1) GAF threads have never been a good measure for anything. If it were, Fallout, Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed would be the worst selling games of the year and Platinum would be the most successful developer on the planet. Color me shocked that a GAF thread is overwhelmingly negative about something.
2) the kind of mainstream acceptance you are talking about, with EA and Ubi sinking big budgets into VR, was never going to happen right out of the gate. This is a tech in its infancy. This idea that VR was going to be the Wii of 2016 was delusion, and seemingly nobody actually involved in producing VR hardware or software believes that. People complained about comparing VR adoption to bluray players or smartphones but using 3DTV as some kind of barometer is infinitely stupider and just plain lazy.
I agree with this for the most part. That said, I hesitate at this point to unequivocally say VR is going to succeed and eventually become mainstream simply because in its current form-factor it doesn't have nearly the universal appeal as literally any of the other products people are comparing it to.
I mean, on the one hand, I remember my dad paid ~$1000 for a Pioneer LaserDisc/DVD hybrid player (inflation adjusted that's probably $1800 today). He spent $600-$800 on an early reference Sony BluRay player. On the flip side, he didn't care about 3D when I bought a new 3D TV. And getting anyone in my family to put on 3D glasses to watch a movie was sort of cool but ultimately kind of "meh" experience.
Yes, VR is infinitely cooler. And yes, some of the enthusiasm gap for VR is partly a generational thing (consider most consumers with money to burn are over 50). Younger generations are going to inherently care more about VR because we were raised on videogames, and the two go hand in hand.
Still, I just can't help but think the - even more so than price - the physical obtrusiveness of VR gear is going to be the primary obstacle to it going mainstream, regardless of the target demographic. Smart phones are portable and useful for a million different reasons. Movie players that don't require head gear are easy and relaxing and allow, easy passive entertainment. Putting head gear on that causes fatigue/discomfort relatively quickly...and isolates you from your family...is a relatively tall order.
Don't get me wrong, I want VR to succeed badly. But I can't help but think it's got several hurdles that are going to be awfully tough to overcome if it's ever going to reach mainstream status, regardles of price (which may be why Oculus decided to launch at $600... Because they know this is nowhere close to a mainstream device yet).
If/when form factor can be miniaturized to the point that it's much less bulky or possibly doesn't even require head gear at all...well, then we're talkin. That sounds like Star Trek holodeck kinda shit. But I do believe that's the obvious direction to take things, even if it's probably a decade or more away.
Until then...I dunno. I can imagine almost no one in my fam would care past the first few "Wow!" minutes. Then it'd be, "Ok lets put a movie on the TV so we can all watch." Lol That doesn't mean VR can't be successful. I believe it will be, but I think it's intended application and form-factor prevent it from being the kind of universal device that people always compare it to.
I guess it all boils down to how we - and the companies making these things - want to define "success"....
