But that means the experience is little more than the TV. The detail and interaction is in the TV. If the outside is just a bit of stuff, like gunshot or foliage, it'll look nicer but you'll still be tied to the TV. What you won't be able to do is see something moving in your periphery and look at it - you'll just see the low-res projection. You won't be able to see a dinosaur's foot and look all the way up to see the dinosaur towering above you; certainly not with the clarity of an HMD. You'll instead see the dinosaur perspective corrected onto your ceiling with a big crease across the middle where the wall joins. Or you'll top out at the top of your wall and not be able to look all the way up.
That's going to be true of all environment immersion unless the periphery doesn't contain anything of importance, at which point it's just a nice aesthetic.
Yes, you have to think about it not as to whether it affects the actual gameplay or not, but more as in another level of immersion.
So, instead of playing the game and always being aware that you are in a room playing a game on a TV, the illusion may be enough to get you to think you're actually in a cave, building, racetrack, flying in the skies, whatever.
As said, it isn't perfect, you can't turn your head to look as the illusion then falls apart somewhat, but you can still change your view perspective as you normally would in games via the controller.
Additionally it can potentially be far more immersive than even something like the Occulus rift which has a wider FOV but still doesn't fill your entire FOV. Illumiroom has the potential to fill your entire FOV with stuff for your peripheral vision.
As said, it's more about making things more immersive to mainstream audiences. The big question, and thus the big challenge to Microsoft, is whether it can be implemented at mainstream prices. IMO, it can't cost more than the original Kinect (150 USD), and even that would possibly be viewed by many as too much. Although if a person experiences it in person they may change their mind. However, demoing it in a retail store would be difficult.
For myself, I love surround gaming due to the immersion that is added just by having the game world exist in your peripheral vision if you don't look directly at it. You can still notice it and react by moving your POV via traditional methods. But for me, I can't quite justify the price of another 2x 30" monitors or a new set of 3x24" monitors dedicated just for that. My work machine doubles as my gaming machine so 3x24" monitors wouldn't suffice for that purpose. I'd love if AMD or Nvidia eventually supports PLP then I could pair 2x20" monitors in portrait which I could justify as they'd take the place of my one 24" monitor in portrait that I currently have as a secondary display.
Anyway, long story short. I could see something giving me a similar experience to widescreen gaming (world exists in peripheral vision) at a much lower cost. Another benefit is that it would extend the world in my peripheral vision not only horizontally but vertically as well.
Also if used in a similar way to that one device that someone linked for movie watching (which only changes the color of lighting behind the TV screen) then it also helps with more immersive movie watching while also addressing the dangers to a person's eyes from watching a Movie or TV show in a dark room without any lighting other than the TV screen. Of course then you have problems with what do you do with black bars above and below moves that are wider than 16:9.
I guess just the top and bottom remain unlit and the light extends sideways?
Regards,
SB
