I feel that's like saying "I can get just as fully immersed in a book so who needs movies?"

They're different experiences. I don't need Tetris or PacMan in VR. Conversely, Half-Life 1/2 etc are not remotely intense as Half-Life Alyx. In the first 2 you're watching a movie. In the later you're in the world of Half-Life

It is like saying that, and it is a fine response to someone saying "VR isn't dead because immersion."

The reason movies exist isn't simply "immersion", it's a different experience than reading a book.

The frequency of choosing to go out to the movies is also about how often I think "I wish I could do this in VR".

Examples:

- Before going on a trip, pre-visiting the destination in Google Earth with VR is very spatially informative & makes directional intuition memorable upon arrival at the real world destination.

- Virtual role-play with environmental cues that cause make-believe to be ever more real.

But most people don't need this very often. Picking up a book or throwing on some earbuds to listen to a book are far more frequent and compatible with simultaneous other activities. VR feels the same--a high-demand focused experience that is infrequently worth the effort.

The giant advantage regular games have is that I've yet to smash my hand into a wall playing them.

I think that the relatively low living space area for most of the world is a huge strain on VR adoption.