>>37538768All of those are AR. There is a difference between "a virtual reality" and something being virtually reality. All of what people call VR right now is the latter.
If you're going to argue this is VR then you must argue all video games are VR to some extent because the only discernible difference is that here you're taking the TV/monitor screen and strapping it to your head. But how close you are to the screen doesn't make a difference in whether it's VR or not.
If you have to move in the physical world then what you're taking part in is AR. You're altering your reality, not taking part in a virtual one.
I guess probably the simplest way to discern the difference to me would be if that guy in a wheelchair or that woman missing a thumb is still being hindered by actual reality in this supposedly virtual world and it's not entirely because they wanted to be. If the physical hasn't been overcome as much as possible it's just altered reality.
In fact, technically true VR is AR as well since you can't remove the brain from the equation. But in that case it's more an all glass is sand, but not all sand is glass" kind of situation. VR is AR but not all AR is VR.
Taking drugs is arguably more VR than this kind of it since at least that can allow pain etc. to be managed or make you more buff or whatever and make you able to do things that you otherwise wouldn't be able to while this doesn't change your physical situation whatsoever.
I will gladly join the Pokémon VR experience if I'm alive to see it, but this ain't it even if Pokémon were on it.
