I'm questioning wether the experience of going to a movie theater is really comparable to slapping on a headset. After all, it's all about immersion. If you just cared about image size, you could also watch a movie on your smartphone and hold it close to your face, which doesn't feel the same as watching a movie on a big screen either. Hence the analogy to a silent disco - sure, the music is just as loud, but the experience is completely different.
Ah I get you. Yeah, VR headsets probably don't replicate the experience of going to a movie theater but they might replicate the experience of having your own movie theater, which for many people (me included) is preferable.
Current VR headsets are way more immersive than holding a smartphone in front of your face and I would imagine that a $3k headset from Apple would be better still.
Not at all, that's the biggest problem of these things. They further alienate human-human contact, while the opposite should be the goal. I'm wondering who is pushing this AR/VR madness and for what reason.
I don't know about this device, but vr games experience (oculus rift) are something, well, that is kind of outstanding.
The problem with (wired) VR is the wires and the computer. And Quest seems to be underwelming graphicaly compared to Rift.
A 1 grams, 1000 DPI headset, would be, regardless of the price, a revolution in a lot of domains, from gaming, defence, training of all kind, conferencing, tv/video/streaming, remote working...
A successor to 3D movies, sure, but for more serious purposes you would have to push the level of immersion way up. I'm not sure anything less than a computer-brain interface could actually achieve that. Would you trust your life to a pilot who has only been trained using a VR headset?
