> It's definitely different from Oculus/Valve but I think most people want to be immersed in a world rather than have a very sophisticated and gorgeous board ga

> It's definitely different from Oculus/Valve but I think most people want to be immersed in a world rather than have a very sophisticated and gorgeous board game/D&D experience. This is by no means the only thing CastAR will be able to do - it's just what they have concentrated on in their demos. Perhaps because unlike Oculus, they can create an experience where many viewers can share the same scene (or a completely different scene) on the same physical surface. I am particularly interested about CastAR for (flight, etc) simulation. The problem with Oculus is that it completely blocks your view to the real world. When playing flight simulators and other games with lots of controls, you need to see where your fingers are. E.g. playing flight sims with the Oculus, most of the time your hands will be on throttle and stick and everything is fine but when it's time to engage the landing gear, you'll have to peer under the goggles to find the button for the landing gear. Perhaps the CastAR technology is more suited to things that pop out of the surface (like a board game button) than things that go deep into the surface (like a window). This might make it less suitable for simulation purposes. On the other hand, the playing with the Oculus will inevitably be a solitary gaming experience where the CastAR may be able to preserve the social element in gaming. Of course, solitary and social games are targeted at different audiences. But the best thing about CastAR vs. Oculus is the competition of two different technologies, which will inevitably drive the competition forwards.