You're talking about first-gen hardware which, yes, will have a limited user base. It'll sell to hardcore gamers who already have the expensive hardware capable of running it. Oculus is very much aware of that; mass consumer sales is a long term goal. And if the experience wasn't good enough, then sure it would be stuck as a niche product. But the experiences is mind blowing enough that everyone I've shown it to is instantly willing to jump over any hurdles to get one. Many of the people I've shown it to are 40-50 year old none-gamers, and I've had an almost unanimous reaction of "Where can I get it and how?". I've shown people cool tech such as Kinect before, and they've had fun with it, but I haven't had such a vastly positive "I must have it" response from my family and friends since I showed them the first iPhone. 6 years later and they all have iPhones.
As for devs being reluctant to invest, well yes and no. Yes, there might be a limited number of made-entirely-for-VR AAA experiences in the first year. But "tacked on" VR support isn't a negative if the game is well suited. See Elite and Live For Speed, both two of the very best Oculus experiences. Secondly, VR doesn't require fancy £50million graphics to blow minds. I've gotten plenty of amazing use out of my DK2 from bedroom developers with little to no budget. Indie support will be big; it already is with the DK2 -- dozens of new weekly experiences for a dev kit in the hands of less than 100,000 or so people. There's a tiny audience, and no money to currently be made, and yet thousands of people are clamoring to support it. The key difference between this and something like Kinect is that developers are excited for it. They're passionate and want to develop for it. Some of the biggest names in the industry have pledged support, many hired by Oculus themselves. I'm confident that there will be enough support to justify a purchase.
).
