"Yes it does. You either see the screen, or you start seeing less of the screen."
No, it doesn't, unless you're talking about an autostereoscopic display such as the 3DS. A 3d image rendered on a '3d enabled" TV or computer monitor is static. Take the glasses off and move your head left and right - they're just polarized pixels. The 3d effect is an illusion.
"Anyone that's played the standup VR head/shoulder mounted mech game you could find in arcades can tell you that's bullshit, too."
"Then maybe Oculus should use technology that's been KNOWN to work and is already tested - like the arcade mech game mentioned above."
Riight.. because the requirements for 6-degrees-of-freedom HD gaming with spatial tracking and 9ms lag should somehow compare to a 276x372 8-bit render with 50 ms lag? And the former has to be less than a tenth the price? Guess where that's made up - in the requirements of the hardware you're plugging it into.
"That sure as fuck was NOT the case when Crysis was first released and I'm pretty sure that holds true still to this day with whatever iteration of the latest 3D engine and the game code some random dev spews out."
You're not even having the same conversation anymore. A fixed viewpoint 3D render is much cheaper than a non-fixed non-predictive one. It was when Crysis came out too. Are you simply pointing out that the graphics requirements were high for Crysis when it came out? Sure, nobodys questioning that. But now imagine if there'd also been a VR version at the same time, at the same resolution and graphical quality - guess what? The hardware requirements would be
I get you're angry about something, but I can't tell what. There's not much coherence in what you're saying other than an underlying belief that "they should be able to render modern upcoming games, in 3D VR, with much lighter hardware requirements than they're insisting on.". Of course.. that's why all the other companies out there competing with them have done so.. oh wait.