Why Virtual Reality Will Never Be a Mainstream Entertainment Platform

virtual reality
Nils Jorgensen/REX/Shutterstock

Virtual reality revenue will explode more than tenfold over the next four years — to some $75 billion worldwide in 2021, according to one recent forecast.

I’m sorry, what? That’s just virtually insane.

The delirious growth expectations for VR are triggered by investments by the likes Facebook, Samsung and Google, which made several VR announcements this week at its annual I/O developers conference, among others. If they’re spending billions on this stuff, there’s gotta be a market there — right? But I think the fantastic projections for VR’s prospects amount to the tech industry huffing its own hype fumes. There are several roadblocks to VR becoming a big business, and none of them will be easily overcome.

Virtual reality makes for a fantastic demo, and it’s become an au courant accoutrement at film fests. At the Cannes Film Festival this week, Alejandro G. Iñárritu is showing his VR documentary on illegal immigration. The director said virtual-reality filmmaking represents “an art in itself.”

Sure, it’s a groundbreaking new frontier and, for some, an exciting new canvas to work on. But in the everyday, relax-and-unwind real world? I just don’t see a VR future as envisioned for us by Silicon Valley’s engineering brain trust making major inroads in the living room. We’ve seen a version of this movie before: 3DTV, which was hamstrung by the same clumsy headgear and lack of compelling content.


VR binge viewing Guinness World Record

VR Binge-Viewing World Record Set at 50 Hours

I would wager that for most regular people — i.e., not tech types or bleeding-edge creatives — VR doesn’t pass the must-have test.

Bellying up to the VR bar requires too much effort. It’s an investment in time and money for something that — let’s be honest — you’re really not going to use much. (Unless you’re like these two guys, who last month set the Guinness World Record for VR binge-viewing at 50 hours.) Vertical wind tunnels for indoor skydiving are cool, too (as are, say, IMAX screens) but it doesn’t make sense to have those in my house.

More to the point, VR’s immersive, solitary confinement simply doesn’t square with how people consume entertainment at home. Never mind that you can’t interact in-person with another human being with a Google Daydream, Oculus VR or Vive headset strapped to your noggin. We need our field of vision free in order to continually glance down at our smartphones: According to Deloitte’s 2017 “Digital Democracy Survey,” 99% of millennial and Gen Z viewers engage in an average of four other activities while watching TV (such as texting, using social networks, reading email or shopping).

Then there’s the fact that VR requires a caffeinated level of engagement. You have no choice, locked in the cage of a VR headset, but to pay constant attention. It calls to mind the behavioral-modification scene in Stanley Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange” where Alex’s eyes are kept pried open.


henry shocked oculus story studio

Facebook Is Shutting Down Its Award-Winning Oculus Story Studio

To me, it feels like work. In traditional visual storytelling, the whole reason to have directors and editors is to provide a (literal) point of view. VR demands that you, the viewer, take on those duties. In a virtual-reality experience, I’m always anxious that I’ll miss something important if I’m not looking the right direction.

Traditional TV shows and movies, the killer apps of home entertainment, are non-interactive at a storytelling level — and people like them that way. Your average American doesn’t want to expend an undue amount of brain cycles concentrating on watching a baseball game or “The Big Bang Theory.” But what about video games! you may exclaim. Yes, that is a form of interactive entertainment that’s a gigantic business, and VR has specific applications in that segment.

The question is: How much does a virtual-reality environment enhance the power of storytelling? I’ve seen dozens of VR experiences over the last few years, and I always come away thinking that I’d have enjoyed it more on a traditional 2D screen.

Meanwhile, I haven’t yet talked about how goofy VR headsets look on people.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe VR will catch fire once really amazing stuff that takes advantage of these platforms produces some truly unique experiences. I’m generally skeptical, though, when there’s a Shiny New Technology Thing that’s supposed to knock my socks off. Take, for example, the hypothesis by Twitter and Facebook that conjoining live sports with social interactivity into one screen is just amazeballs. Last year, I criticized Twitter’s implementation of live-streaming video alongside a torrent of tweets as a “distracting mess” — and was called an oldster who just didn’t get it.

I am a lot more bullish on an area that often gets paired with VR: augmented reality, which superimposes virtual stuff into your real-world view. We have already seen major AR hits in the form of Pokemon Go and Snapchat’s selfie filters. Facebook is bulking up on AR, too. CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he used to think augmented reality would require special-purpose glasses. Unlike VR, of course, it doesn’t.

As for VR, I understand why there’s enthusiasm for this new way to experience video content. It’s often fun. And it’s also exhausting and, at the end of the day, too big a commitment for your average consumer.

VR probably has a great future as a segment of the video-game business; as a training tool; and at events and entertainment venues. IMAX believes VR has a future in the cinema, just as 3D movies in theaters do today. But even there, how big can virtual reality really become? I don’t see how VR can deliver enough bang for the buck to ever become a mass consumer market.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 26

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. clyde says:

    Todd, ‘amazeballs’?

    You do know Facebook didn’t buy Oculus for games or for cool headsets right? They did it to take social interaction into Virtual reality. Some other insights

    – HuluVR let’s you interact with family / friends who are *not* sitting with you on your couch. Get over the ‘VR is alienating’ argument, or the fact that interaction with humans has to be only when they’re near you.

    – Facebook Spaces lets you pull in your friends for a chat, watch movies with them and play games in VR.. so much for VR not letting you interact with people.

    – VR porn lets you interact – *with yourself*
    >> 99% of millennial and Gen Z viewers engage in an average of four other activities while watching TV (such as texting, using social networks, reading email or shopping). >I’ve seen dozens of VR experiences over the last few years, and I always come away thinking that I’d have enjoyed it more on a traditional 2D screen.

    You have a point there actually – it’s because panoramic photographers decided to start shooting video and calling it VR. Apple had patented a term for it back in the 90’s QTVR.
    At minimum to qualify as VR, video should be stereoscopic (have depth) when viewed in an HMD. Only a handful of studios today recognize that.

  2. cjr says:

    Way out of touch. Although it’s opinion, it’s hard to believe the credibility of someone who uses the term “amazeballs.”

  3. VFerrari says:

    I agree with this article. Probably VR won’t ever become a mainstream form of entertainment. But this doesn’t mean it couldn’t become very profitable. We know, as every research shows, that the world is becoming more and more unequal, and a growing amount of markets have become a privilege for rich people. So companies turn to luxury clients, instead of addressing to the masses. The Vegasmaster magazine recently published a series of articles about the interest of the gambling industry in the VR. The truth is that there’s no need to involve a vast amount of people to make profit, you can simply conquer a few, but rich, clients. For VR it could be the case.

  4. Richard says:

    I liked this article. I have never used virtual reality and have no intention of sticking one of those ugly things on my head. I think Google said Augmented Reality would be good for shop windows with mobile phones, but I never go in to town any more so I have no need for it. If VR is useful for doctors and business then great. When is enough, enough? I think the industry has run out of ideas and will just latch on to anything now.

    Ubiquitous broadband, the fibre optic monster continues to spread its tentacles globally. Wi-Fi everywhere, you’ll get an answer from Google in less than a second but does God/Allah (whatever deity you worship) answer your questions?

    Telemetry in your OS and mobiles phones, you’ve blanketed every city with face recognising CCTV cameras. Your banks keeping your voice pattern on file for secure verification. Finger prints, retinal scanner to log in to your mobile phone. Totalitarian state anyone? How did George Orwell know?

    You have drones looking after crops in your fields, meat being grown in laboratories (bye bye farm workers).

    Self driving cars (replacing taxi drivers), self driving trucks replacing truck drivers (logistics industry is dead).

    Robots replacing employees in factories (Amazon and others have killed small business, but I am just as guilty as you for using it rather than heading to the local shop). Southpark teaches so many lessons but people think its just a silly cartoon, “Member” (pun intended) when they burnt down the Walmart?

    Cortana, Siri, Okay Google, etc (replacing personal assistants, secretaries). Machine learning algorithms will replace most jobs, call centre staff, teachers, healthcare workers, insurance brokers, architects (and don’t forget we don’t need builders/construction workers now 3d printers can print building!), Journalists, Human Resources, Marketing and Advertising staff, Lawyers and Paralegals Law Enforcement (predictive policing), etc.

    If VR becomes mainstream then can we expect a situation similar to the movie Surrogate (2009) where everyone stays at home getting fat and unhealthy while their exoskeleton goes out for them? For those who’ve seen it, remember the Dread Reservation (anti-surrogate zone) for people who didn’t want to be involved in this futuristic nightmare? When Bruce Willis’s character invaded that space, they shot him and called him an abomination. Or how about the dystopia in the movie Wall-E (2008), Humans floating around in their chairs with holographic augmented reality screens, all getting fat because their is literally nothing left to do.

    Need I go on, Enjoy you virtual reality because its all you’ll have soon. People wonder why I won’t stop smoking? I don’t want to live in a world like this. The packet says “Smoking kills”, to me that is an invitation and I accept.

    P.S Watch the first few minutes of “The Giver 2014”, good movie. Will that be the future when none of us are left?

  5. jamiematz says:

    Todd. You are way out of touch. I’m embarrassed for you.

  6. Joe Michaels says:

    Still with the 3D TV comparisons? As a platform with the potential to open up whole new worlds of computing, productivity and fun, VR is in a different league than 3D TV. Apples and oranges.

  7. Officer Dude Guy says:

    I’ve worked in the Information Technology industry for nearly 20 years now and tend to early adopt technology just before it becomes mainstream. I had a couple UMPCs before iPhones existed and before the term tablet was coined. I was using the 3D viewer headset you mention that is the precursor for current VR headsets (HMZ-T1). When it comes to predicting the direction our technology is going I’m no slouch. I bring this up because I found your points in this article to be extremely shallow and poorly thought out. If you’re going to write a condemning article you need to give it more than a single use before you damn an entire technology. Lets go through each of your objections to VR point by point.

    1.) It’s like 3d Movies; those didn’t work so neither will this.

    No, it is nothing like 3D movies. This is massively misleading and just an all around stupid point to make. A 3D TV cannot give you the sense of depth, proportion, nor presence you get in VR. Watch The Martian in 3D then play ISS VR. They are completely different experiences. One is a good movie with nice 3D visuals, the other makes you completely believe you are weightless, floating above Earth, and pulling yourself around a space station with your hands. A 3D movie is a flat screen with the appearance of depth. VR is the image wrapped around you so completely you are IN the world being presented. You might as well be saying looking out your windows is always a preferable experience to going on vacation. This was an incredibly poor comparison to start with and already puts you on bad footing.

    2.) I don’t have an IMAX screen nor vertical wind tunnel in my house.

    What on God’s green Earth were you trying to point out here? You’re aware television was a direct byproduct of movie theater screens right? Is it absurd to have a television in your house? How is VR and a vertical wind tunnel the same at all? One offers one massively limited experience that requires a huge amount of vertical and horizontal space and unrealistic amounts of electricity, the other offers nearly infinite content and requires space ranging from just a chair to requiring the equivalent of a slightly large cubical. I dont have an F-16 at home, why would I want a bicycle? Seriously, this one is such a reach it feels like even you don’t believe your own article.

    3.) People do stuff other than watch TV when they watch TV.

    Great, I do stuff other than VR while in VR. What’s your point? VR is just a type of screen. You’re aware you can make floating windows in VR right? I text and use chat functions in VR all the time. I read web pages (sometimes strategy guides for the game I’m actively playing), and even stream college classes to floating windows while I’m shooting zombies. I agree the current headset format is a little clunky but maybe wait longer than Generation 1 before you damn an entire format.

    4.) Being in VR is like the psychological torture scene in ‘A Clockwork Orange’.

    Jesus, what demo were you given? You sound like they super glued your eyelids to your forehead and stuck you in VR for weeks without sleep while bombarding you with videos of the worst in humanity. Having the content completely surround you is the entire point of VR. If it was a flat screen it would just be a television. Did you even think about this point at all? I seriously cannot believe you expect to be taken seriously when comparing a game to intense torture.

    5.) Media in VR is different and you have to make up a story because none is given.

    Again, what the hell demo are you playing? Every VR game or demo I’ve used has either been about having an experience (IE Google Earth, Medium, ISS VR), or have been a story driven game. Yes you have to actually engage with the content a little. Again that’s the whole damn point. There is a story and your decisions and actions can affect the story. If there is no story it’s an experience not a game. Do you go to a museum and get pissed off there’s no overarching narrative between exhibits? Would you go to the grand canyon and say, “Lacks character development”? No, you’d stand in awe before the majesty of nature. An experience is just a set of biochemical reactions that stimulate our electrical computer of a brain and VR is just a different and far more intense way of delivering that experience than television. So stop spreading your “no story” misinformation.

    6.) TV shows and movies are the whole point of TV.

    Have you never played or at least heard of a video game before? The graphic on this page of face vomiting random words feels exceptionally accurate for this article. Grand Theft Auto made $1 billion in 3 days. The cable companies are fighting net neutrality because the internet is a real threat to their profits. The term cable cutters is in the public zeitgeist. Yes, streaming sites are very popular but as you said, people like to do a lot more than just passively sit around watching TV; they need mental engagement or they get bored. That’s the reason TV has taken such a sharp swing from poorly written garbage to Hollywood-esque, big budget seasons of rich and complex stories. And even then you still often see people looking for further distraction. TV and movies are too passive for most audiences by your own admission; this only bodes well for VR.

    7.) The average person doesn’t want to use their brain while watching media content.

    Ok now I’m sure one of us is crazy. This is literally the opposite of your third point. Maybe you like to shut off your brain while watching TV, but you should turn it on while writing articles. People are not passive watchers anymore; the need to engage in many streams of consciousness at once is a deep part of our culture now. You pointed this out yourself then here tried to refute it. If you’re 80 and just want to watch hammy comedies like Big Bang Theory then by all means leave VR to those of us who can handle more than 1 thought at a time. Don’t try to condemn the entire medium because you’re too old to understand it. You’re just like the people in the 90s who kept telling me, “The internet is a fad; don’t waste your time on that garbage” or, “That stupid UMPC is just bulky and stupid. Nobody wants a portable PC they can carry in their pocket or bag”.

    8.) Yeah there’s video games, but VR doesn’t enhance story telling.

    I was flying my spaceship at warp speeds watching in wonder the tiny points of light shoot past me in the deep black that surrounded me. My ship, nearing it’s destination, dropped out of warp speed and I found myself face to face with the awesome and terrifying sight; a neutron star. From it’s dense core massive beams of light shot in opposite directions in a radius many times larger than Earth. The light it gave off was so bright and intense to my eyes, now acclimated to the darkness of deep space, that I immediately squinted and looked away. The raw power on display filled me with a sense of wonder, excitement, and immense fear that I have never felt in any other form of medium. My heart pounded in my chest and my palms were drenched in sweat as I grabbed the flight stick and pulled back hard to find safety from the terrible and beautiful spectacle before me. The experience was so palpable and real to me I will remember it for the rest of my life. For that instant I was truly in space and truly afraid for my life. There is no form of media which has ever touched me as deeply and powerfully as VR. So yes, it enhances the hell out of story telling. I’ve often heard people claim a director wont be able to keep your attention on the action of the story they are telling for VR movies. This is pure bullshit spouted by untalented hacks completely lacking in creativity. A magician gives you complete freedom to look wherever you please yet your eyes are still drawn exactly where he wants them. There is no difference between what a magician does and what a good director does, and VR certainly will not be a hindrance.

    9.) VR is a shiny toy like Twitter’s sports screen integration which was a mess.

    I’m sorry but this is possibly the dumbest comment in an article full of apples to oranges comparisons. A website adding a feature and a technology that has been written about, talked about, and theorized over since before either of us were born are so completely different I’m wondering why you feel qualified to talk about technology at all. If you really cannot wrap your head around why an entirely new way to consume media is different from changing a few lines of code you have no business writing about technology at all. I generally tend to be pretty creative and have built a career around seeing what others cannot; but even I cannot begin to see how these two things entered your head together at all. Was this just a desperate grab to redirect to another article to get some ad revenue? That’s literally the only thing I can think of that accounts for the sheer stupidity and confusion that is this crap point.

    10.) AR is cool because it doesn’t need special glasses, VR does so it’s dumb.

    Well first of all here’s a big ole “No shit Sherlock”! Obviously full vision obstruction is the difference between VR and AR. Needing to take over every inch of your vision to present a cohesive fictional world your senses believe you occupy is not the same as holding up your phone to play Pokemon Go. Pokemon Go is an AR game, and is not really the same as true AR. True AR will require specialized glasses, contact lenses, or possibly a hologram/projector. It will be a feeding of critical data to your senses as you need it. If you’re in a foreign country it will be what translates the road signs and audio to your native tongue. If you are lost it will be the semi-transparent marker on the ground below your feet indicating which way to go. It will be the software that converts your drab office into a beautiful palace while preventing you from bumping into walls. It will be how holographic versions of your contacts will appear in front of you with a real sense of presence instead of cheesy video phone. AR is going to be just as big if not bigger than VR, but the VR tech today is how we’ll get there. Damning the technology because you cant see it as the intermediate step just further convinces me you should not be writing a technology article.

    11.) VR is too exhausting to become accepted by mainstream audiences.

    I would say the entire fitness industry disagrees with your assessment that devices requiring physical activity wont make it into people’s homes or generate any money. I would also argue that if millions of people have become obese sitting around watching television and playing video games it’s just as likely that engagement with the material in a physical realm could create an opposite trend whereby video game nerds become thinner and more athletic simply by continuing to do what they love. You can say that’s far fetched but my brother is down 30 lbs from playing VR games over the past few months and he’s certainly not alone. Obsession with digital distractions has become an American past time for millennials and gen z, and if you think needing to move your arms a little is going to stop them you’re grossly misinformed. VR is everything the Nintendo Wii wished it could be, and far more. The physical engagement with the content is what makes VR worth it. My Oculus was sitting in my closet for close to 3 months when the touch controls came out, and since I haven’t been able to put it down. If VR was just a funny screen you strapped to your face I’d say yes, it’s probably not ready for mainstream. But when I can put my grandmother in VR and she can throw cans a robot or create a sculpture less than 2 minutes after putting the controls in her hands for the first time it’s safe to say the technology is ready for mainstream consumption.

    This article doesn’t make a single legitimate point about VR. Stating VR will never deliver enough bang for your buck is, frankly, an extremely limited view. Having felt weightlessness in space, the intensity of incredible cosmic events, witnessed the beauty of our home planet, felt fear in a post apocalyptic world, and many others I can tell you without a doubt VR has offered me experiences that were simply not possible otherwise. The worse thing you can say about VR is that there is limited software. As a new medium can you really fault it for that? When technology is in its infancy maybe give it a moment to mature before you yell stillbirth next time.

  8. Emilio Diaz says:

    I’m sorry but I MUST say something about this. To say a particular genre of Film-making will never be anything and especially mainstream is, quite frankly, short-sighted and bordering on insulting, both to the genre itself and the people who work in it. There were nay-sayers when film went digital, remember, and look where we’re at. Most production companies are using either digital transfers or recording straight onto the cloud in digital format. Even 3-D film had its time in the sun during the time of the Monster and Sci-fi films of the 50’s and 60’s and when Jaws 3-D came out, they finally thought it was DOA. It didn’t take very long for it to come back in force and now most films are shown in 3-D first, then in regular format or Theaters have mostly 3-D screens available. Technology is an ever-evolving force that has honestly become its own beast and it’s a beast we will all have to learn to use and live with or it will grow so quickly, we will be left behind in the dust of those who have mastered it. Saying something is done or never will get any further is saying you give up on learning it and don’t wish to see it succeed. It might not be obvious and perhaps I am speaking out of turn, but I am guilty of thinking negatively in the past about certain things and I saw for myself those things get better and mature with the years. I see companies like Mandt VR, Nintendo, Samsung, Google and much more keep pushing the envelope with VR Tech and when it comes to film, mark my words, this WILL be in the mainstream and one day, read this now, one day we will see Virtual Reality Theaters or at least Theaters with VR Only Rooms, where before there were 3-D Only Viewing Rooms. It’s not wishful thinking, it’s simply a matter of time and we are so fortunate to be in this era. Hook me up!

  9. Derek says:

    They are two different forms of entertainment. VR entertainment is “active”, on par with reading a book or doing a board game — it will never replace “passive” entertainment (watching movies, tv…etc) in my opinion.

  10. Here in Orlando, we have a vibrant VR and AR development community. Companies like Doghead Studios and Launchable, (which I have met with personally) are working hard on both fronts. I lean towards AR more than VR because AR is far more accessible to the general public. It puts it in the area of the casual user/player, where VR seems to be favored by a more dedicated hardcore audience. The additional investment in dedicated hardware puts VR at a disadvantage when compared to AR, which has immediate market penetration with the casual player market. You can distribute AR as an App, you can’t say the same about VR. We’ve all seen tech that looked revolutionary but failed to catch on with the general public (i.e. 3d TV). VR has the potential to join that list. I think for now, given its hardware requirements we have to wait and see if VR will be in everyone’s home or if it will be a niche industry. As for me, I’m putting my precious development time into an AR App.

  11. William says:


  12. Anne says:

    I am a user of Second Life and understand the potential of VR. You will interact inside of FB and Twitter and live your own story not watch someone else’s. You will store memories, videos, pics, have land that is designed anyway you want it and fly on unicorns with your friends. Generations will build land and meet together from anywhere in the world and interact. It is not entertainment is will be another form of living. Some will remain outside and some will be in. It’s not entertainment it’s a new way of life. People don’t understand the potential of this technology. We won’t need Facebook and Twitter once we are inside that world. They know this and everyone is trying to keep up with Sansar and other soon to come programs. You can’t look at this as a game or entertainment but being able to jack in to a new grid and be anywhere and do anything by putting on a VR rig. Who wouldn’t want to meet up with mom and dad across the world for Christmas in our virtual real estate island where daughter Mary has a castle she built on and brother Larry has a plane. This is going to be the new world.

  13. Joey Sylvester says:

    Please go and play farpoint with an aim controller or RE7 and tell me again how VR does nothing to improve a game

  14. Geo says:

    VR is for more than just entertainment. We’re already seeing huge growth in areas like manufacturing and design. VR allows architects to see inside their buildings before they’re constructed. Doctors can visualize exactly where the tumor is before they operate. Applications like these and so many more are where a good portion of the $75 billion will come from.

    The entertainment applications will not be what we expect in terms of traditional motion picture storytelling. That’s not going away. VR will create whole new genres – probably more interactive and immersive. Not necessarily better or worse, just different.

  15. shanemn says:

    Stop with the 3D TV comparison. They are not even the same ballpark. VR/AR is much bigger then entertainment, the utility in industry is almost limitless (Engineering, Architecture, Education, Medicine, Psychology, Sociology, Occupational safety, Public Safety, Hospitality, Travel, Real Estate…) If you think this is about playing games or watching movies you need find the nearest door and get out of that box you’re stuck in.

  16. Greedo says:

    I just played Farpoint with my VR AIM gun. I was on board a space station at the loading screen and in awe as I was looking out into the vastness of space with the sense of security of being in my little comfy space station….

    I saw my favorite alien series last night….great move…. but I often found myself wishing that it was in VR…because the loading screen of Farpoint was more immersive than the entire 2D movie in the theater….

    Nice article though… I clicked it and registered my email. Click bate FTW

  17. anon says:

    I tried Google Cardboard and after a few minutes I started to feel a bit sick.
    People are trying to solve the nausea.
    Henry is right though; this could easily be the next way to surf the internet……it could become ubiquitous…..combined with reality in daily environments.

    Maybe even using regular look Spangler glasses.

    People are very motivated and very sophisticated……and technology increases in quality continually.

    There is financial incentive to make it happen.

  18. Sxean Lee-David says:


  19. J. Bradley says:

    The thing is, you think it HAS to be a MASS consumer commodity. If it hooks a third of consumers, that might be as good as it gets or it might grow further over time. Because It’s not 100 percent adopted, It’s a failure, goes the mentality. Some movies available in 3D have 40 -50% of their sales for the 3D showings, but because it’s not 100%, it’s a failure. Let’s drop the format! Learn that it’s a variated market that’s being created and new forms are being created. If they can sustain themselves, fine. If they end up dominating, that’s fine too. The only problem is with those too invested in the established mediums that fear new ones, that might compete.

  20. Barry Allen says:

    Seems like a typical response from another Variety reviewer who is merely capable of repudiating facts they saw on a spreadsheet rather than engaging in the multiple different levels of overlaid storytelling both IMAX VR, Oculus, and others already offer. Great way to refute progress made in a stagnate entertainment industry with no clear hypothesis for an alternate direction for which the industry might embark upon.
    Clearly this is not a substitute for Television or Theatrical releases, and broad, sweeping generalizations like the one(s) made above only stunt growth and innovation. VR can be a new frontier for the millions of people looking for further interaction and detail in already engaging storylines. Maybe it’s not for the masses, or to be used as a direct alternative for traditional models of entertainment consumption, but it certainly is another format that does/will allow creatives to expand the boundaries in which they are currently confined.

    • iamsheep says:

      He’s right though…VR is an interactive experience that is unsuitable for narrative storytelling. Film and television is an expression of the director where the composition of a fixed frame, editing, sound and acting creates the final product. VR should instead be for presentations, documentaries (some not all), games and porn….

      • Eli says:

        You clearly never played a game like Life is Strange or any other story-based game, otherwise you’d see how out of the loop your comment is. The future of storytelling IS in Virtual Reality, watching and interacting with a movie with all its ramifications and dialogues you’d never have with a 2 hour movie. Plus, that’s how the new generations deal with narrative, including binge watching shows on Netflix/Hulu/Amazon.

    • Henry says:

      Respect this guy for actually saying what he believes though. I mean many journalists probably think the same they just wont publicize it. But i disagree with your belief that this article will hurt investment. Vr will massively change the world as it becomes of higher and hifher quality. It might be 13 years before it is really amazing or 5 no one really knows but it will alter the world just like electricity or cars. It is amassive advancement and it will be more obvious over time. I would recommend road to vr to really keep updates on whats going on with vr in regards to its development.

    • Todd Spangler says:

      “Maybe it’s not for the masses” <— right, that's my point

      • Henry says:

        Todd please delete this article. In the future you will be be cited and mocked. Just please for your sake please delete this article.
        This reminds me of someone mocking the invention of the telephone or planes or cars or the internet. Like just stop.

More Digital News from Variety