[seanalltogether]

My wife would absolutely pay money to go to an auditorium with 100 other people to watch a live taylor swift concert. Even though its technically feasible to do it in your home, or even to watch it the next day, I know she would pay to be part of a "live" experience.

[kevin_thibedeau]

They have that now in movie theaters that simulcast stage performances.

[crooked-v]

Sure, but there's a huge visceral difference between looking at a screen versus "being there" in what your brain interprets as, for example, a small black-box theater with a stage in the middle.

[rs186]

Yes there is a big difference.

But if you look at all the options --

1) paying hundred of dollars or more, potentially having to travel to a different city to watch the actual event, where you enjoy it with friends/family and the rest of the crowd

2) watch a filmed version in the theater or Blu-ray for $10, with your family/friends and other fans

3) purchase a $3500 headset that is heavy and uncomfortable, watch a filmed version for $10-20, with yourself

The movie theater experience seems like a pretty good deal. If I am not watch the real thing, I might as well just spend $10 and get a great experience.

[bikezen]

Theres places like https://www.cosm.com/the-experience that have a spherical view and seating right up close that do live sports and concerts that are more engaging than a normal flat screen.

[dangus]

Yeah but a movie costs $10-20 retail and costs much less to deliver technologically speaking.

All that fancy “you’re really there” technology costs a lot more with diminishing returns on the running costs.