The VR devices that are out today are incomparable with the devices of the "VR craze" of the 1990s.

And the VR devices of 2050 would be incomparable with the devices of the 2nd "VR craze" of the late 201x's.

The question is whether they are enough, not whether they are merely better.

Well, I didn't say they were comparable. I just sort of pointed out they existed.

Current generation video game consoles are also incomparable to Pong. But hey, that's the difference between 1st and 8th generation consoles.

They are much better but they are still basically the same designs as the late 90's.

A lot of things have improved but most of the problems are things that were recognized before and still aren't perfect.

They still need to get smaller, lighter, higher resolution, faster refresh rate, 4-8X GPU power, and wireless, but in another decade they should be awesome.

Ahem, I would like to refer you to The Lawnmower Man (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104692/)

I kid. It's a movie from the 90's about VR turning groundskeepers into geniuses. I'm over simplifying. Watch it. I dare you. I might watch it again.

1985. VPL Research, the first gloves and goggles maker. I knew some of those people.

Sounds like you might have some stories to tell.

Back then, people thought gloves were going to be really important. Much effort went into making gloves that would faithfully record finger motions. Manipulation in 3D space without firm tactile feedback turned out to be like trying to do precision work wearing an oven mitten. It's not impossible, but it's really slow, and tiring. If you've done tweezer work under a microscope, you know the feeling.

Autodesk had a VR ping-pong demo, with the paddle position reporting to the computers. It took a small rack of 1980s PCs and, I think, Matrox graphics cards. Matrox had one of the few graphics cards of the 1980s with hardware geometry support, the 4x4 multiplier unit. Nobody bought it because it was so expensive. There wasn't enough compute power in the 1980s for general collision detection, let alone game physics, so you couldn't align things by pushing them against each other. Various kinds of "snap" were tried, but now there was a mode problem. In VR, you don't have a keyboard, and doing keyboard-like things is hard. Mode controls are a problem.

The '90s brought all sorts of 3D input devices, from robot arm like devices for input to magnetically levitated trackballs. All that stuff has disappeared. There have been real improvements in 3D GUIs driven by a mouse with a thumbwheel. (Try Autodesk Inventor or Autodesk Fusion, both of which have free trials.)

Newer VR systems don't use gloves; they just give you a sort of game controller for each hand. OK for gaming, but not for fine manipulation. Good for shooting, not for putting a nut on a bolt.

One thing that has improved since 1985 is peoples ability to do detailed work with a relatively poor input device (mouse then touch). From gaming to digital painting, sculpting and CAD. Parts of it is also due to UX design that does not require supergood tactile feedback.

These are 1st generation products in the same sense that the original iPod was. Sure it's not inaccurate to say that walkmans existed in the 70s, but it's not an equivalent product category.

This is at least the third VR crazy, mid 90's with VRML, 2007 with virtual worlds, and now 360 movies and VR games with better stereo vision headsets. This one will stick I think, but headsets need to improve and content needs to improve.