Gaming

VR definitely feels like the next 2D->3D paradigm shift, with similar challenges. except it hasn't taken off like 3D did IMO for 2 reasons:

1. VR presents unique ergonomic challenges.

Like 3D, VR significantly increased graphics processing requirements and presented several gameplay design challenges. A lot of the early solutions were awkward, and felt more like proof-of-concepts than actual games. However, 3D graphics can be controlled (more or less) by the same human interface devices as 2D, so there weren't many ergonomic/accessibility problems to solve. Interfacing VR with the human body requires a lot of rather clunky equipment, which presents all kinds of challenges like nausea, fatigue, glasses, face/head size/shape, etc.

2. The video game industry was significantly more mature when (modern) VR entered the scene.

Video games were still a relatively young industry when games jumped to 3D, so there was much more risk tolerance and experimentation even in the "AAA" space. When VR took off in 2016, studios were much bigger and had a lot more money involved. This usually results in risk aversion. Why risk losing millions on developing a AAA VR game that a small percentage of gamers even have the hardware for when we can spend half (and make 10x) on just making a proven sequel? Instead large game publishers all dipped their toes in with tech demos, half-assed ports, and then gave up when they didn't sell that well (Valve, as usual, being the exception).

I honestly don't believe the complaints you hear about hardware costs and processing power are the primary reasons, because many gaming tech, including 3D, had the same exact problem in the early stages. Enthusiasts bought the early stuff anyway because it was groundbreaking, and eventually costs come down and economies of scale kick in.