The author's arguments about lack of currently available content are his most valid. But for the rest of the piece, I can't help feeling he's playing a game of

The author's arguments about lack of currently available content are his most valid. But for the rest of the piece, I can't help feeling he's playing a game of "no true Scotsman" with us. Does VR need to be totally immersive in order to be viable? And if so, how do we define total immersion? (To use the author's phrase: "enter into virtual worlds." How do we define that?) This author, along with many others, seems to believe that VR fails if it is anything less than the Matrix. I'm not convinced that's the case. My strong suspicion is that this generation of VR will be evolutionary, and not revolutionary -- an enhanced presence, if you will, adding to (but not replacing) the state of the art in console gaming. Perhaps we'll see some immersive adventures in filmmaking, television, sporting events, concerts, and so forth. But it's time we stopped looking at VR as an all-or-nothing proposition. There may well be a commercially viable middle ground between the clunky "VR" of yesteryear and the Star Trek holodeck. The current hype cycle has engendered this inevitable backlash. What we need now is neither hype nor hate. We need progress, and progress is often iterative. We will need to accept the warts and all of the current iteration as it develops and becomes more and more.