With over 15 years of past experience developing/making/selling VR amusement systems available to the public - even with the most crude of tech the audience has been there! The core problem with Phase Three's attempt at adoption @8bitprofessor was the cost of experience and the high cost to operator of unreliable hardware.

Virtuality had a great order book, but they failed to support their customer base, spent more time chasing the next rainbow, and poor business decisions led to a cataclimic ending that pulled the rest of the fledgling industry down with it.

As I have harped on many times - the DisneyQuest facility is STILL operational, with VR attractions that have long passed into antiques, but still offer strong drawing power. I get the feeling it is kind of uncomfortable for some in the new phase of VR to admit this and that drawing comparisons with their efforts could prove counter productive to their hyperbole.

Repeating what I said at SWVR last week - the majority of the early audience will not be buying $600 - $2,000 PC's and VR hardware. They will want to dip a toe into the water, and the majority of VR experiences in the coming 24 months will be had on amusement, attraction and LAN-style VR systems!

Also if you still think that the experience you will be able to achieve at home with all the cost restrictions to sell to the consumer - will be anything like what we will be offering with unlimited budgets then you are missing the point (or avoiding it).

It was when the VR community first started to get a taste of a VR experience ('Ascend the Wall' - Game of Thrones Experience) that some realized that more could be achieved with the attraction approach. I remember all those that said that that experience could run on a conventional PC, only to find out the truth fro the developers of the hardware used... a lot of deleted troll accounts that day!