I've got no interest in having a pedantry fest friend.
I'm afraid what you call pedantry is simply those inconvenient details you'd prefer to ignore.
OP's point is conjecture at this point. As are yours.
Of course they are. Thing is, just because we both can have conjecture, doesn't mean that it's of equal value. Eventually the evidence become so overwhelming on one side that something become more than simple conjecture and opposing theories are eventually discarded.
A) We have a 'proof of concept' in front of us with the VR vanity camera. The native VR works on foot on PC.
No one is denying that VR cannot be implemented. The question is how much effort was involved in re-implementing existing VR functionality from implementing completely new functionality. That appears to be the principle problem, whether is it s question of lack of expertise or lack of interest in investing in that expertise.
B) We have further dev quotes which suggest a VR port could be a long-term objective.
IE this pre-launch one:
We also have a veritable archive of past teases, hints and outright broken promises, that all came to nothing, that you are willfully ignoring as they do not fit your narrative. Tell me, how many examples of such past 'teases' can you point to that actually came to pass? I don't mean things that were promised in black and white and delivered upon, but only implied or hinted at, because that is all we have.
(I'd say it's also worth noting that there are no obvious design impediments to VR Legs in the execution of the current game. IE no canned animations which take control of the camera, the gameplay interaction panels use large fonts & hitboxes etc. This is possibly due to the path being left clear.)
As I've already said, no one is denying that VR cannot be implemented. Technically there's nothing stopping the development of ship interiors either. Or Panther Clippers. Your entire argument is really just a straw man.
C) There is clearly a sizeable, dedicated PCVR community, which is now mighty miffed with the DLC. PS4VR didn't have that.
I agree and prior to the announcement that there would be no further VR development I would have said, and did, that this self-interest alone should have been sufficient to see VR fully implemented in time. Problem is that between the resource pit which is debugging / optimizing the PC version, porting to console and then all the other games presently on their development roadmap, they're simply not in a position to put any resources into VR and will not be for a
very long time, presuming they intend to anyway (which as you admitted yourself is just conjecture).
At this stage it looks quite likely that once EDO is stable enough to silence the most vocal criticism, we'll simply reenter a maintenance mode for the next few years. So long as there's enough revenue to pay for the servers and a skeleton crew of developers, it makes sense to keep it going in a zombie-like state, given it's PR value to the company alone. It might be worth their while to even run at a small loss because of that. After all, there's enough 'drowning men' willing to keep it going.
There is still an outside chance that they will though
.
Which brings us back to grasping at straws. Personally, because I've played on and off over the years, I still have Horizon's content I can play. But when's that's done, so will I be. If they force everyone onto the new engine before it is optimized, then I'll probably stop sooner.
Question is if what I predict comes to pass and we do enter a prolonged twilight maintnace mode, how long before you accept my 'conjecture'? A year? Two? Three? Because once you reach those levels of self deception, your hopes stop being based on conjecture and start resembling articles of faith.
![[VR] James Constantine](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/275/275309.jpg?1622437385){kind=avatar}
