What do I think? Exactly the same as
what I thought of it when we had the same question two weeks ago. It worked OK when I tested it, but there's no way I could play for anywhere near the length of time I could a regular monitor. It wasn't motion sickness but "Vergence-Accommodation Conflict" and heat build up around the forehead / eyes that made it uncomfortable and unnatural for me as explained in link. And the "games" on it weren't "more fun" than 2D, just different.
"Do you love it or hate it? Will it inevitably become integrated into our everyday lives, or will it end up a fad that falls out of fashion? Does VR need time to evolve before more people adopt it, or will it forever remain a bit of a niche market? Whatever your thoughts, let us know."
I don't think it'll die out. I do think advocates who are experiencing that "novelty honeymoon phase" along with the industry are 'talking up' general interest in it for the sake of hype / out of fear of it "fizzling". Many gamers who prefer to flop out on the sofa with a controller (because they find even sitting at a desk with a keyb & mouse is 'too tiring' ) are hardly going to start running 10-20 miles a day on a VR treadmill in a multi-hour FPS battle. Again, there are some valid exercise / keep-fit applications, but just like the Wii Balance Board, people are wildly talking up general interest of "an entire nation of keep fit enthusiast gamers" beyond what will be used 6 months after purchase.
You can also tell who lives alone by how they're promoting it. "
OMG - the new VR will be a true 6-axis mobility living room experience". Funny thing is, when you have a wife and kids or share a house with several other people, you soon realise why laptops and tablets exploded in popularity vs a single household desktop in the first place (and why almost half of all kids have a games console in the bedroom, not the living room) - when other people use the living room TV for watching TV on during peak evening hours, the ability to take a device into another room trumps everything. Some people who stick a high-end PC in the living room, attach an expensive alternative display device (VR headset) may well think "the future" is to go back to the old days of the 90's in forming "living room breadline queues" for chaining a device to one single room then allowing one person to use it at a time, but a lot of us know better. Many people have desktop PC's in smaller rooms, bedrooms, etc, and full room experience is going to be limited by the reality that households usually work in different ways to the BS glossy sales brochures which portray a small convention centre sized living room (usually in white) devoid of all furniture and populated by just 1-2 models with overly cheesy smiles...
Same goes for "360 degree movies / porn", etc. I can't quite see how being able to look at the cameraman / boom operator / producer or see the edges of the set, the railtrack / crane / platform / buggies the camera is mounted on, see the second / third cameras, lighting equipment, gaffer's equipment, set vehicle's / tents (outdoors), stunt coordinator, extra's, etc, is going to "add immersion" (because
that's exactly what's "out of shot" behind the camera). It's almost like people pushing this stuff still don't understand how movies / TV shows are actually filmed. Likewise, sitting on your own in a fake movie theatre whilst your head heats up over 2hrs makes no sense vs buying a larger TV that other people can actually use at the same time without needing anything on their heads (half the reason 3D-TV flopped). There's generally a reason why most living rooms have more than one seat in front of the TV...