I dispute the author's point that the end goal of VR for most developers is the "optimal MMORPG" or whatever you want to call it. I think most VR developers and

I dispute the author's point that the end goal of VR for most developers is the "optimal MMORPG" or whatever you want to call it. I think most VR developers and users are actually more focused on immersive experiences that weren't possible without a headset. AR (including wearables that are not connected directly to vision) is almost surely a better medium for non-entertainment experiences, with the possible exception of teleprescence, such as computer applications or operating systems. And as the author implied, AR doesn't necessitate a complete withdrawal from the outside world for use. So I think games are the main context that people will use VR in. I also think the race condition between AI good enough to make VR more compelling than the real world in any case and VR good enough to become mainstream is heavily weighted towards VR: we will be seeing commercial VR headsets in the homes of non-early adopters within 3 years. My guess is any kind of life-replacing game would have to involve incredibly advanced conversational AI and/or human interaction at a fidelity orders of magnitude better than we have available right now in the context of games. And even genuine human social interaction would have to somehow be way more interesting normal, real life conversations. I think by the time VR content compelling enough to replace a user's real life rolls around, we will have developed social structures to deal with the implications of VR. That's why I'm optimistic about things like the Oculus, from the perspective of a potential user and developer of VR games that are more focused on personal narratives than an expansive, life-encompassing MMORPG.