Part of the "charm" of real estate is deceptive photos. Everyone knows they're deceptive and a halfway decent photographer with a wide-angle lens can make a 1-b

Part of the "charm" of real estate is deceptive photos. Everyone knows they're deceptive and a halfway decent photographer with a wide-angle lens can make a 1-bd hovel look like a mansion. When have you heard someone say "The place was so much better than the photos!"? Not often. That's a problem for a 3D experience in a few ways: 1) if the 3D experience is pitched as "more true to life", then no buyers will think that the house could be better than the experience presents. 2) if the 3D experience doesn't capture the greatness of a property, the buyer/viewer would be underwhelmed vs. seeing the place in person. Properties with spectacular views for example would take a hit because that emotional experience of "I could wake up to this every day" is replaced with a 1-dimentional texture. 3) If the 3D experience is too good, buyers will be disappointed when seeing the property in real life. IMO sales like this -- houses, cars -- are a visceral experience that require in-person shopping. That's why internet car sales haven't really taken off. You really have to take the house for a "test drive", see how you think your furniture would fit, imagine your kids playing in the yard, all that stuff. Now if you were making some kind of holodeck... ;)