"Good Enough" drives the mainstream, and so I agree with Howard that for the mainstream consumer, the hardware just has to be good enough to be fun to play in order for it to sell. But his statement really only applies to the mainstream, aka the "Casual Gamer". And it suggests that the only thing that really matters is how well something sells.
There are always people who care enough to want better and will spend the money on it. The Vive blew me away the first time I used it, but I also immediately wanted a higher resolution, less screen door effect, better framerates, and better optics. And I am willing to spend money to get it. I know that in order for there to be a third generation of VR, there has to be a cheap alternative, but that cheap alternative is not for me, so the better specs DO matter. If they didn't, you wouldn't have PS and XBOX still developing high end consoles because they didn't sell like Nintendo did. And look at the whole story with Nintendo - for a long time specs didn't matter, but I don't even see Nintendo on the store shelves any more, only PS and XBOX. Is it possible that by not trying to compete on the cutting edge that people lost interest?
Besides, something has to set the bar or nobody would buy it at $200. People will drop $200 on PSVR because they want the experience of a Vive or Rift but can't or won't spend the money. $200 seems cheap in comparison. If PSVR was the gold standard in VR and the most expensive, it would be too much and people would be waiting for the $100 option.
And I think the buzz created by the top end devices made people want to try out the PSVR. There always has to be something that gets people excited and, to put it bluntly, makes people envious. It's what drives the mainstream to want to spend money on entry level stuff. The converts here who dipped a toe in with the PSVR would never have done it if a bunch of people weren't raving about the experience of the top end.