Honest answer: I happen to be twenty two. 

You keep mentioning how much harder AR will be to execute. How is this a good thing? (You've reiterated this twice as if this was a positive.)

Just because something is harder to achieve or more complex of a solution does not by any indication make it inherently better. In many cases it's quite the opposite thats true. 

In any case, AR and VR aren't subsets or supersets of each other. That boils down to the headset and it's capabilities more than anything else, the experience it provides is irrelevant to the point. Otherwise, by your logic reality would be considered a superset of AR which would mean AR is a halfway point between complete VR and real life... So in other words, half assed (by my logic). 

They are concepts; they are not hardware. I don't teach logics... Read and analyze before arguing. This is my last post within this thread.

It's great if it's real, too bad we might seeing another kinect add if this coming on 8th gen era, if it's coming on far future there is a possibility, but it still limited by the feed back feeling when you touching something. With VR actually the concept is more real and promising and is not the real VR so VR for know and AR for far in the future . But if it's delivered then why not. But i doubt it would be like the Youtube Demo LOl, i will not buy after the Kinnect add when it was released on X360 .

What I find funny (desperate pr twist?) is that they keep calling the images holograms... holograms would not require glasses, if this definition of holograms is accepted, why not say 3D TVs are holograms? I mean, if you set the bar low enough evryboty can step above it...

Anyway, this does not remove the potential of the tech, but I think saying it has "more potential than VR' is stretcing it, there are obvious limitations, like with any tech and it has its place , alongside VR, tablets, smart phones and the desktop computers... it does a different thing, similar to google glasses (which google had the good sense to realize they were likely chasing a pipe dream, MS may not have that wisdom).

Couldn't we learn from the past and understand that Microsoft needs to impress the investors but that they can't actually translate the "concept" into reality? And from the past I mean:
- Google project Nathal Milo trailer. The concept was amazing, where did it go?
- Google Kinect reveal. Lets be honest, that is NOT how the Kinect actually performs
- Google "The Power of the Cloud demonstration". They have been selling us theory all this time.
- Google illumiroom. I'm not saying they are not geniuses. I'm saying we need to be realistic.

AR on VR with front facing cams... Yeeeeeaaahhhh sure why do simple when you can do really expensive, really complicated and with a much lower quality....

To just come in the vicinity of a regular eyesight quality you'd need not one but 2 Utra HD camera on motors 2 eye movement trackers, and 2 curved volumetric 3D Ultra HD monitors and all that with a total process time below 1ms...

In other word not even remotely dreamable for a long long veeeeeeeerrrrrry long time....

And how is VR deeper when AR can put object in real life but just as well put an entire virtual world in front of your eyes... Making it a a full VR device.... So no VR can't do AR like AR can do VR.... Nothing prevents you to put an obstructive add on to a AR headset to make it a fully operational VR device for a few bucks... Try to do the opposite with a VR headset to make it an effective AR headset for a few bucks...

I'll get both an oculus and a hololense anyway but please explain me what you see I dont...

No matter how I look at it, VR always wins by a country mile for me.

'Oh look, there's are creatures flying around by coffee table!'

V

'This is another world. Let's explore it.'

I think 99% of people would pick the latter and 99% of XB1 owners would pick the former.

but This other world can be projected via AR just like VR... While the opposite is much more complex... I'm all for VR in gaming but AR is just the cherry on top... I can have the VR experience and immersion through a full projection space picture in your field of vision and the AR benefit through partial and or volumetric projection...

why AR should be limited to a few objects??

Augmented reality doesn't interest too much in games although I think it could greatly improve the UI

No it can't and it never will unless you believe in Star Trek. You aren't in another world, things inhabit YOUR world. VR is much much better and will actually work properly. That promo video was another smoke and mirrors campaign.