William

Right, hence I said “greatly reduces the chances”. I know some people are still affected.

I think with careful, controlled exposure, they could greatly lessen this feeling (or maybe even eliminate it), but it’d be a long road and I question how important it actually would be to them, so I don’t actually suggest it.

Personally, I love VR. I’ve always been an avid fan of 3D TV/Games and VR, and I always will be. I long for the day that AR is properly implemented.

But I also understand that others don’t share that love, for personal or even physiological reasons.

No, because they weren’t for games and they pretty much had always-on video passthrough, which greatly reduces the chances of getting nausea.

I think this is a pretty typical scenario for advancements. The old way was simple and easy to understand, and the new way is better, cheaper, more “green”, etc. People around them will help them through the situation and it’ll be fine. If it had been this way from the start, it would all be fine already.

Sure, but if he wants to play them, he’ll need the client. And it sounds like actually does want to play them.

First off, I generally don’t worry about DRY until there are 3 instances, not 2. With only 2, it’s really easy to over-generalize or have a bad structure for the abstraction.

But otherwise, I disagree with the article. If it’s complicated enough to bother abstracting the logic, the worst that can happen in the above situation is that you just duplicate that whole class once you discover that it’s not the same. And if that never happens, you only have 1 copy to maintain.

The code in the article isn’t complicated enough that I’d bother. It even ends up with about the same number of lines of code, hinting that you probably haven’t simplified things much.