Personally, I have zero interest in passthrough. I don't want to see my own body and room. My body is not pleasant to look at and my room is... well, a boring regular bedroom. The technology to convincingly make it seem like you're the male performer (assuming you're male, of course) is IMHO still a long way away, if it ever comes. Depth mapping etc is great tech but short of computer-animated performers and real-time 3D-modelling your body in the headset (which ain't gonna happen) it will always require some suspension of disbelief to achieve the immersion passthrough fans are looking for.
But just because I don't want it, doesn't mean I don't want anyone to have it, or that I object to you spending performer time or money shooting scenes that way. I would be extremely disappointed if it became the standard. But then I am super-picky already so maybe only 25% of scenes hold any real interest for me. I'm used to having limited choice, especially as I don't do anything without a script these days. To each his own.
I agree that maybe a sub-studio or brand might be the way to go here. I also agree with the point that, when a particular performer is highly-anticipated and has no VR back-catalog, filming a single passthrough scene with them limits the audience to those who can and want to use passthrough, and the green-screen technique makes it difficult for anyone else to enjoy it. Maybe a self-imposed rule that the first time a performer shoots for you it should be a regular VR video would placate the non-passthrough audience?
I get (and like) that SLR is so future-focussed in terms of VR tech. Enthusiasm for the medium is what separates you out from certain other box-checking VR studios I could mention. But IMHO enthusiasm should aways be tempered with an understanding that if you set out to be a one-stop shop for VR porn, you need to cater to the widest audience possible.
