Last night I could have been alone after my wife and kids were in bed. Instead, I was in a 5-on-5 person zero-G battle akin to the Battle Arena in Ender's Game. Communication, coordination, and just trash talking are critical.
The night before I went on Star Trek missions with three friends (only one I had met in person). Despite them being from 3 different parts of the world, I could look around the bridge and see them right there. We may as well have been in the same room, with eye contact, body language, and hand gestures.
Facebook bought Oculus because of the pro-social opportunity to connect people worldwide. Though Spaces is early and a bit rough, it clearly demonstrates how compelling it is to have face-to-face talks with people inside and outside of VR.
Echo Arena: https://venturebeat.com/2017/05/22/lone-echos-vr-multiplayer...
Star Trek Bridge Crew: https://uploadvr.com/star-trek-bridge-crew-review/
Facebook Spaces: https://www.facebook.com/spaces
If quality VR were available at a price point similar to a phone, comfortable to wear for hours at a time, I have no doubt many people would get one. If it also comes with quality AR, most will probably never take them off.
Except many of these people are using their phones to connect with other people. Literally the opposite of "antisocial technology".
That's why I believe VR will become mainstream as soon as the technical challenges are solved, just like phones.
it is not like a futuristic product that for now is too big or battery doesn't last, etc. it is by definition something nobody wants because it is exclusive, in the sense that only one person at a time can experience it and be completely cut off from the surroundings. and there is no way to solve that even in infinite interactions.
it migth work for teenager gamers and porn. who knows. but definitely will never see a huge adoption because it is inherently anti-social.