VR, today, to fuel the tech so it can mature into a mainstream technology. The only way this hypothetical (future) parent issue would discredit VR as a mainstream technical innovation is for VR companies to have bet solely on causal/kid gaming for their long term success.

This is why OP missed the point. Because I didn't agree that that was an important point he a) got emotional for being disagreed with b) assumed that I thought it wasn't true. But I only ever said it didn't matter, not that parents or regulations dont have power in this dynamic.

Evidence points to Quest 2 being very popular among kids and their casual gaming platform via Android-esque VR games has provided a strong and sufficient market from which multiple companies can mature the technology to a wider market.

It was a faulty premise to dismiss the technology, because it fundamentally mischaracterizes how technology normally mainstreams (by first having a real and successful initial early adopter market from which you adapt and mature to mainstream markets - not betting on early adopters to BE the mainstream).

Although I will agree I probably should have said "yes you're right" so OP didn't feel I misunderstood. Altough if he wasn't so quick to win an internet "fight" he might have let me explain.