[potatolicious]

I have a Rift and I'm bullish about its prospects for gaming, but I'm pretty skeptical about using this for non-interactive entertainment.

What would be the point of allow the user to move around (in a limited fashion anyhow) inside the movie? It doesn't improve storytelling (as games can by adding interactivity and perspective) - it strikes me as a gimmick, much like 3D films in general.

You get the whiz-bang coolness of "OMG I'm in this thing!", but ultimately it's a lot more gear than a straight-up television/movie screen for next to no gain. 3D movies had a few years of glory but is now deeply unpopular - I foresee the same for VR-movies.

[andrewfong]

I suspect there'd be a niche but viable market for non-interactive or semi-interactive content. Off the top of my head, I can see a handful of use-cases where immersive VR would be a huge plus over a two-dimensional image:

* Being able to view complex choreography (martial arts, dancing, etc.) from different angles

* Conveying a sense of size and scale -- e.g. Pacific Rim, Godzilla

* Recreating some emotion or feeling imparted by the surrounding environment -- e.g. the franticness of a war zone, the claustrophobia of a submarine

[simias]

Porn is also an obvious use case. And porn could drive the market much more than anything else.

[vladimirralev]

Absolutely. There is a ton of work going on to shoot a movie, camera angles, positioning, orientation, shaking, motion speed and smoothness. If you take this away it will be like hiring the most incompetent camera-man confined to a wheelchair to shoot all movies you watch.