Anyway, sorry for the rant but I liken this to going to a football game in the stadium vs. watching at home and I'd much prefer the latter.
Anyway, sorry for the rant but I liken this to going to a football game in the stadium vs. watching at home and I'd much prefer the latter.
Things like The Wave, Half Dome, etc are already on permit/lottery systems. Other places are so crowded that it seriously impacts the experience (parts of the Louvre, the Vatican).
Visiting the Sahara from Morocco requires flights, mixture of land travel including hiring a car or driver, procuring camels and so on. Fine for anyone remotely adventurous, but daunting and expensive for others.
I will never, ever go back to Palais Versailles. The gardens, maybe. Inside? Hell no. It was a really long wait to eventually be shoved through a cattle-chute of an experience for a couple hours, barely able to see anything, unable to take enough time to really look around due to the motion of the crowd, some other tourists constantly shoving me, and wishing more than anything that it was over. You'd have to pay me a fair amount of money to do it again.
A VR tour of it might be cool, though.
I think initially people will decry virtual tourism as inferior but eventually cost and convenience will make it very popular. And then we'll see a seriously blurred line between true tourism (Versailles, for example) and enhanced (Westworld, shot around Moab in Utah) or completely invented worlds (Avatar). And another blurred line between those sorts of traditional experiences and the same being gamified at varying levels.
The joy of summiting a mountain is diminished if you ride a tram to the top instead of climbing it.