I'm really starting to think that a lot of the money in the pokersphere is gravitating towards PLO. I've been playing NL Omaha with my friends at house games and subsequently occasionally online for about 5 years now but its only been about 10-15% of my OL play. I'm contemplating making the leap over and putting my hours on the table and in the books / videos into PLO instead of NLHE but there are somethings that are making me a bit weary of such a change. To name a few daunting factors:

~ Higher variance (I have heard that the variance in PLO is double that of hold'em.
~ Obviously this leads to potentially bigger downswings
~ A lot of gray area when trying to put your opponents on ranges
~ Harder to multi-table
~ Less tournaments

The PROS however are,

~ Due to the doubled variance this also means that you can potentially win twice as much
~ It seems much softer than NLHE (maybe I'm wrong / would like to hear an argument against this point)
~ Given that its softer you can sharpen your edge at a much faster rate than you can playing NLHE
~ Its funner IMO
~ I think the biggest PRO is that most of Philg's videos are and will be concentrated on PLO

Please list some of either category that I've overlooked or just share some of your thoughts on what you think