- Edited
vrpicasso The comparison to the early days of NA are to show that developments in technology often meet strong resistance and there is an inability in many to see how the tech might evolve into something worthwhile. Early VR was dog shit.
The other thing about that comparison to early days of NA is that when they heavily invested in it, they made it a separate subscription long before the VR vids became 50% or more of new releases. They didn't mock their customers and tell them to deal with it, and they didn't allow trolls in their discussion boards to do so, either.
Also, your point number 4 cannot be overstated. It may "technically" be VR (though I don't agree), but it is so dissimilar that acting as if you are selling the same product when you replace one with the other is just insulting to customers.
I think they don't want to make it a separate studio because they know that it really isn't in demand yet, and want to keep the VR subscribers paying for it - which is fairly unethical and why the argument persists. And the PT users who don't want it split into another studio do it for selfish reasons too - they like it, but don't want to pay an additional sub for it (or replace the VR sub with it). Instead they both argue that AR is the "future" of VR porn - it isn't. VR didn't put flat porn out of business, nor will it any time soon. AR is not going to make VR obsolete, either. Or they argue that AR is essentially the same - it isn't, as you did an explemplary job explaining above. Or they tell us to satisfy ourselves with all of the past releases that outnumber the newer passthrough stuff - as if we subscribed for the back catalog.
Either way, it feels like the company is dealing the longtime VR subs dirty. The gripes are legitimate, and there should be some reasonable, serious attention paid to them. Instead, they seem to enjoy trolling and rubbing our noses in it.
Internet culture, I guess - but not a very ethical or honorable way to run a business.
