fleischr said:
The only difference is that the car not only proved to be better, it was also a better interface. Going from a TV screen to something shielding your face? The initial reaction is "not a better interface, not more useable." Hands-on experience might change some people's minds. But the prior failures of 3D in the marketplace do not bode well for VR. VR will get destroyed by 4K -- which provides a the lifelike visual experience literally without the overhead. VR is a more costly, unnecessary gimmick than the Kinect or Wii U Gamepad. |
Comments like this really show you've never tried it before and are talking from a point of ignorance. This isn't just something "shielding your face", the interface is superior in nearly every way that counts. 3D is nothing like VR, and neither is 4K. They're not even in competition with each other. If anything, 4K is a complementary tech that will get added to VR when feasible.
4K TVs & 3D are still passive forms of visuals even if they're designed to improve immersion. The screen stays in one place and your mind is fully aware of the fact you're sitting in a room passively watching (or playing) something.
With VR, you're completely immersed, all you can see is what's in the game (no lights being turned on/off, no cat walking in front of the screen etc.). Now add in motion tracking whereby every motion of your head changes in time with what you see on screen. Imagine playing a flight sim and being in a fighter, you start getting shot from a position behind you and instead of a button press to check exactly 180degs behind you you twist your head round to see exactly where they're shooting you from.
VR adds a level of immersion that simply cannot be replicated on traditional TV technologies.
