> it still hasn't solved any of the problems that prevented the original 1960's implementations from taking over in storm.
So much progress has been made with VR since then. A lot of problems have been solved.
Motion sickeness has been solved - when your motion 1:1 matches that of your virtual body there is no problem. Where there is a mismatch, there can be a problem (for about 30% of the population who are sensitive to this). So informed developers know how to create experiences that induce no sickness.
Regarding no AAA support / too few games - they are working on it. There will be over 50 games usable for the Vive at launch. There are some pretty big name games, like Elite Dangerous. Google, Valve and other big names are working on/have made stuff.
>What makes this iteration anything different?
Because it's actually at a point where it's usable now. Mobile phone popularity was one of the things that made this wave of VR possible as it drove forward the technology used.
>VR will ultimately do nothing for these fields.
There are VR applications that are currently for those fields mentioned, for example Tilt brush is generally received very well by artists and creative people.
I believe VR and AR will converge somewhat. VR has a headstart, and AR will adopt many of the technology, tools and techniques that VR uses. The Vive has a camera and can do limited AR, as can most mobile VR headsests.
I agree, that for a lot of applications - especially work-related then AR is better.
But when I game, I don't care about peripheral vision, I want to be in another world. Ultimately I want a headset that can switch between AR and VR modes.