VR definitely has a TON of challenges, and it'll be interesting to see if it can overcome them. I posted this prior to Facebook purchasing Oculus, so my optimism has changed for the better, but I'm still reluctant to consider VR an automatic success:
The price of entry is going to be substantial, and as a byproduct of that barrier, the install base is going to be relatively slim. 3rd party developers always dictate the success, or lack thereof, of any piece of gaming hardware. In an industry that is anything but stable, publishers and developers have become less willing to take risks, and supporting VR in any meaningful way would be counter intuitive to that phenomenon. They're all about about the safe bet, and unfortunately for VR, the safe bet isn't developing games exclusively for an install base (owning a VR headset) of an install base (owning a Playstation 4 or Computer powerful enough to utilize VR) of an install base (gamers in general).
This is the fate of all peripheral add-ons. 3rd party developers are already reluctant to develop exclusively for a platform, due to the fact that it needlessly restricts the sales potential of their software. What makes people think they're going to be willing to inject considerable resources into an even smaller pot? Yes, they'll cover their bases to ensure that they don't completely miss the boat in the off chance that it ultimately does succeed, but this typically comes in the form of a publisher utilizing one of their lesser teams, or worse, simply tacking on VR support on an existing game that wasn't built from the ground up to utilize the technology.
It's kind of a vicious cycle. Peripherals require a constant stream of quality games to entice consumers, but publishers are unwilling to provide them until the install base is worth investing in. The Kinect had an install base exceeding 24 million, and 3rd party developers still failed to support it due to the fact that it made more sense to develop for the combined install base of 160+ million between the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3.
Peripherals of this sort require quality software built from the ground up to utilize the tech. Tacked on VR and throwaway games from lesser development teams is not going to push consumers to drop the kind of cash. There has to be original content that is unique to VR, and quality to boot. And there has to be a lot of it, considering the price of entry you're asking consumers to drop to opt into this style of gaming. Also, we need to differentiate the difference between success and long term success. Peripherals tend to overcome the former, but fall flat with the latter - due to the fact that the latter requires a constant injection of quality titles, which is difficult to do.
Also, one of 3D's biggest barriers was the fact that people had to wear something to achieve it. As people have said, if the mainstream are reluctant to wear a pair of glasses on their head, how are they going to feel about what basically amounts to a head mount?
"You won't understand until you try it." That's another HUGE issue. How do you advertise something that can't be explained without experiencing it? It's the same issue 3D has, and actually, more so. Unlike something like motion gaming, you can't present a 1:1 recreation of the experience to consumers. VR is a technology that is reliant on hands on experience to understand - as well as word of mouth, which makes marketing it on a large scale EXTREMELY difficult.
Having said that, I do own an Oculus Rift DK2, and I'm definitely a believer in the potential of VR. The experience is flat out amazing and I really hope that it's able to gain wide spread traction within all forms of media.
