Like any tech the devil is in the details. How good does it look in practice? Someone in comments said it's monoscopic (2d)? Converting flat 2d to flat 3d also is getting pretty good, with new open source models for AI depth maps coming out all the time, but many of them have defects which get in the way of easy adoption. That said, I've tried a few services for conversion and the results can be good - but don't know what models/settings they use; My impression from testing is that results are more mixed with out of box tools.
If you look at DeoVR conversions most of the flat 2d to 3d looks terrible because people are using out of date methods but it's only a matter of time before everyone can create reasonable looking 3d from 2d content. However, I'm not sure I trust whoever is in charge of DeoVR to know what is good because they forced "immersive flat" aka curved screen on flat 3d content that destroys the 3d effect.
The issue for a site like SLR is that good conversion can take hours of compute. To make that sustainable users might have to pay for specific content to be converted, with a sparse catalogue.
That said I don't think you need to convert to VR180.. I converted a few flat 2d to 3d porn videos and there are some advantages over VR for "nonpov" content. If you don't force scale to size of real life objects you can see more of the shot - if you don't then objects can look tiny or huge in VR, whereas it just looks normal in flat 3d. VR pov can sometimes also make some body parts look bad e.g. because the shots or way the cameras work makes women who have serious curves look like their ass is flat unless they arch their back a lot. It's a bit tasteless to discuss but compare VR and flat videos of porn stars with nice assets and VR sometimes does not show them off well where flat "voyeur" can and the AI 3d adds a lot to that in my opinion (I have no desire to look at flat 2d or VR2d in a VR helmet)
