Agree.

Not as long as its an anti social experience (watching a movie in VR)

True, but the 100 degree fov will enhance immersion for anything that moves. And subtle head movements are enough to turn a static 3D view into a more believable 'you are there' view. In replays or watching it on 'tv' you can look anywhere you want of course.

It won't kill the box office, probably won't reduce it much either. Yet a new form of movies and shows might arrise for VR. A movie like Enter the void would be very suitable to VR. Maybe we'll get some feature length movies made for IMAX dome cinemas that can only be watched at home on VR headsets. There are still many IMAX dome short features that can now be enjoyed in VR.

No, just no. 

As the thread title suggests, non-gaming experiences will have their place on VR. It is already happening, however focus will be on gaming first.

There is no point bringing up the price aspect without consideration of value. People pay multiple times more for traveling to some foreign country for a very limited time period.

"It's too little too late for this in my eyes, because they're too deep in the PS4 game machine hype - it's no PS2 or reveal-era XBO, where multimedia was a selling point"

How erroneous. Like Sony was "just lucky"; the Playstation (PS) brand has nothing to do with it and was unbeknownst to the world; there is no such thing as AIDA ... etc etc

"more viable standalone options like Samsung's VR* or Google Cardboard."

Lol, pardon me? More viable? Are you even aware of the differences? You should inform yourself a whole lot better before making such ridiculous statements and embarrass yourself. But oh well, many people believe VR equals VR, as a 40" screen is just the same as a 55" ... only a bit smaler. And gaming on a smartphone is as much phun as on a dedicated gaming system.

"and the viability of using a more mobile VR headset vs a stationary one."

Aw man, the pain. 

The Porn is strong with VR.

How many games are confirmed indev for the PSVR? I imagine Sony Pictures can invest a bit into VR projects as well, no prob.

From the article:

Sony has over 50 games in development for its first foray into virtual reality, and the company had 49 prototypes available at its recent PlayStation Experience consumer event in San Francisco to let gamers preview upcoming titles like Rigs: Mechanized Combat League, Battlezone, and Harmonix Music VR.

Sony London is pretty much Sony VR dev studio.

Guys I found the VR fanboy!

Guess how many consumers care about anything you just said. They see a huge difference in price and viability and they're going that way whether you feel that's right or not. Look at TVs. You could buy a Sony 3D TV for way too much money in 2010 or so, or buy any other TV for way less. You could buy the objectively superior smartphone in the Xperia Z line or you could get a phone that isn't a pain in the ass to find on every carrier Stateside. Guess what phone I'm typing on, by the way. This is Sony's model and it always has been. They make, objectively, the best products of every market they jump into, but these come at some huge cost - be it price or viability. It's no coincidence, or luck if you want to put it that way, that their greatest successes as a company were by far the most consumer friendly. And it's no coincidence that their biggest failures were by far the least. If I were to buy a VR device it'd be PSVR because I'm positive it has the most to offer for a first gen VR device, but consumers don't care all that much about an add-on device that requires a dedicated gaming system first. Again, you can argue this all you want, but this is fact. Talk to any consumer outside of our niche and he/she will tell you that they'd much prefer something like Google Cardboard that's attached a device they already own over going in on something new, even if the experience is better (and we won't know how much better it is until we see the game lineup, which WILL disappoint and/or die off in a year knowing how bad Sony is at non-core devices). And the cost does matter, even if you want to set up a poor one-sentence counterargument using vacations of all things as a comparison point. 

I'll try not to go too in-depth against your holier-than-thou approach to the rest of my comment since it's clear you're not one to look outside of your own perspective, so in a nutshell: The PS4 isn't selling as a multimedia device, it's selling as a game platform. I have no clue why you're comparing that to naysayers arguing "luck," or why you disagree since that's all you said. Saying "you're wrong" doesn't really make you convincing when all you say is that, bud. The viable comment I already somewhat addressed because viability is more than just which is better, because, yknow, viable isn't a synonym for better. VR is going to be, for the large majority of consumers, a fad. Just like fitbits, just like 3DTV, et alia res - and these consumers are far more likely to pay $100 on a fad that they can plug into their phone and try a couple times as compared to at least double that and at most (going by Sony's claims on price) eight times that. And a quick aside, these consumers aren't gonna pick up VR for genre-changing games or games in general, that's pretty much like arguing that people buy phones to play games and that's why phones are inferior to consoles. That's just ridiculous and you're setting your arguments up very poorly when you go this route. I won't even go further and point out that a good chunk of Wii buyers didn't buy the GAME console for good games, just showing how off-base you are overall for consumer mentality. 

Anyway I'm starting to digress a bit. If you want to convince anybody that PSVR is the best option overall, you need more than what effectively comes down to poor excuses for strawman responses when somebody says something that you disagree with.  

Google Cardboard and Gear VR can not be compared to stationary VR.

Google Cardboard compared to an experience like Oculus/Vive/PS VR is like comparing a chinese made 600 bucks scooter with an Bentley Mulsanne (experience wise not talking about the price here)

Both have their uses however they dont compete for the same consumers.

Gear VR would be a Smart Car.

PS VR seems to shape up exeptionally well. And could be the best bang for the buck option out of the three. Even superior in some fields.

The screen Sony uses has higher res then the pentile screen of Oculus vive despite having less resolution.

As Sony magically pulled out an OLED 1080P Full RGB screen 3 subpixels per pixel while oculus and vive just have pentile with 2 sub pixels per pixel. Effectively having less Subpixels with 2 Screens than Sony.

Non gaming VR experiences will be the draw for the mainstream however I think Sony should get first a the gamers aboard with some long term compelling experiences. An MMORPG would be great.