According to people who have actually played it.
Like these people?
http://martincaine.com/gaming/day_one_with_the_oculus_rift_nausea
http://killscreendaily.com/articles/articles/what-kind-game-will-require-oculus-rift/
I'll grant you basement.
You surmised that I pulled this out of my ass. I didn't. I'm a scientist that's done research on both presence and cybersickness. (and saying it's alleviated by reducing latency is frankly pretty lolworthy to me; even if all usability gripes are diminished you're still left with vection induced by peripheral vision (being shit out of luck if you're a woman), and proprioceptive incongruence. The only thing strongly reducing cybersickness in this sense is attenuation, but who wants to attenuate to vomiting?)
In any case, as such I had quite a few talks with researchers in the HMD field--mind you this was six years ago so ancient history to you but I think the principle holds, and they told me that many people liked HMDs less than other virtual reality forms also because of the anxiety that you were effectively blind to the outside world. It's not unlike putting your bed's headboard towards the door or sitting with your head facing the wall and your back towards a crowd of people, exposing yourself to attack. There's security in being able to glance away that you lose when immersing yourself completely. For some, this anxiety shifts into claustrophobia.
Of course people didn't report this from the Oculus Rift exposure, because they are self-selected tech enthusiasts.
And maybe all gamers are, making my point moot, and not creating a barrier for mainstream gamer appeal. Or also because people adapt to it very fast, and want to adapt to it because of positive word of mouth. For now at least, I remain a lot more skeptic than the average tech enthusiast raving about the thing.
Safe to say that nothing will convince you that this tech is for real. Live in the past if you like.
Safe to say nothing will convince you that this tech isn't for real blabla.