First they should ask if you want to get into VR. I mean, there is a certain crisis, as the hype did not live up and obvious problems (sickness) remained obvious.
As a professional VR developer I'm unaware of this crisis. There's also about as many headsets sold as people thought there would be (and way more GearVR's than expected). I haven't gotten sick from a VR experience (that I wasn't half-way through building) in over a year. The headsets are good enough that they don't make you sick by default (like they used to) and to make somebody sick you have to go against best design practises.
I'm not a VR developer, but from an outside perspective it actually looks like there are a few different crises.
1) Developers seem to be interested in heavyweight VR systems like Vive and Rift, while users (based on sales figures, anyway) seem to be interested in inexpensive, cordless systems like GearVR and Cardboard. Which leads to the awkward situation where all the innovative software is coming out for hardware that very few users actually own. (And then that market gets segmented even further -- with Rift development now orienting around Rift + Touch, for instance, which leaves users without Touch behind.)
2) "It hasn't made me sick in over a year!" is not an answer to concerns about VR making people sick that is going to get people to rush out and buy hardware. Once a product has developed a rep for making people sick (not everybody, of course, but all it takes is enough people), it can take a long, long time to shake that rep off.
3) There's a fundamental problem that nobody in this generation of VR has been able to really solve yet, which is making a headset that is comfortable to wear for long periods. Even simpler solutions like GearVR are heavy enough that you feel their weight after wearing them for 30 minutes or more, and with developers pushing the platform towards bigger/deeper experiences, the trend in hardware doesn't seem like it'll be running primarily towards weight reduction. This could lead to a self-reinforcing cycle of pushing the tech further and further away from a mass audience, as VR enthusiasts (i.e. people who don't mind the weight of existing hardware) demand higher-resolution experiences, which leads to hardware companies pursuing more power instead of less weight, which leads to products that only sell to VR enthusiasts, who demand higher-resolution experiences, etc. Something similar to this happened to the market for flight simulations in the '90s, which resulted in one of the main categories of entertainment software evolving into a tiny niche market of interest only to obsessives.
None of which is to say that VR is doomed, or that these things are in reality as serious as they appear to be to an outsider. But I would say there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical that VR will become a big, mass-market hit, at least this go-around.
1. I think if you looked at the time and money spent in mobile headsets vs heavyweight systems it would tell a different story than sales figures. Better to make a few people love you then lots of people just sorta like you, and all that YC jazz.
2. I'm extremely susceptible to motion sickness and I've been trying most of the latest content so I think I'm a good canary to see if VR actually makes you sick anymore. I do think there are some perception problems that are lingering around longer than I thought they would, and this is a consumer awareness problem that as you say, will take some time to solve. Luckily I think its largely a moot point because everybody that tries good content realizes that it doesn't always make you sick and that they need to have one as soon as they can afford it.
3. I bet every future Oculus Rift and Vive generation will be lighter than they are today. Making a bet that a piece of consumer technology will get heavier and larger as time increases is generally an ill-advised move.
IMO Cardboard / GearVR is so different from the Vive / Rift+Touch right now that it is more useful to look at them entirely separately even though they are both technically "VR".
Cardboard and GearVR are relatively convenient and inexpensive but do not seem to be a very compelling product, since it is inconvenient compared to a monitor and frequently causes motion sickness, while offering few advantages. I have both and barely use them.
Vive and Rift+Touch are incredibly expensive and inconvenient (cumbersome set up, tethered, not portable). But a lot of the content basically never causes motion sickness (even for sensitive people). I think there is at least the beginning of a compelling product since I've had a chance to let a variety of non-technical people use it. Even if they're reluctant to try it at first, there is usually one of the programs they enjoy and keep using for quite a while.
I don't want to oversell the Vive - there are a lot of problems starting with the low resolution. But the problems with the high end systems will inevitably improve over the next few years - there will be more content, the resolution will improve, the cost will decrease, it will be more mobile etc. Also, I'd expect the Vive to be a relatively low capability device in the future - there's a lot of tech being shown off these days with eye / facial expression / body tracking that hasn't been integrated into a mass market product yet. It will be interesting to see what applications benefit from those.
The current low-capability systems seem like a dead end though, they've been available for a while and don't seem to have taken the world by storm, and once more capable mobile systems come out that will be the end of that UI paradigm. Simple things like reaching out and picking something up or moving it aren't possible, for interactive content the differences are really fundamental.
As far as the comfort issue goes, the weight distribution can be improved a lot without waiting for next-gen display technologies. PlayStation is the best this generation with a rigid band the headset hangs down from, and LGs upcoming one can flip up without taking it off all the way. Certainly putting all the weight on the face is a bad idea though and harder to avoid for phone-based systems.
Alright, let's make a different statement on simulator sickness:
In the last two years, I've personally demoed thousands of people in VR, in a wide variety of experiences. In that time, one--maybe two--got sick. And it was mild discomfort. It wasn't keeling over, puking blood in the streets like every tech journalist begging for clicks makes it out to be. I know a lot more people with problems handling shaky camera views in movies and first-person shooters on consoles.
"There's a fundamental problem that nobody in this generation of VR has been able to really solve yet, which is making a headset that is comfortable to wear for long periods."
The display itself could "flip up" so if you were doing world building back in the day - you could continue to use your keyboard and see your monitor, then "flip down" to try your world out.
Bad part about the system was the terrible FOV combined with very low res...
I was at a Boston VR[0] meetup last week, that was lifestreamed via youtube[1] to AltspaceVR[2]. An organizer used a recent Samsung phone in a Daydream headset (which has a closed back), to host the VR space. The biggest problem seemed the low duty cycle - use it for a few minutes, then take the phone out to cool down. Some demo setups at the recent VRLA Expo, had a small fan attached to the phone. So will we see a GTX 1060 equivalent on a flagship phone in 2 years... maybe? But I was struck by how far we've come already.