I disagree. The whole premise behind VR is to create a virtual world. AR takes the existing world and adds to it. There will be some worlds that can only be created in VR. Processing an entire world and characters is a much more daunting task then processing characters in the existing world. Using AR in your home will be much more limiting than using AR in an environment made for AR.

I hate using Pokémon as an example, but playing in VR would require a VR arena, a VR player, and of course all of the characters used in VR. If you want to add cards, those need created too.

Now try it in AR. You need an open room, depending on how this tech actually works, the bigger the area, the bigger the holo characters can be. You still see yourself so that means the player and environment don't need created. Players can have real collectible cards that can be played via Kinect and a QR code. Holographs can be used to alter the players surroundings too.

Both VR and AR will have their strengths and weakness, but I am more interested in AR which will use much less processing power and have less restrictions. It all comes down to how devs use the tech.

All Project Morpheus needs is a front facing camera and then it can do BOTH VR & AR

2 front facing cameras actually, or the tech behind hololens wouldn't work. Even then they wouldn't be high enough quality without driving the cost up a lot, it wouldn't really work well at all :P nothing looks more real than our eyes.

VR is limited for real world applications since you are enclosed and are unable to do anything else with it besides gaming and entertainment, that equals less sales wich equals less support....AR will have many uses and will be adopted much quicker if at the right price point. All have different experience and all are intriguing.

Fanboys!!!!

I own a PC and PS4. Probably get later on a X1. Happy now?

VR has been out for such a long time, nobody has got it right. Until someone gets it right, I'm not hyped for VR.
Augmented Reality (AR) is at least something different... witch doesn't mean Microsoft will automaticly get it right.

So you're saying you already know that Microsoft got AR right? Just like they got kinect right? Until I see it, no one has "got it right", and believe me, oculus has "got it right".

no

This is not even close to the same thing, also the retail model will be wireless and have self contained hardware, good luck having the morpheus capable of doing all that. Also, it is already compatible with a mouse/keyboard so the potential is limitless.

http://www.rockpapershotgun...

"When I walk towards a nearby desk with a computer, I notice that that Martian landscape disappears beneath it, rather than projecting over it; users can designate areas where they don’t want holograms to appear, which is especially useful if you want to interact with the holograms using a computer. They encourage me to hold the mouse, and when I move the cursor off the screen, it appears suddenly within the holograph as though the Martian landscape has become an extension of my desktop."

Jesus, do you not know how AR works? You realize it reads the environment as a 3D area, it would need 2 cameras, like kinect and the PS4 camera, and having cameras of such quality which would make the world around you realistic would double costs easily. There's a difference between the cameras used for scanning environments and those used for protecting environments, the image quality is much different.

But one of the tech demonstrations placed the user on the surface of Mars, so there is definitely some overlap and they can be compared in that context