Why do you say so?

The article explained why I think that is the case.

Secondly, the reason I discussed desktop VR was to highlight the fact that it is not portable and thus will make people less likely to use it becuase of that inconvenience.

I believe a member of the general public would be less likely to have heard about OSVR so I excluded in the interest of brevity. Instead I discussed what I believe to be the big three in the eyes of the general population.

I mentioned the Wii as an example of impressive technological advances that do not have sustained success because of a lack of experiences that accomodate said advances. It’s technological merit alone was not enough to ensure long term market success.

Furthermore, Microsoft Hololens is not even a VR product. It is an AR concept, which is completely different. That would be a whole article in and of itself.

Lastly, the intention of this article was not to “seem cool”, or say “VR is no good”. I was stating that because of current price points, issues with portability, and a lack of software that would be compelling enough to counter the aforementioned drawbacks, VR devices will not achieve mainstream success in the coming year.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Wesley Bevins’s story.