Being a kid and having to take care of a kid are fundamentally so opposite of things that I can't believe you are confusing the two of them.
Anyone who has used VR knows it isn't even a permanent replacement for hardcore day-to-day gaming. That's why I used the Wii/Casual analogy. It's amazing for small spurts of lightweight gaming. Which just happens to be very attractive to kids/young teens (and yes non-gamer adults) who aren't hardcore gamers (Nintendo/mobile shows this is a massive market).
Spend 15min on any popular VR multiplayer game and tell me kids under 12 aren't using it en-masse.
I recommend you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm the first early adopter market isn't the only thing that matters to a new technology but it's essential for survival.
Also, your 5 minute later post-edits are ridiculous. You add completely new sentences.
So the fact some rarely-enforced children protection laws or hypothetical cultural parenting rules might hurt VR IF the only market was merely kids in the long run is bad, sure. But that's not what I said matters in my original comment.
VR's market in the future isn't casual gaming for kids. My point is that's all it is now. And for that it's doing a great job and has a real lively market to fund the tech. Your fears haven't born true for early adopters (because it's fundamentally a hypothetical mainstream critique), so it doesn't really matter, as long as it's sufficient fuel the tech til it bridges the gap and the tech matures.
(Edit sniping is your problem, my goal isn't to win fast-paced internet arguments but to communicate my points as well as I can)
Then slow down and take a breath before hitting the reply button the first time. Pausing and then rereading and proofing as needed rather than fast-paced posting with fast-paced follow up edits is the way to go. This is coming from someone who also used to very often tweak my posts after initial posting.
> It's not something you can do with kids around
I think the author of that comment meant that if you have little kids, you need to keep an eye on them, and playing with a headset that blocks your peripheral vision is not going to be something a parent can do in that situation.
That comment didn't mean to say that kids would not play VR. It was suggesting that parents wouldn't.
This is why OP missed the point. Because I didn't agree that that was an important point he a) got emotional for being disagreed with b) assumed that I thought it wasn't true. But I only ever said it didn't matter, not that parents or regulations dont have power in this dynamic.
Evidence points to Quest 2 being very popular among kids and their casual gaming platform via Android-esque VR games has provided a strong and sufficient market from which multiple companies can mature the technology to a wider market.
It was a faulty premise to dismiss the technology, because it fundamentally mischaracterizes how technology normally mainstreams (by first having a real and successful initial early adopter market from which you adapt and mature to mainstream markets - not betting on early adopters to BE the mainstream).
Although I will agree I probably should have said "yes you're right" so OP didn't feel I misunderstood. Altough if he wasn't so quick to win an internet "fight" he might have let me explain.
It is a problem for everyone who reads the comment thread. Please either wait to post long enough re-read and edit, or indicate which sentences have been added later. (Edit: the latter is commonly done like this.)
In the future I will take this into consideration re: using "Edit:" for people who reply before you even notice.
I think VR developers would be happy to have children's market as big as Nintendo's