potato_hamster said:
The
Aeolus451 said:
You're right about VR as it is now because it's incomplete or a just a meager step towards what it will be. No doubt, once it or a similar tech gets fairly close to the ideal version of vr, playing games on a tv will become retro. It will have the ideal level of immersion the vast majority of gamers crave for.
|
The "vast majority" of gamers crave the "ideal level of immersion" that VR brings? Do you have any reason to think that? Any credible sources? In fact, I'll take just one source.
Because it appears to me that the "vast majority" are at least tangentially aware of the level of immersion that VR currently has to offer, and haven't even seriously considered picking one up, or even trying one. If the "vast majority" of gamers "crave the ideal level of immersion" why aren't they jumping on VR solutions that are far more immersive than playing on televsion that is available today? Surely that would satiate at least some of that "craving", wouldn't it?
|
Try to use your brain on a different setting other than autopilot, please. I mentioned more than once that I was talking about the ideal level of vr and the degree of immersion that it would have. It would be something like the matrix or SAO. Most gamers would like that. It's the natural progression of gaming. From the polls I've seen, the majority of people would get vr if it was more advanced. Why do you keep going back to vr in its current state to counter my argument when it's not central to my argument? Stop strawmanning.
