Personally I don't think VR-III is a significant part of the marketability of this lens. If the marketing of 1 stop better VR is trying to say this compensates the loss of a stop at max aperture, i.e. 70-200 f/2.8 VRII == 70-200 f/4 VRIII, then I agree with the above posters, that's nonsense.
That said, I believe people looking for a 70-200 f/4 are doing so because they want something smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the 70-200 f/2.8. This defines the market for this lens, and Nikon appears to have hit these marks perfectly. I doubt the market would have changed by a single purchase had the f/4 lens been offered with 2nd-gen VR.
Simply enough, this is the newest pro (gold band) lens from Nikon and includes its latest incremental improvement in VR. Just because it's a newer lens does not in any way mean it's an upgrade to the 70-200 f/2.8. Indeed, even including VRIII, it's a downgrade, or better put a compromise lens for those who'd prefer something smaller/lighter/cheaper.
The idea of a 70-200 f/2 is intriguing, but just take a look at the existing 200 f/2 to start imagining what a beast (and how expensive) that lens would be.