I may have overstated that I consider it "worthless". It's surely a good improvement, and definitely not worthless, so I retract. It's not VR without it. BUT... you have to consider that sitting in a chair doesn't really offer much of 6-degrees of freedom, and Oculus is invested in the sitting experience. To really enjoy 6-DOF you have to be free of your chair.
And the camera can't go any further back than where I put it, I don't have my VR room yet 🙂
Surely, the DK2 is way better than DK1. But I get this feeling that the DK2 is more of a engineering feat than an actual consumer value feat.
At the end of the day the consumer won't really know the difference between DK1 and DK2, because they're so similar. It is as unfair as it sounds. But it's like with games, at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much effort you put into the game engine, algorithms, using better techniques etc. or whatever. It's the users experience that matters. Like John Carmack said in the recent lecture (http://t.co/fHQddm3nsw) he could have programmed Doom totally different, programmed it much better, but at the end of the day that's not what matters, it would not have mattered to the success of the game.
An important thing not to lose track of is exactly that. You can engineer your HMD to be as perfect as possible, but if what the user is seeing is not very much different than from the previous experience, then all that work won't matter a lot.
Let alone, if the user feels like the FOV is less in DK2 than in DK1, then that's what he will fuzz about, and his experience is that the DK2 is inferior to DK1 no matter what other technical feats there are.