The idea that peering into really crappy simulations of a window from ten feet away is somehow the apex of visual computer interaction, and hey, what luck, that just so happens to be the only type of visual feedback you have ever experienced and the one you grew up with, is pure luddite mentality. I can't understand why someone would think fumbling with acceleration mapped to a tiny stick on their right thumb is superior to actually using the part of your body evolved to control our own internal camera; that gripping 4 or 5 inputs on a controller is superior to simply leaning over and looking around a corner.
Of course, the reason people think this sort of stuff can be found in the wording: "VR has no place in games." Son, you are mistaken if you think this is a video game technology. This is a fundamental shift in computing, and it'll affect vast areas of computing and engineering for decades to come. The reason VR and "gaming" go hand in hand right now is because people lack the vocabulary to accurately describe what these sorts of programs are. I mean that literally - we don't have a term to describe these experiences. The techniques used to make them are all synonymous with video games right now - real time rendering, polygon models, shader effects, that sort of stuff - but most of the exciting uses of VR defy categorization. Example:
A virtual reality program that cures lazy eyes. Is it a game? It's certainly not a movie. There is an objective. It's interactive. It's made of polygons and interacted with using a controller. But it's not a game.
Then there's stuff like
Senza Peso. What is it? It's not a game, there's no objective. It's not a movie, nor is it film. It's interactive, yet holds auteurial control. The best we can describe it as at the moment would be a piece of interactive art, but that's such a vague term.
Then there's stuff like Autodesk's Autocad VR plugin, which turns a 2D blueprint into a VR house you can walk around in to show off a building before laying a brick, so that clients can figure if they like their new home before committing to it. How do you describe that?
However, most frustrating of all his how casually the comment seems to come from people who have never tried conventional VR. Assumption of course, but be honest - who in this topic has tried conventional VR? No, Dactyl nightmare from 20 years ago doesn't count, I'm talking a modern VR system that affects the subconscious and achieves presence, as we now have? How can people be so outright dismissive of a technology they've never experienced?
Care to hear some tangible benefits VR affords? Flight sims like War Thunder - the ability to look around your cockpit as you fly completely changes the experience of flying. You can constantly map your orientation to the ground without being blind on the periphery. The ability to see depth - not just stereoscopy but also from parallax from the positional tracking - makes navigating tight spaces much easier, mainly because VR affects the region of your brain responsible for spatial mapping that conventional screens do not. That means we no only remember where we are, but we actually have a spatial configuration of the area in our heads. Scale translates.It's not just that the table is "over there." It's that the table is X high, and Y tall, in relation to Z measurement from vantage point A, from perspective B, and so forth. Going back to the war thunder example - trying to fly under a bridge in War Thunder on a conventional screen is nearly impossible, it's so difficult. It was ridiculously easy in VR, because we have a ton of internal wiring inside of us dedicated to accomplishing such tasks that VR stimulates, that normal monitors do not.
Even in conventional 3D third platformers, like the one announced at E3, VR yields a much more natural camera system than any other game. The ability to not just control the camera without giving up any input, but also gauge distance using spatial mapping and stereoscopy, makes a world of difference.
Pretty disappointed by the canned responses in this thread thus far. I'm surprised I haven't seen the tired "but every game will be a FPS" argument yet.