Talk to anyone playing any games that already involve sitting in one place and you'll hear it's mandatory, not a gimmick. Think simulations, racing games, flying. The difference between a racing sim in vr vs on a monitor is a massive difference in immersion that is impossible with monitors. VR isn't a gimmick, we just don't know how to deal with converting our existing ideas of games with it. It's like the early days of video games, we're just trying to figure out how to actually develop for it.
Something that surprises me is why the software industry dictates using VR controllers, rather than giving the option of just using VR purely for 3D vision; the games supporting VR generally are separate versions of the original ones, with teleportation system.
My guess is that if a middle-ground approach was an option, there would be a larger adoption.
Saying "the software industry dictates using VR controllers" misses the mark.
When Oculus Rift first released, the VR controllers weren't ready. Most demos were "3D vision" only (i.e., no input), and games used an Xbox One controller. As a Rift pre-orderer, I gave many demos to people in those early days.
Almost every single person looked around, said, "oh my god, this is incredible", and then raised their arms and tried to look at their hands.
Being unable to see your hands breaks immersion, while having the agency to literally reach out and interact with the virtual environment tricks your brain into believing it's real.
VR controllers aren't dictated by the software industry. They're demanded by nearly everyone that has used VR.
