>>263964682
I don't think anyone disagrees that there is value in total immersion, but I think there's something wrong with seeing immersion as a binary thing. I don't think you either have total immersion or you have no immersion. There are experiences that are more immersive than others. We've described many video games before the advent of VR as "immersive" and compared levels of immersion between different titles. It seems to me like you're saying that unless you're going for total immersion, there is no reason to use things like hand-tracked controllers unless they fully utilize their capabilities. 

I don't disagree with that statement as an ideal, but to refuse to use hand-tracked controllers on the basis that they don't achieve 100% presence on the basis that somehow anything less in abhorrently detrimental to immersion is a strong stance. At the very least you could admit that it's a strong stance, but if you can't see that then I don't know what else to say. Immersion is dynamic, and yes, more immersion is superior to less immersion, but less immersion isn't totally unacceptable to the point where you should default to completely non-immersive controls. 

That being said, something like Quake VR is fun. When I play it I feel immersed in the game. The dark areas are oppressive, the enemies are unrelenting, and the powerful weapons are cathartic. I don't disagree that being able to, say, drop the weapons, throw them, and use my hands to directly interact with the environment wouldn't be better, but I don't see how that makes the way the hand-tracked controllers are used right now absolutely pointless.