I'm so late to the game here. I've produced adult VR content in pretty much every form it exists: 180 3D, 360 3D, holograms, a holographic dating simulator, green-screen live cams and now CAM4VR, which is a 3D 360 live cam experience optimized to have low bandwidth demands for the sake of running on everything from a cell phone to a big damned Oculus Rift.
It's a slow point in the market, to be sure, but user adoption is quickly amping up and I would argue that this is the prime time to claim your stake in the game (which is why I do what I do). CAM4VR has had an incredibly positive response and the platform, both software and hardware, are rapidly improving on multiple spectra.
I think it's fallacious to compare VR to old school 3D tech. The ratio of value change to tech cost for 3D was too low. You needed expensive new tech for what ended up being a small change in the value of the experience. With VR there is a tech cost, certainly, but it's low. According to Forbes [
1], the Galaxy 6S Edge and the Galaxy Note 5, both of which are optimized for general VR headsets and compatible with the Gear VR, are two of the top four selling smartphones on the market. Samsung has vastly outsold iPhone this year [
2] as well, which really says a lot. These are the phones that are leading the way to general consumer adoption of VR beyond the scope of the devoted enthusiast who is willing to spend the money on a desktop VR headset and the requisite computer to run the hardware and the software.
Additionally, someone noted that the big thing that will push consumer adoption and engagement of VR are free headsets with mobile phones. Samsung actually did this with the Gear VR twice [
3] [
4] already this year and I'm sure those aren't the last times we will see this occurring.
With regards to 180 vs 360, why offer 180 when you can offer a 360 experience with little additional cost? Users feel more immersed in a live experience when they can look around and see my actual bedroom and all the weird shit that makes me the weirdo I am. The more I can do to craft the experience to make my user feel intimately connected with me, the better everyone fares. If you can introduce 360 without wasting data, as we have managed to do, it's a winning opportunity. 180 would be a downgrade at this point. Now if the conversation is monoscopic 360 vs stereoscopic 180, then I wholeheartedly agree that 180 3D is the better choice. In my experience talking to VR consumers, users don't feel like monoscopic productions even count as VR (and redditors, who offer the most feedback, are a bunch that will not hesitate to let you know exactly how you feel).
As a performer, I actually love camming in VR whereas I often found myself procrastinating and putting off regular camming. I feel a stronger sense of connection with my viewers knowing that I completely dominate their attention and that they're wholly immersed in the space I've designed for their enjoyment. I can more thoroughly convey the persona I've cultivated, which opens their hearts and their wallets. I find that VR users treat me with more kindness and are more likely to police each other's behavior when someone acts like a turd. I absolutely love it.
