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

[LemonSlice]

Normchacho said:

LemonSlice said:
Stereoscopic 3D is much superior to VR, it solves all the shutting-out problems Phil is talking about. Yet where is 3D today, for all it's awesomeness? VR is a fad, it will go away as soon as it comes. There will be (are) people who are nutso crazy about about, there will be people who will use it all their lives (similarly with me and 3D, it seems), but for the vast majority, it's a fad. A fad's fad. A fad's fad fad.

3D tv really only provides a minor improvement to a normal experience. You get a increase in depth, but it's not huge and your FOV doesn't change at all. The general response of pretty much everyone I've ever seen try 3D tv is "oh...cool". Simply put, 3D tv just isn't a very impressive experience.

VR on the other hand, is an immensely impressive experience. I'm not saying VR will see huge mainstream success overnight, but it is a good enough experience and a good enough product on it's own to be worthwhile. It also already has a significantley more robust web of support as far as content goes than 3D ever had.

It will take time for VR to catch on, and I think mobile VR will be the type that brings the most people on board, but comparions to 3D tv are very shortsighted.

3D doesn't require a lot. Just a pair of glasses. Autostereoscopy like on the 3DS doesn't require anything for the user to wear (even auto adapts on the New 3DS).  It might not be as impressive of an effect, but it enhances the impressiveness of what you see. Makes what is impressive in 2D look even more impressive. And it adapts to pretty much anything. It doesn't require for entire paradigms to be changed to suit it.

VR might get a better initial reaction (though I've seen incredible reactions from people who experienced 3D for the first time, so I don't know what you're talking about), but thinking that people, who grew too bored and too bothered by 3D, will use VR lastingly en masse is silly.