Whats yours? Hololens for gaming is limited, it has more applicaton outside of gaming. VR has far more potential for gaming thern hololens. Even MS knows this and is pushing it more for outsde of gaming.

There is a reason many companies are pushing VR for games, MS is the only one doing hololens.....

That's really non of my business as a consumer. 

The point of the whole conversation was about risk.  You tell me which is more risky.  Following the crowd and creating another VR device or creating something totally different.  The problem with Hololens for gaming is not its application or pontential its the cost.  This is the real real reason MS isn't pushing it for gaming because a self contained device like Hololens will cost the same as a high end computer.  Not something you sell to the budget gaming consumer.  

Either way, we were talking about risk and there is nothing really more risky about Morph than Hololens.  If anything Hololens is the more risky device but its application is wider so I am sure MS will make their money.

That makes zero sense, if it has more applications, it is inherently less risky. Sony is making their own head set which has big R&D risks, and it has no applications outside of gaming....Hololens, if it doesn't work well for games, which it most likely won't can be used for many other applications lessening risk.

The risk is that it will cost way more than Sony Morp thus the adoptions will be smaller.  Hololens will cost thousands.  It’s a wireless computer headset with a display, just because it has wider applications does not mean the cost of the product will be adopted fast or at all.  The risk is bigger because the product is more expensive to make thus MS has a greater chance to fail and lose more money. I also believe MS  RD cost on Hololens is greater than Sony RD on Morp so there is a bigger risk MS does not make back that investment.