Someone said in another VR thread that if Nintendo can make a cheap and family-friendly VR device then maybe it could be a mass market thing.
I suspect it will be a peripheral for PC and for the geek audience.

1. VR headsets dont work that way. There is enough space within the head set for people with glasses and cutting off your view of you rsurroundings is exactly what its designed to do. Even light from your surroundings filtering into the headset breks the experience. The whole point of VR is that it actually becomes your surroundings (hence the name). Its supposed to replce your reality with whatever world you just walked into.
2. Displays are not as expensive as you think. That aside, this is a concern i share with you, I don't think sony can get it down to $200 but I believe they can retail it for under $300. At that price it would be a very very tough sell, but it could be ok if they make it possible to also use it as a normal monitor or TV. While promising to give you the illusion of having a really really big tv.

1. Primitive compared to what you can do here. And you said it, NO PORN!!!!! I am calling it now, porn will spearhead the VR movement, like it helped VHS win betamax (at least thats what i was told)
2. Yup, exactly that. Just that now controls are handled by your controller and the drones axix and fov is basically controlled by your head. oh and of course you get the awesome view
3. Yup, and much much more. In truth those are the kinda things that will really spur mass adoption. You have to show people things an experiences that can only be made possible with VR. And they have to be things people will want to do.

Yeah I was a bit confused because 3D is a part if VR. You wouldn't really have VR without 3D and if you did it would lose all of its awe factor. So when you said 3D adds nothing I thought you were knocking VR because of it. I should have read it better. But the two tecnologies are so tied together at this point how can you praise one up and down and say the other is useless when it is a part of the first one?

But I still disagree with you that 3D has no functional value because it does. A few examples would be having a better feel for the other traffic coming at you in racing games, distinguishing the terain on a pinball table and having a much better spatial representation if it, having better judgements in 3D platformers and not just having to rely on your shadow to space your jumps.

Maybe you just haven't played any games that properly use the effect? Mario 3D Land is a perfect example of a game made for 3D that correctly utilizes it.

And even when it doesn't have a functional value it still adds to the experience in the way that surround sound or HD does. You don't need those things but a lot of people want them. To this day if I have the option if 3D I always go for it. I find it to be a superior experience always.

Hmm, I see your point. I never really looked at it like that. In hindsight, VR is made complete fundamentally because its a 3D display with an expanded visual cone to completely wrap around your vision. So I get you there.

What I meant i suppose is that compared to 3D, VR wouldn't just add a certain layer of immersion. Rather it can spearhead completely different genres or evolve existing genres in a way that simply can't be done any other way bacause its not just a view but rather also a control input.

I'm actually hoping the motion control is optional with VR. I understand certain experiences will be made just for that aspect but I'm more excited about traditional controls mixed with immersive 3D wrap around vision. I find motion controls can be fun but tiring and my main method if playing a game is sitting. If I had to physically swing a sword every time I did that in Skyrim I would have a big mutant steroid arm.

i agree the possibilities are exciting though as long as traditional gaming retains it's place.

I want VR in gaming that puts you completely into the game, till that happens this will just be a fad.

Both are dumb fads that involve similar premises: the illusion of things on-screen "being closer to you", thus "immersing you in the game world". Even though they don't. With one you have optical illusions making it seem as if shit is flying out of the screen towards you, also potentially ruining your eyesight. The other involves having some visor or other dumbass peripheral, strapped to your face, so that you can pretend you're "actually in the game". When you know you're not, and look ridiculous with some shit strapped to your head. Plus, honestly, it could probably also ruin your eyesight.

Both of them are wastes of time in my opinion, and I really fail to see why either one garners the excitement from some people that it does. Call me a "traditionalist", but I just want to kick back, relax, and play my game on a TV. How video games were intended to be played. VR is never going to really "catch on" the way stupid 90s movies (and OR fanatics) seemed to think it would. And thank god for that, honestly.

Wow. So the way your eyeballs are designed to see is a "dumb fad"?

Also, "I don't like it, I don't understand how anyone could." is a very douchey sentiment. People like different things than you, are you really that self centered that you can't understand that?

Like I said earlier, if you don't like it don't do it. Where does all this hate and venom come from wanting it to fail?  That's not a normal healthy response to not liking something. You make it sound like VR killed your puppy and skull fucked the corpse.

wearing oversized glasses is now called virtual reality ? LOL

Motion controls aren't compulsory with VR. We just dont know if they would let you use the headset like a traditional TV. But even in Vr though you could use your controller. No PC demo of VR has anyway exerting themselves, I think they actually encourage you to be in a seated position. Its the sony version that can use expansive motion controls cause they had a camera and the move controlers.

Then you should be playing on a watch. Thats a very very narrow minded reference. Can't say much else about your post in general, but I will agree wiith you though... maybe you are just a traditionalist.