Traumatic events don't change people. How people choose to view traumatic events is what changes people. It's why people can suffer a near fatal overdose or be in a near fatal car wreck and go back to what they were doing in the way that they were doing it and wind up killing themselves the next time.

PTSD would only happen if the player lost all ability to differentiate between reality and fiction there'd need to be an emotional connection between the player and the game on a level that's pretty much impossible to achieve with current tech - unless the person is mentally unhinged to begin with.

A few hours with this upcoming generation's VR headsets isn't going to have that affect as it's too clearly fiction and even in years to come if the gamer plays the full 2½ hour COD campaign they're not going to forget that it's not real in that space of time.

I don't see VR taking off at this point anyway. Wearable tech is still largely shunned as Google found out the hard way. Add to that the price tag of the upcoming VR headsets and they're going to have to have a truly amazing line up to stand any chance of being successful.

I largely agree. I think VR will take off at some point, but not until they can put out kick ass hardware solutions at a completely reasonable price that appeals to the mass market and perhaps even go as far as supplying the VR hardware with every game console shipped and every gamer PC shipped as standard hardware. Even then there are people who have visual problems such as astigmatism, or vertigo or other issues that will put them off from VR. There's no easy way of getting away from the "pound of gear attached to your head" either and that's going to put off a lot of people, not to mention the buildup of sweat and discomfort that inevitably will come from wearing the gear over time, and the weight and discomfort of the cable tugging on your head too.

I personally feel I can deal with most of those issues, but I think many others will be put off by it. It's all fantasy speculation though ultimately because the big thing that kills it for everyone out of the starting gate is the premium $1500+ price tag. Many people who are even willing to spend the "you gotta pay to play" first adopter price may be unwilling to pay due to the chicken-vs-egg scenario with respect to no content being available and no incentive to create it without people buying the hardware.

I'm supercharged at the idea of what VR may have to offer for gaming, but it's a fantasy idea at best when I look at the forest instead of getting caught up in the trees. Worth revisiting when both of the major VR hardware platforms have launched later this year, and then again in another 6-12 months after to see if it did in fact turn out to be a 1%'ers club thing. Hopefully Steam stats is updated to show how many people have VR hardware then too.

My two cents...

VR 'immersing yourself' sounds good, however in practice i don't see it. Eye strain alone, wearing a large headset, these things just don't seem like a good thing. We were never intended to work or live or play that way.

With the direction the market is trying to push VR, i don't see it taking off, except with the niche audience. It's too expensive, the computer required is too expensive, and honestly i've been satisfied using a monitor since i was 5, i can live another 30 years and be fine with a monitor.

Nobody belived that sound in movies was more than a silly gimmick. But it ended up evolving the film medium. On the other hand, 3D monitors never caught on.

None of us really know anything untill we have put on the VR glasses ourselves. Let's see what the future brings.

In the meantime, here's a clip from a 1999 movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rdG7ug_icw

They've got to convince the public; convince the developers and be able to make what they're offering affordable. On the first count, the public aren't anywhere near as enthusiastic about wearable tech as the industry is in offering it to them. On the second count, developers are going to be paying attention to people's opinions before they make any significant investment. As for price, you're right that it's the early adopters who are going to be paying far more for inferior tech than those who wait for it to get to a point where it's actually good. So how will it get to the point where it's actually good? Is the industry going to force feed the public VR until they stop resisting?

3D monitors are kind of like quadrophonic sound systems. When quadrophonics came out decades ago it was only the audiophiles out there that really ever bothered with the new systems. It was one of the "one percenters" tech of the day back then, with multiple companies competing in the marketplace with different and incompatible systems. Not only do people not want to spend a lot of money on a new and unproven technology, but they don't want to buy into "the loser" when companies put new tech out and compete to see who wins the format wars. In the end, it was too niche and they all died off. Same thing happened with laserdisc players in the late 70s too.

With 3D displays, only some people even like 3D content to begin with while others either just don't like it, or they get motion sickness or have eye problems or similar that puts them off. Spending a premium on such technology with competing standards out there makes it not only niche but also leaves a lot of people who are actually interested to wait it out and see if one solution ends up standing out as the winner. Admittedly I don't follow it closely so I'm not aware if that battle is over or not yet, but I don't know anyone with a 3D TV either.

VR could really go either way IMHO. There have been efforts to create standardized APIs so that games and other software can target a single API to work with multiple different VR solutions, but it seems a lot of software may be targeting specific VR solutions anyway and leaving other solutions out. With the huge price tag, and potential fragmentation between competing solutions if a common API doesn't become standard, and all the other stuff previously mentioned, VR could go the way of quadrophonic sound systems or it could be the next best thing to supplant sliced bread. A lot of us (that don't own 3D TVs <grin>) will wait to see bread pushed aside before buying into it though. :)

The problem with 3D has been that it hasn't ever stuck around long enough for film makers to really know how to maximize its use. Also, it's been very expensive, and awkward to use which just makes matters wore challenging to do.

VR's success will heavily depend on what games are developed for it. If the PlayStation VR gets something of the quality of The Last of Us, or Valve releases a new Half-Life game for the Vive, then they'll definitely take off, at least for a few years.

VR is very limited in its application, however. You can't do a lot movement-wise, because if you have the player move their character/camera around without moving their own physical body, there's a high chance they will get motion sick. Any games created for VR need to keep that in mind. The Vive does that better than most other headsets, because it requires a physical space for the player to walk around. They're still somewhat limited, depending on the size of that physical space (the maximum is 4.5 by 4.5 meters). Of course, since it requires a physical space, this puts some extra limitations on the players, as not everyone will have that space available in their home.

With new technology, it really depends on what support there is for it, and whether it adds something to the experience (in case of technology that builds on existing technology, like quadrophonic sound systems, 3D TV, and now VR). I think VR does add something to it. The immersion aspect must not be underestimated. However, this also means that any human character models created for VR games must also be so good that they go beyond the uncanny valley.

All power to you for OP'ing nonetheless. You would not be referring to that Zuckerberg and followers pic, eh?

That's voluntary at last, and my view is that if children are not restricted in their gaming, the comprehensiveness of the medium is not the problem .

The lack of parental guidance and presence is.

Teenagers are children for sure, until 18 - and by my definition even somewhat later if they do not move out from parental home.

Is Call of Duty not PEGI-18?

So, only adults should play it. Not children. Should we not rather talk if parents are present in their children's lives, and put any boundaries?

I read recently that a lot what is diagnosed as "AHDH" is actually out-sourcing of parenting. Kiddies would, normally, much rather tell how they day was, and do everyday things with their parents, that, say, play Call of Duty. Or "perform" thorough prestigious hobbies. Yet before we criticize these success-minded busy parents, we should probably also take a critical look into the values that motivate them.

Have you thought of this aspect, btw?

I appreciate your reply and thoughts. I did think of that side and am a parent that places boundaries around my kids. However; if I look at society right now (n my humble opinion) I am starting to be part of the minority of parents that do place such boundaries. While I cannot control the world and others (and don't want to) I am constantly pondering the world of the future for my children and do not see gaming as a necessity, rather it is a hobby or stress releasing activity.

To that end, while I feel different than when I first created this thread (I no longer feel VR will ever reach the pinnacle that I first envisioned - at ;east to the masses) I still believe we need to proceed with caution.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts on this subject. Take care all.

I hope the way I inquired did not make you feel discredited in your OP, because I thought it was relevant.

And if you did this as a parent, I like your style a lot.

I am meanwhile one of those bail-outs. I will love my frieds' kiddies, but feel that is quite brave to have them at this particular era. Call of Duty should be an adult worry, but in practice it is not. I am not sure human psyche is adapted to the speed of change that comes with digitalisation, the potential emptiness of it, or the very materialistic world view that is in vigour.

<span class="bold">Embrace the future</span>..............a word from our sponsor Sky.......errrr............Google.

Until we get the holodeck we won't have to worry about this.

Besides, everyone would all go to the big titty planet of beer instead of wherever COD takes place now.
And it requires 20/20 vision. If you're off in one eye prepare for a big ass headache.

That's something that's trivial to solve, there's just no real point in solving that as the content isn't there for the demand to be there.