That's one of the most reductive things I've read all year. You can do that about almost any game.
Which proves my point perfectly, thank you.
In the best cases, VR gives a slight boost to immersion until you get used to it and it becomes just the same as a screen.
In the worst case, it is a negative distraction and the game would be much better without all that "head motion".
In most cases, especially for games that make no real use of any "personal" perspective (like most strategy games), it won't make a difference.
All of that at the price of the additional encumbrance on your head, eye strain, lots of cables, etc. etc.
While much of that can be solved in theory, in practice it will probably never happen and even if, then at a price so high nobody will be be able to afford it.
It has to compete with a simple (and in relation to that, cheap) screen.
Obviously no one would care if it wasn't on VR, it'd just be another platformer.
Precisely.
You have to take more into account when judging a game than the gameplay alone.
Having to turn your head around in the game is part of the gameplay. And besides that, it is just a platformer that could just as well work without VR. Making the point that it is a VR game rather moot to begin with.
I know some people are easily fascinated by a gimmick like that, but I tried it and... nah, it's just a gimmick. LIke Wii or Gamecube Bongo drums.
It doesn't add anything to my enjoyment of a game, and I am quite obviously not the only one that is left rather cold by this "novelty". And I am actually one of the people not needing glasses and not getting motion sick from a VR headset.
Hell, Obra Dinn is just walking round a ship looking at dioramas and writing in a diary. Friggin' wow.
That is an absurd oversimplification of the game and you know it. It is also entirely besides the point.
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. You clearly have a god complex, and think you know everything. Reality check, you know almost nothing about VR. Let me correct your misconceptions:
1. You don't need to solve wearing something. Headphones are doing just fine and they'd be more bulky than a pair of sunglasses (the eventual form factor), and far less interesting and valued.
2. Mixed Reality and eventually AR will be integrated into the headsets, letting you interact with real life in more ways than a normal human, let alone just as you're used to.
3. Various VR games let you turn without moving your head as an option. You can also simulate 3 monitors and play non-VR games.
4. VR is a potential eye strain, but that is completely solvable. No, has already been solved, with varifocal displays from Oculus and other companies. Now we just wait until they are implemented into a consumer product and then you'll focus your eyes naturally without any eye strain or headaches.
I am impressed. You did not correct a single "misconception", as the only misconception here is that you confuse scifi with reality.
Wouldn't have thought that possible, really.
1. The theory that tech development becomes faster, smaller and cheaper in an unlimited manner has long been disproven, Moore's law is dead. We simply cannot make things arbitrarily small, and the smaller we can make them, the more expensive they will be. A lot of tech has to fit into a VR device, and that has a certain weight that goes beyond just some glass. Energy storage alone either means you have a cable attached or a heavy battery. Even if all of that would be doable at such a low weight that it would be equal in encumbrance to a pair of glasses, its cost would be astronomical. And again, all of that will then still have to compete with a cheap screen setup.
2. Alright, Dr. Who. Wake me up when your reality becomes mine, and I'll gladly buy your fancy glasses
3. Of course you can do all of that (though simply looking at some screens is way easier, IMO), I never claimed you couldn't, but why would I get a VR headset just to do things I can do without anyway? The benefits you get compared to a screen setup are very, very limited. And instead you get all the downsides we've talked about enough now.
4. LOL! Even Oculus themselves say those are merely a “middle ground” on the way to an eventual "perfect solution". It is just a theory to begin with, I don't think much more was heard of it after the paper. And from glancing over the papers, they solve the problem by making the hardware even more complicated, even more processing intensive, even more expensive... you see the problem here, right?
In the end, it all comes down to how blind your hopes about future developments are, and how affordable those developments will be.
What I see is this: The more problems VR devices solve, the more expensive they will become. The more expensive they become, the less likely that they will actually spread.