According to you, it's not possible to use it and dislike it. Also, remember that when 3D TVs where launched, people bought it and enjoyed. Didn't saved them of the upcoming flop.

I used Oculus Rift in several ocasions. One even to help a friend test its project for his master's thesis. I also used Cardboard but I won't count it for my critics because it's pretty low cost. Didn't tried Vive (nobody I know has it) and PSVR isn't out yet.

So because some people buyed it and liked it means it will be a success? It's a classic falacy. 500k people also bought the VirtualBoy. 15M bought Vitas or Wii Us and both are recognized as failures. VR is a platform. It needs games developed just for it. And to really push units, it needs expensive AAA games that will make people buy them. That alone makes Rift and Vive DOA, with PSVR having some minimal chances because Sony will back it with games. AAA games need to sell millions of units. So, VR devices will need to push millions and millions of units before being viable. That's tought for something that's expensive and immature.

Let's talk 3D TVs. They were just a tiny bit more expensive than regular models and the price to create 3D content for movie companies was zero because they already did it for cinema. It flopped because it underdelivered. People expected 3D TVs to have images that appeared to jump of the screen and in 99% of the cases, the effects were underwhelming. Before you make more assumptions, I have a 3D set. And I like it. People are expecting that you will play a VR shooter and feel like you are right there in the battlefield (no pun intended, EA. But it could be a nice slogan for BF VR). You won't. Your eyes say that you are running with a gun, but you other senses say "no, idiot. You are in your couch holding a controller".

If you plan to answer this, use real arguments instead of assumptions to avoid derailing the thread.

I didn't say that someone who uses VR can dislike it. You implied in your first post that it doesn't work. When you say things like "it won't offer the much promised presence" you're saying that it won't do what it actually does.

In fact. If what you're saying were true, horror movies wouldn't work. You're never really in danger, but your heart rate still climbs as the tension does. And that's using a significantly more limited means of providing immersion.

Where exactly did I say VR would be a commercial success? My post was saying that your analysis was way off the mark. So much so, that it's actually hard to believe you've used it. Especially when you say things like "nausea is a huge issue" when it hasn't been a major issue for VR in over a year and will only improve with time as developers get more experience with VR.

Star Wars

VR gaming

The Last of Us

Just to make sure, are you associating overhyped with overrated? Want to make sure with the last one, because honestly speaking I don't know if I consider it overhyped, I might agree with the overrated, but I very much enjoy the game as well. 

Presence is more than simulating the visual information. If you get the visual information that you are riding a horse climbing a mountain, it won't work. Because your other senses say you aren't.

You comparison between movies and VR is wrong by a basic V characteristic: the way your brain undestands the image. A movie is seen in the same way as a paiting or an outdoor. Your brain knows it isn't real. When you are using VR, your brain interprets the visual feed as real. That's why some people will have nausea, because your brain is trying to combine the balance data from your labyrinth and the visual information and is finding a severe mismatch.

So while movies have more primitive immersion resources, VR has your brain actually fighting against it. This article is pretty informative about the real problem that VR has to fix: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-virtual-isnt-real-to-your-brain-judder/.

VR necessarily HAS to be a commercial success to exist. Nobody will keep making US$ 40M games for a niche platform. It also doesn't have "time" for developers get used to it. It's make or break. Nobody will buy a US$ 400 device thinking "oh, in two years games will be incredible" and devs won't make games thinking "oh, all VR content is crap now, but gamers are pacient and will wait".

I really, really want VR to succeed. I just don't think that the tech is here already. Is expensive and, currently, underwhelming. We have 3 companies betting big on it. HTC is half-bankrupt and desperate, Oculus is a startup with Facebook funding that can't even deliver the few orders it has and Sony is just experimenting, like they did with PS Home, Move, Eyetoy and such. Just throwing ideas and waiting for any of them to work.

For Phones, you can get top of the line looks and performance on the cheap as well. Look at Motorola devices or OnePlus devices. They look awesome and often outperform the comparable Apple product and have better reliability. I worked for a massive company where, due to whining, gave in and started deploying Apple tablets and phones. The amount of device failures due to bad manufacturing was astounding. Even Blackberry had a better track record. We ended out having to purchase AppleCare on every device because more than 1/3rd of all devices failed, not including drops, within 1 year.

Apple devices are just popular, but from my experience and knowledge of other available products, they are simply overpriced garbage.

I will agree that Apple Phones and Tablets are very good at being a phone for people who don't know how to use technology. Apple has mastered the art of dumbing down technology. The cost of this is making advanced use and configuration nearly impossible without "jailbreaking."