4 ms·

FWIW where the original comment said > It's not something you can do with kids around I think the author of that comment meant that if you have little kids, y

FWIW where the original comment said > It's not something you can do with kids around I think the author of that comment meant that if you have little kids, you need to keep an eye on them, and playing with a headset that blocks your peripheral vision is not going to be something a parent can do in that situation. That comment didn't mean to say that kids would not play VR. It was suggesting that parents wouldn't.

dmix 4y ago
Again all I'm saying is what matters is that enough kids do in fact play VR, today, to fuel the tech so it can mature into a mainstream technology. The only way this hypothetical (future) parent issue would discredit VR as a mainstream technical innovation is for VR companies to have bet solely on causal/kid gaming for their long term success. This is why OP missed the point. Because I didn't agree that that was an important point he a) got emotional for being disagreed with b) assumed that I thought it wasn't true. But I only ever said it didn't matter, not that parents or regulations dont have power in this dynamic. Evidence points to Quest 2 being very popular among kids and their casual gaming platform via Android-esque VR games has provided a strong and sufficient market from which multiple companies can mature the technology to a wider market. It was a faulty premise to dismiss the technology, because it fundamentally mischaracterizes how technology normally mainstreams (by first having a real and successful initial early adopter market from which you adapt and mature to mainstream markets - not betting on early adopters to BE the mainstream). Although I will agree I probably should have said "yes you're right" so OP didn't feel I misunderstood. Altough if he wasn't so quick to win an internet "fight" he might have let me explain.

4 ms·

FWIW where the original comment said > It's not something you can do with kids around I think the author of that comment meant that if you have little kids, y

by mastazi 4y ago

dmix 4y ago
Again all I'm saying is what matters is that enough kids do in fact play VR, today, to fuel the tech so it can mature into a mainstream technology. The only way this hypothetical (future) parent issue would discredit VR as a mainstream technical innovation is for VR companies to have bet solely on causal/kid gaming for their long term success. This is why OP missed the point. Because I didn't agree that that was an important point he a) got emotional for being disagreed with b) assumed that I thought it wasn't true. But I only ever said it didn't matter, not that parents or regulations dont have power in this dynamic. Evidence points to Quest 2 being very popular among kids and their casual gaming platform via Android-esque VR games has provided a strong and sufficient market from which multiple companies can mature the technology to a wider market. It was a faulty premise to dismiss the technology, because it fundamentally mischaracterizes how technology normally mainstreams (by first having a real and successful initial early adopter market from which you adapt and mature to mainstream markets - not betting on early adopters to BE the mainstream). Although I will agree I probably should have said "yes you're right" so OP didn't feel I misunderstood. Altough if he wasn't so quick to win an internet "fight" he might have let me explain.