>The article argues "VR will also enable immersive concerts, reinvented museums, and live, court-side sporting events"
As a day one Vive owner I also agree these kinds of statements are fairly bullshitty. VR doesn't remotely compare to the real experience of a real outing. Nor is it able to do much outside of gaming and there are probably valid reasons why. Gamers are used to being in virtual spaces, using VR is fun, etc but its also isolating, uncomfortable, expensive, and low res.
The good news is that "games" encompasses many categories of experience. Social fun like Rec Room, or RPG's, or MMOs, or shooters, or playing pool, or pingpong, etc. Its a varied experience and I think its a little dismissive to say something like "Oh but its only games now?" Games are huge! Why are we discounting this incredible part of the human experience and something part of all human cultures? This is like saying, "Oh you're in love and getting married? That's just endorphins and patriarchy." Its dismissive to an extreme.
That said, I've watched a bit of youtube with my Vive and can certainly see it making in-roads with consumption of media, but even the best pool simulators, gun range, or pingpong simulators not only feel nothing like the real thing, but they're barely a fraction of the fun of the real thing. If futurists are banking on VR replacing many real experiences, well, they better be ready to be disappointed. VR's strengths aren't being a digital version of real experiences, its making fantastic worlds and experiences of its own that feel 'real' and interesting.