You might want to look at your previous post shown here: 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=7216384

To me, you clearly state that VR is completly, utterly, and entirely going to be used for "kids toys".  I then inferred that a "kids toy" refers to something trivial like gaming. So yeah, you did state that VR would only be used for gaming.

I am not going to explain why Project Morpheus is game centric.  Go read my previous post again.  

In bold: I think the only way to get through to you is by giving you an example of what MIcrosoft did in the past.  Go watch a nearly 4 minute video on Project Natal (Kinect) before it was released to the public shown here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_txF7iETX0

and then go look up all of the various applications that Kinect is being used today.  How is it possible that Mircosoft presented a game centric periphal yet its being used in so many different applications around the world!?  Does that sound like Project Morpheus in the near future?!  The answer is yes....

The rest of your statements are you just rambling on about why AR is better than VR.  Of course there are going to be things that AR can do that VR can't do.  That's why they are called two different things.  Shocker!  

I could just as easily mention things that VR can do that AR will never be able to do.  I really don't understand why you brought this up other than to downplay VR.  You completely dismiss VR and everything it has to offer instead of giving praise where praise is due.

When ever you get done saying what you saying VR cannot do anything in the real world while AR can. Thats the big differnce in both and thats what makes AR better. With AR you can do things that are real but anything done with VR will always be fake just like a game.

Again you are downplaying VR in that it has no "real world" application and that it will always be "fake".  Please tell me what is so real about you grabbing at "fake" icons in the middle of the air when using hololens.  Please tell me what is so real about seeing objects that nobody else can see unless they are using hololens.

Please tell me that applications in Military, Education, Healthcare, Entertainment, Fashion, Heritage, Business, Engineering, Sports, Media, Scientific Visualization, Telecommunications, Construction, Film, and Programming Languages using VR are somehow not "real world" applications. 

At this point, you are just making a fool of yourself.  I advise you to just stop. You are constantly changing your view and never admit that VR has fantastic qualities outside of gaming.  I do not understand why you have this huge grudge.  Do you care to explain?

Making a fool of my self?  If you say so. 

Read and comprehend because I posted this earlier.

Unlike VR with AR you can do real things in the real world like the guy in the short film video cooking the eggs and the lady in the Hololens video fixing the sink. You can move around and go places and do things. You can use AR in your everyday life. This is why AR is going to be better and succeed. One step closer to Iron Mans Holographic computing!

Nothing in VR is real. The V in VR stands for Virtual.

Fixed

I listed all of the reasons why VR is going to succeed as well.  We are such a good team!

I think that you're just downplaying VR just for the sake of it. VR is better for gaming and various real world applications. AR/holographic is better for real world applications in general and alright at gaming. Both will probably be around for many years.

VR has way more promise because I can project you into worlds far beyond the geometry of your environment. AR may also potentially suffer from the same issues that plagued Kinect: Inconsistent experiences. Trying to map movement into actions is hard (see Fighter Within). Now, imagine making any experience larger than a desktop surface and the complxity of differentenvironments. You are noy going to get something like Eve Valkyrie in AR. No pure 360 immersion.

Minecraft on Halo Lens lets you turn your livingroom into a workpad for Minecraft.
VR lets walk through that world in full 3D.

Some of you are so involved into this stupid fanboy war that you fail to see what's what. We know it all - we represent this brand. AR = VR + real world visual input / pass through (but this could be blocked - at least in theory). It is not a battle of concepts, but rather a contest in execution / quality of the device / experience and it remains to be seen who delivers the better solution. A VR headset + cameras is actually an AR one. I'm quite convinced that once the technology is in place they will fit cameras and other stuff on those headsets, so they're actually converging. What games are better - A vs V remains to be seen.

I am a sony fan and hate microsoft, but BOTH look and will be amazing if used right, now we just need wait and see when this come out !

Except no? AR is half assed VR that will I repeat, be limited to your household. If you blocked the "augmented" part of AR then what you would get barely qualifies as a virtual reality experience. I don't think a floating menu and a broom disguised as a shovel really simulate any type of reality honestly.

Its actually not even a superset, its a subset. AR=VR(.5)

You don't get the complete virtual experience, you aren't actually experiencing real life, and you're stuck within reach of your console or router. For all that ms promises with ar, it's sounding pretty lame to me. If I'm going to be limited to where the tech works, let it transport me entirely to a different galaxy. 

Honestly this is the same exact bullshit we heard with "tHe ClOuDdD". Big fuckin whoop, I'm so impressed by all the progress that has shown (yet it's PlayStation that can now stream entire video games). Before that the kinect was supposed to be a big deal, yet that too was limited and never came close to delivering on its PR speak.