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.
Please, there's no need for insults. And how can I strawman you when I am responding to a quote you made directly? Are you telling me that when yo did not say
" [More advanced VR] will have the ideal level of immersion the vast majority of gamers crave for. "
Because most of my response is based on that sentence. Did you just forget what you wrote or something? You think most gamers are "craving" a level of immersion "like the Matrix or SAO". Why do you think that? What are your sources for that? You think it's "the natural progression of gaming". Why do you think that? What are your sources for that?
Did you read my response? I specifically mention why I bring up current VR solutions. Here, I'll quote myself.
"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?"
Please answer those questions. While you're at it, Please cite the polls you have seen that indicate that the vast majority of gamers would play mainly on VR if it meets its "ideal level of immersion". What is the threshold for "more advanced level of VR" that will suddenly have VR going from fad every 5-10 years like it has been since the mid-80's to mainstream?
You're strawmanning by bringing up VR as it is today repeatedly when I'm talking about VR in its ideal state/near it and I posted this in response to you earlier..
"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."
It's far easier to attack my argument as if I'm talking about current VR instead of the ideal version of VR. My opinion about the vast majority of gamers craving the ideal level of immersion makes sense in context with the ideal level of VR.
It's apparent to anyone intellectually honest about gaming and themselves. In the majority of games, you're playing as a character or as yourself in the game world. Immersion is king. The more deeper you get lost in the experience, the better the game is. It's why games in general are becoming more realistic and less gamey. If you can actually find a "source" to counter my opinion, have at it.
I already answered any relevant questions that you had more than once. I can't find the threads with polls about VR on this forum because of the search functionality being meh but I'm sure you at least seen some of them. You're more than welcome to search for yourself. Here's one from a different site. https://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-what-do-you-think-of-vr-gaming.486671/
I already said the threshold. Hell, you even quoted it.