That was the point. That is what people said about those products in the beggining as they slowly gained traction. Cars, TVs, and Smartphones where not overnight success's, they took decades of consumer availability before they became mainstream, and decades more before they became the norm.

PSVR, HTC Vive, and Oculus Rift are the first actual viable consumer VR devices that have hit the market. They are not mass market ready. They do a great job offering an enjoyable VR expereince, but it takes work from the user to make it happen. Getting set up to play is much like old cars where you had to crank it over, adjust the timing and fuel mixture manually and on the fly to keep them running. It is not something everyone is willing to deal with even if it offers a better expereince. To some the improved expereince itself, might not even be there even if it took zero effort. With each revision going forward though, the expereince gap between TV and Controller to VR Headset and Motion Tracking Peripherals will only increase, while usability will become easier and easier. 

It may be another decade or even two before AR/VR becomes Main stream, and yet another before it becomes the norm, but I believe it is just as inevitable as Cars, TV, and Smartphones. It may not be Sony, HTC, or Oculus that mak it happen, but some company out their will get the balance of expereince and ease of use nailed, and AR/VR will enhance every aspect of our lives, and more so than any other products that have come before.

No you still don't get it. Those examples are nonsensical because the benefit to the average consumer became abundant apparently very quickly. It was very obvious within a decade of the first commercial automobiles that they were far better than horses to get around and move things, but no one could afford them. It was very obvous that the television offered people a cinema-like experience in their own home, and allowed news and other media outlets to share information more effectively, but no one could afford them. Smartphones allowed business people and others comminicate far more effectively than a standard cell phone, but no one could afford them..Meanwhile, what is the the advantage VR offers over regular gaming? Ignoring all of the drawbacks and limitations, at the end of the day, some games in some genres feel more immersive. That's it. Not exactly the kind of thing that takes an industry by storm. As I said, all of those products I mention before became massive successes the moment they became affordable to the average consumer. You are completely off base claiming that cars, TVs and smartphones took decades to become mainstream. They took decades to become affordable while the wealthy used them to enhance their lives. VR doesn't have that limitation, and hasn't since the 90's, possibly earlier.
It's complete horseshit that PCVR, HTC Vive and Oculus Rift are the first viable consumer VR devices. The fucking Sega Genesis had a VR headset planned for it for fuck sakes. Nintendo actually released the Virtual Boy, and as it turns out "the future" wasn't worth only gaming at 20-30 minutes at a time until they got used to it? How can you possibly keep pretending that the gaming industry hasn't been pushing VR in one way or another since the 90s? Current VR headsets are just the first ones to benefit from internet hype. They are as mass market ready as any VR headset will ever be. All PSVR requires is putting a camera on top of your TV. It's as complicated to set up as a Wii. Somehow they managed to sell 100 million of them, while might I add, many people advocated that motion controls were the future of gaming, and how that was going to change the industry as we know it going forward. Yet here we are a decade later, and the only gaming experience that consistently uses motion control is.... VR.

VR has zero excuses, and that doesn't change no matter how many frail excuses you try to make. If VR was going to make it mainstream, it would have done so by now.

AR/VR is going to "enhance every aspect of our lives" is it? lol. Now I've heard it all. Maybe Sony should make that universal OS you're advocating for VR exclusive, because that makes about as much sense as any of your ideas about pretty much anything when it comes to gaming.

The souce I linked says otherwise, it actually says it's from early this month

Yeah i bought two psvr's, sold the 1st on cos it didnt get played, bought another one and guess what? Yep that doesnt get played either. More fool me i guess......

The Virtual Boy was (despite its name) no VR headset, it was a different kind of head-mounted display! It was missing the essential feature of motion sensors, so you can look around in a virtual world by head movements. Without this motion input, it was just a bad monochrome monitor with very low resolution, low contrast (red & black... really?) and low FOV strapped to your head.

SEGA's VR glasses weren't a "viable consumer VR device" either: it remained only a prototype, and was never released to the general public. Then CEO Tom Kalinske stated that the system was not released due to it inducing motion sickness and severe headaches in users.

The most promising commercial VR headset in the 1990s was the Forte VFX1, but it still had much more issues than benefits and died with MS-DOS.

You make it sound that there were viable consumer VR devices available after the 1990s all the time and that the Oculus Rift/Vive/PSVR were nothing special at all.

So which consumer VR headsets were the best and second best in 2000 - 2004? Which consumer VR headsets were the best and second best in 2005 - 2009? Which consumer VR headsets were the best and second best in 2010 - 2014?

I completely agree with you. The VR stuff really started recently with Oculus Rift for actually being a VR device and not a TV that is strapped on your head. The VR devices today are far more advanced and obviously couldn't be achieved decades ago. That's how I always imagined VR to be. To be in a virtual world and interacting with it. 

It's sad that not more devices have been sold, but given the actual price of those I can fully understand it. Vive and Rift are also far more advanced than a PSVR, though. I see PSVR as a more limited seated experience whereas for Rift and Vive you can walk around in the environment. The immersion is just awesome. 

It's good the headset is still selling. What's bad is that all top 10 most played titles are old games, apart from the free rec room. No more recently released games in the top 10 than Skyrim last November.

I haven't played it much anymore this year after almost playing it exclusively for the first year. I'm still waiting for a full length game to draw me back in. 130 hours in Skyrim VR set my expectations to having a VR world to visit every night for several months and it's hard to go back to bite sized experiences. I did play quite a bit of Wipeout VR, however racing games are not as fun to replay as RPGs. It is great though in VR.

Hopefully Blood and Truth and Astro Bot: Rescue Mission can give us a lengthy expereince. Both titles are looking to be on another level of polish compaired to most things on the Platform. I am still hoping for Fallout 4 VR to be a surprise release for the Holidays as well. 

Right now most of my time is spent in MLB Home Run Derby VR and Gran Turismo Sport VR Time Trials. I did play Pixel Ripped 1989 and Tiny Trax today. PR1989 is an awesome GB style platformer with a few twists. I think it is only 3 levels long though. Sadly I suck at side scrolling platformers, so I was unable to get through the 3rd level during this session with the game.

I am hoping we get to see what is coming out of Manchester Studio sometime soon. They have been working on something VR related for 3 years now, so I am hoping they have a AAA VR title in the works.

Okay, so if you know all of the consumer level VR headsets in the past, and pretend they didn't count for a variety of arbitrary reasons, then this new series are the first.

Makes sense.

Manufacturers stopped trying to make VR headsets for the masses for years because they always sold horrifically bad and weren't great experiences. Did that ever happen with cars, or tvs or smartphones? No? Hmm.... I wonder why. Just because this new grouping is better doesn't mean we can just discount the past and pretend it never happened. We don't say that the first real commercially viable television were HD LCD panels because they were *so much better* than the CRT TVs before them. We don't say the Tesla Model X was the first real commercially viable SUV because it was the first one to get a five star safety rating in every category and had so many features that mass-market SUVs never had in the past? We don't say the iPhone was the first commercially viable smartphone because it was *so much better* than the ones that came before it. But in VR? Let's ignore the decades of failed VR headsets. Let's pretend VR *really started* with the Oculus Rift.

Sorry. That's a fairy tale you tell yourself to make VR sound like it's more than the niche product than it's always ever been. Need I remind you that the Virtual Boy actually sold at a higher rate than the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift before Nintendo canned it? 

So let me ask you this. Let's say the PSVR2 launches with the PS5. It costs $250. It has dual 4K screens, and a much better viewing angle. All games run at 120Hz. The screendoor effect is practically non-existent. Will that device be "ready for mainstream" and if so, assuming the PS5 sells as well as the PS4,  how much should we expect the PSVR2 to sell over its lifetime? Or will you just shift the goalposts and pretend that the PSVR2 is the "first viable consumer VR device" and start all of this nonsense again?

Now I'm confused... were they pushing VR since the 90s or have they stopped making VR headsets for the masses for years?