It already is. VR is coming to the PS4, and a comparable PC today is affordable. VR is already on mobile phones, and phones of comparable power will only get cheaper. There's no requirement to have the most powerful PC available at the time to enjoy VR, some of the most convincing experiences are actually less graphically advanced.

You can develop "VR legs," and developers will get better at not inducing nausea. I'd imagine educational material would be some of the mildest stuff, to avoid potentially alienating some students.

I wish bash.org quotes had timestamps.

Glass didn't have retail competitors, and anyone who thinks it's gone forever is naive. At worst, it'll be integrated into the VR pipeline (the obvious endstate of the current VR movement is a Glass-like device that can handle both VR and AR).

Your logic is also why every Apple product is doomed to fail.

All of those things are guaranteed to come true by the end of 2018, so it's not like it's that too far off.

Women's Softball was removed because the US kept winning (and lost the last year it was included, I think). Women's hockey is at risk of being removed because only the US and Canada ever win. So would video games stay in the Olympics when every medal is claimed by Koreans? Also, what would they even play? Games don't really last four years, and whichever game is selected will have a developer and (definitely) publisher that want to get the sequel in the next Olympics. Nobody would take it seriously if there's a different set of games every year. How would you track the advancement of the competition/skill/level of human achievement if they never do the same thing twice? Most events give you an example of how performances are improving over the years.

I know it's their problem... and an auction system would solve it completely. It's not even a matter of mispricing, it's a matter of the market value of the product fluctuating at various stages of the product's life and availability levels.

Also, the warm fuzzy feeling of sending your money to the manufacturer instead of someone who charged you a fee for a meaningless "service" is worth something, as it contributes to the profitability and health of the company, making future versions better. Applying it directly to Oculus, had they auctioned off the initial run, that extra revenue could've gone a long way towards keeping them independent, or let them avoid seeking further capital (at the expense of relinquishing their majority stake in the company) if they were so inclined. The more money an independent Oculus has, the more they can pour into R&D for future version and current manufacturing. The enthusiasts who backed the Kickstarter are exactly the sorts of people who are interested in seeing better future versions. This scenario obviously doesn't apply after the facebook acquisition, but who's to say it still would've happened if they weren't strapped for cash?

But that still leaves the problem of lost revenue for the producers/artists/entrepreneurs/manufacturers. It's a bad thing, because customers feel they've contributed their purchase towards supporting a product when they've actually contributed $0. A product that was bought high at auction by an eager customer can still look to recoup some of his costs even if the price is down, but a lower price means more potential buyers can seek it out.

A low price isn't an end unto itself, but offering the lowest price that can be incrementally raised (which in this case will be higher than MSRP, I might point out, it doesn't seem like you got that with your reply), giving the consumers willing to pay top dollar for it some more spending cash to further support the product (or anything else). And mind you, all of this money would be going back to the people responsible for the product in the first place, and not a leech providing zero value.

Most markets, but some (like event tickets and new gadgets where demand at retail cost exceeds supply) don't. And without an auction, there's no way to either avoid scalpers with the initial run until demand is met, or screw over early adopters when you decrease the price to reasonable levels. An auction would inflate the first run to what the desperate are willing to pay, and prices would quickly normalize as supply improved.

Your reasoning for the value of scalpers is ridiculous, too. The price wouldn't be as high if it weren't for them in the first place. Maybe Consumer A, who ended up with the product, wouldn't have otherwise, but Consumer B, who missed out because of the scalper, doesn't benefit from this scenario. Also, the second Consumer B would have spent less on the product than Consumer A, meaning it's entirely likely he'd be more willing to spend additional money on future products and services while Consumer A mentally adds the scalper's profits to his support.

The value you're claiming is an illusion.

What's wrong with reselling is that it leaves revenue on the table for artists/entrepreneurs, instead giving it to those who add zero value. With a high demand product, a consumer-friendly price is taken advantage of by scalpers and consumers end up getting screwed, because the money they pay above retail doesn't support the product. I really wish products like this in high demand (also game consoles and general admission tickets) could be auctioned until they shipped (or the day before the show) so the actual value of of the product is collected by those who produce it and will support future investment into it. Oculus could have a leader board of sorts, showing the price needed to get in on the next shipment, and once you're auctioning to determine the value of a product, you're already determining the market value and significantly increasing the risk for scalpers to not recoup their expenses.

How many stage performances feature a sniper's perspective through his scope? Of course some movies would be fine projected into real 3D, but cinema itself contains works where a single perspective is essential.

You don't even know what my argument is. Yes, more team actions happen on the PC per hour. All of them. But the speed of the map being unlocked has little to do with the overall stats page, because it includes the launch hype of BC2 on the consoles. I'd wager that Halo, CoD, Resistance, Killzone, etc have regained more of BC2/Vietnam's share on the consoles than other PC titles have on the PC.

I'm actually really excited about hooking up my laptop to my home theater. Not too excited about using a wireless keyboard and mouse on a couch, but I'm willing to take a crack at it.

No, because the BC2 stats are listing all players that have played BC2, not just Vietnam. Is that clear for you?