The article is 100% correct in it's assessment that VR is not a very well-defined term, and it's not always perfectly clear what constitutes and doesn't constit

The article is 100% correct in it's assessment that VR is not a very well-defined term, and it's not always perfectly clear what constitutes and doesn't constitute VR. Still, trying to open it up to basically anything that's highly immersive feels wrong to me. I can deeply immerse myself into a book, becoming unconscious of my surroundings and even completely loosing track of time. Nevertheless I don't think that books count as "VR". "Virtual" describes something that doesn't physically exist but is only (computer) simulated - thus ruling out any form of remote views through cameras, or stereoscopic pictures (or paintings). All of those are either not non-existent, or not simulated. The article also says that: > Many definitions also stipulate that VR must be interactive. This would differentiate it from things like 3D -movies, 360-degree video and other similar “look but don’t touch” media. The problem with this is that plenty of computer generated VR isn’t interactive at all, yet everyone considers it to be VR. I still feel that "interaction" is a very good and meaningful differentiator, that would be helpful to employ, and that probably should be part of the definition of VR. And yes, that does mean, that computer generated "VR" that is not interactive at all, should be defined as a 360 degree cg movie, and not as true VR. And I'm perfectly fine with that. But if you want to keep that computer generated VR included, you can still allow for spatial control (walking/teleporting around) to be considered an "interaction" - which would allow back in a lot of that computer generated VR.