> Does this description of disruptuon sound like any market prediction from the last 10 years how the market for VR glasses will develop? I don't think so. Tha

> Does this description of disruptuon sound like any market prediction from the last 10 years how the market for VR glasses will develop? I don't think so. That's because the limiting factor on VR hardware value to the consumer isn't resolution, or scene complexity as measured in polygons, or FPS, or any of the other metrics by which desktop games and game hardware are evaluated. It is latency. Latency in estimating and rendering the user's pose, movement, and viewport changes. We would have had widespread adoption of immersive content by now if VR experience developers would be willing to sacrifice the 'traditional' metrics in favor of a ruthless focus on latency (and ideally push the hardware vendors in that direction too), but instead everyone keeps chasing "AAA graphics in a headset" , which, given that AAA graphics are (as the OP states) an ever-rising bar, can't ever really work except on whatever the current highest-end hardware is, and any experience that breaks people's willing suspension of disbelief on everything but the highest end hardware can't end up being a commercial success, any more than a multiplayer game with noticeable lag on anything under gigabit FTTH could (and for the same reason, except that the lag for VR starts with the single-player version, and only gets worse from there).