Still, there are obstacles. SpaceX still needs to demonstrate the ability to consistently produce and launch rockets many times a year after the June accident caused an unexpected, six-month setback, something it will do with several flights planned for the weeks ahead.
Just because it's relatively cheap to use Space X, if I have a 50-50 ( better or worse) chance that my $100 million satellite that took several years to design and build is going to get blown up, I'll pass.
So I'm guessing (and I'm more or less an interested layman here) it would depend o the cost of the payload. Even if reusable rockets turn out to be less reliable, they'd still open up new possibilities IF they're substantially cheaper. If cheaper launches become available, that opens the market up for new, less expensive types of payloads that nobody would've thought of before. If your payload costs two million dollars to build (and to build again if you lose one), you'd probably launch it with the one-million-dollars-per-launch vehicle that's three times more likely to explode. If your payload costs one BILLION dollars, you probably[*] launch with the 60 million per launch vehicle that's three times less likely to explode, because the launch costs are just 6% of your payload anyway. But the thing is, that 2 million dollar payload would not be launched AT ALL if the cheap launcher wasn't available (at least not if the payload is heavy enough so it can't be launched with 10 others on the same flight).
[*] Even that's not an automatic no-brainer decision if you're thinking of buying one hundred one-billion dollar payload launches and want to have as many dollars in orbit per million dollars expended as possible -- in that case you might launch even the expensive payloads with the cheaper launcher.