Well, VR can also be used to play normal games in 3D, so if people can't afford a large screen 3D 1080p TV, this could be an option.  That's really the only thing I can think of.

Though, that was one of the big flaws with VB.  Most games didn't even try to use the VR gimick, instead opting to play normal games in 3D.  Of course, the image quality is nowhere near that of Morpheus/PS4.

Yeah apart from VB being monochrome the biggest difference is head tracking.

VR might change the preference from 3rd person to 1st person games. 3rd person is a crutch to overcome the small field of view you get by playing on a tv accross the room. On PC you can more easily scan your surrounding with the mouse and have a much higher fov since you sit close to the screen. Plus hardcore pc gamers choose for a multi monitor setup to get a better view of the surroundings. 3rd person is popular on consoles to help with situational awereness. In VR you get a full 100 degree fov and can easily look around. I think the need for 3rd person will go away.

Ofcourse games will have to change. No more peaking around corners or over walls with the camera, but you could hold out a little mirror to look around a wall, need gameplay mechanic. Also combat will have to become tighter, more one on one, keep your back to a wall instead of an overhead camera while you're getting rushed from all sides, spamming the area effect attack button. A 1st person Diablo, would that be possible? It opens up new multiplayer teamwork where watching eachothers back becomes a real thing.

it will works great for casual games only, if it priced right, we could see a new Wii kind of attracting sales from casual gamers...

I am confused; don't we always refer to our actions in games as our actions?

I personally think first person would be better for near every game. The thought of playing a first person HD Pokemon RPG is tantalizing. Could you imagine seeing the size of a charizard and lobbing a pokeball at it? Or first person battles against other online players? These are the kind of games VR needs.

With that being said VR is undoubtedly the next step in gaming. The real question is timing and execution. What they need to do is successfully market a console that has a VR headset as it's core with a regular controller bundled in for games that want to stick with legacy style gameplay (ie no virtual reality)

I don't see how they are mutually exclusive. What you have just described is exactly what was haooenning before consoles came to fore. We had the arcades with bite sized difficult experiences, then all of a sudden you could have the arcades in your living room. I don't see how what you just said couldn't also work for consoles or PC. if its good enough for people to go somewhere and pay money for a quick skill based fix, then why wouldn't they prefer buying the game and playing at home whenever they want? 

I have a hard time envisioning a parent buying a child something that completely secludes him from the real world, which is how this will be perceived and to a degree rightly so.  There's also the awkwardness of the whole thing.  People are self conscious beings; the thought of them waving there arms around in the real world to interact in a virtual space while people in the real world just see them waving their arms around?  There's a good chance a lot of people won't be comfortable with that so the VR potential is limited to more simplistic experiences that wouldn't involve the sophisticated 3D movement that is being pushed as a major part of VR.  And then there's the issue of the social disconnect that VR inherently brings.  If you are an adult with a family, putting on a full face mask and sound proof headphones would just be odd and also potentially a bad idea if you have small children.  These headsets will also cost almost as much as a console, so there's a significant entrance fee here.  Basically, I would say the difference here between old arcades and consoles is that guying the VR headset would be the equivalent of buying an arcade cabinet, with all the clunkiness and impracticality that entails.  

VR is a game changer just as motion controls were back in 2006.

Seems hard to imagine, as you usually rotate the camera around the character. In VR your head movement controls the looking around part which would be very odd if that made 'you' swing around the character. I guess you can at least move your head side to side trying to look around the character in front of you.

The most negative thing is what I was complaining about since the first day Sony released Move. The navigator doesn't have the ball and the camera doesn't track its movement! I knew it was stupid from day one and now it's clearly visible. Though I guess they'll just tell us to use the DS4 in the left hand to use analog, buy still it's not the best option.

Apart from that - looks cool, but it won't set the world on fire. I doubt anyone will risk investing big bucks and involving their best dev teams for these games, which will be the major problem. It needs software to sell.