&gt; To me this article seems overly negative and pessimistic.<p>All I am doing is providing an opposing thoughts about VR, because much of the media about VR is overly hyped. Jeff&#x27;s outlook on the technology is 100% true for him and people who agree with him.<p>Much of the hype around VR is overly positive and unrealistic.<p>&gt; Yes, VR &quot;isn&#x27;t there yet&quot;, but it doesn&#x27;t mean that it&#x27;s not fucking amazing.<p>Yes, but that doesn&#x27;t mean that it&#x27;s immune to ending in a complete flop. See: &quot;hype.&quot;<p>&gt; You can&#x27;t just criticize resolution and other technical difficulties<p>If nobody criticizes the shortcomings of the technology then those shortcomings suffer from lower prioritization. Positive perspectives on technology (fandom, hype) are nearly worthless and merely drive the hype machine. Negative perspectives drive the technology to a more viable place.<p>Jeff&#x27;s musings are important milestones that virtually everyone would agree with as critical goals (that currently limit the viability of the technology), if only many weren&#x27;t completely blinded by hype and zealous fandom.<p>Information such as Jeff&#x27;s is important for people who want to make informed decisions about forking out $400 for the tech <i>right now.</i><p>That is why I specifically said:<p><i>Counterargument</i>