Why did they choose 180° for the new VR format when 270° looks more natural?

I know I'm sticking out my neck regarding this subject....Now when professional videomakers has seduced the 360°VR market into a 180°VR market so they can hide behind the rest of the 360 view and continue to use the expensive gear they allready have to get a piece of the VR-cake…I wonder if the decision to make it 180° maby did happen a little bit to fast?
I can understand that if you over many years built up and bought very expensive professional gear, you have a studio and a good workflow…you don’t want to buy a whole new setup just to make VR, learn a whole new process of filming, includinge extreme high cost software to get rid of zenit and nadir, shadows and more wich suddenly make the whole process of videomaking a pain in the ass.
But why choose such a narrow format as 180°???
”People don’t want to look around, and 180° is what we see watching videos in a comfy chair...”.
But who wants to sit still watching a VR video? That’s completely unnatural. I like to look at the sides driving driving my car, walking the streets or having dinner with my family - all the time during my normal life.
So In My Opinion, if we need to hide behind a black spot, and still get the immersive VR experience it should have been at least 235° if not as much as 270°. instead of the narrow 180° VR.
Then we could also continue to get the benefits of ambisonic sound/spatial audio and it would feel natural.
Take a look at this video with your VRviewer and tell me in the comments field what you think.
How wide should the new half VR format be to look/feel natural??
Sorry for the sound...built in mikes...and not spatial audio.

Видео Why did they choose 180° for the new VR format when 270° looks more natural? канала Ulf Brusquini