> My point is that VR hits a "close enough" point at a much lower price, and flat screens didn't really do it. This dynamic doesn't exist with, as an example, s

> My point is that VR hits a "close enough" point at a much lower price, and flat screens didn't really do it. This dynamic doesn't exist with, as an example, skiing, where actually skiing isn't much more expensive than virtually skiing. That's a good point. I'm not sure that skiing is a great example - it can be an extremely pricey hobby if you don't live near a good hill - but I agree there's a broad distribution of the experience achievable against the cost (I imagine an XKCD-style graph in the style of [1] or [2], with "How much it costs" on the X axis and "How awesome it is" on the Y axis, with labels for "VR auto racing", "Actual auto racing", "simulated bowling", "actual bowling", "Kerbal Space Program", "SpaceX", "Surfing", "Simulated surfing", etc. [1]: https://xkcd.com/1904/ https://xkcd.com/1904/ [2]: https://xkcd.com/1880/ https://xkcd.com/1880/