>"And a character on a 2-D screen is completely different from one that’s your height and looks you in the eye." I've been waiting for this. I expect claims l

>"And a character on a 2-D screen is completely different from one that’s your height and looks you in the eye." I've been waiting for this. I expect claims like this to fuel anti-VR hysteria if it catches on in a significant way, especially if adolescents seem to like it. It's a poorly thought out intuitive 'understanding' that has nothing of substance behind it. If you want to compare VR to something, compare it to acting in a play. Consider the experience of acting in a play, say one with a violent scene. You experience it bodily. With full fidelity and total realism. Your victim is a living, breathing human being who has a family, hopes, dreams, can feel pain, etc. And yet you raise the pistol, one which retorts loud enough to give your ear-drums a good hit but which you know is loaded with a blank, and you fire. You see the victim recoil in 'pain', with them exerting every effort to make it look as real as possible, and a squib explodes, causing 'blood' to fly. You have to be totally immersed in the situation and believe it entirely to be able to sell the scene to the audience. Literally the only thing that differs, from the point of view of the person firing the gun, is that they know its not real. There are no other glaring indications. It's just knowledge that its not real, the memory of the context of walking onto a stage, etc. Now... can anyone explain why the experience wearing a VR helmet, even postulating 100% accurate visual reproduction, will somehow cause negative consequences that acting in a play never has? Most who speak of the consequences of media do little more than rapidly display their own willingness (or inability) to ignore the difference between reality and fiction.