Phil Spencer hopes VR isn't the future of gaming.

[Zekkyou]

Nem said:

Zekkyou said:

It seems a little silly to use wiki's definition of VR to discredit stuff like Morpheus and Oculus when that same article acknowledges HMDs as a type of VR. You can argue it's not 'true' VR, but the concept itself has quite a lot of wiggle room.

Regardless to the definitions from places like wiki and Oxford though, i personally think the biggest validator of these devices being considered a type of VR is that such devices have been referred to as such in science fiction for decades. That's not selling a lie, that's selling a well established idea.

The definitions are all similar. Who cares where its from. What matters is what they say. Wiki was just the easiest to copy paste.

Tell me, if this is VR, why isnt the game on your TV VR? The only difference is the proximity of the screen.

Yeah, all those sources are similar in that, unlike you, they consider HMDs a type of VR :p

As for your question, because unlike a TV, HMDs are not only a more accurate representation of actual sight, but unlike TVs and traditional controllers, they allow you to view that space through a more natural imput (your head and where it's facing). Even if you don't consider HMDs a type of VR, i find it hard to believe that you don't at least consider them a more accurate representation of actual sight and directional input, thus more like VR.

Two things sharing the same base technology doesn't make them the same. If VR provided an experience that was functionally identical to a TV, we'd see that opinion being expressed in all the early hands on reviews. Seeing as we've not, i think it's logical to assume that's not the case.