One of the objections to OOO, I think, is purely institutional. Not even to do with the content of institutions, but with their dynamics as systems, with some human psychology thrown in as part of the basic energy that circulates in them.
Systems, like other beings, exist in a state of tension between inconsistency (existence) and consistency (absorption into some other system). To maintain the system, there must be some kind of constant reinvention-while-remaining-the-same: inertia.
It seems as if some scholars, in particular those emerging with freshly minted Ph.D.s, are keen to establish themselves, quite naturally, within the inertial system of the humanities. This involves, in the main, triangulating oneself in relation to one's main adviser and one's secondary sources. These sources tend to be Elders of the tradition in which one seems to find oneself. Thus when I started out, it was acceptable to triangulate myself via my main teacher and Derrida or Marx. But not so much Deleuze and Guattari. It was 1992, and they were not yet considered Elders, but rather disruptive brothers who might pull things in a very different direction. This was difficult for me, a huge fan of their work.
This seems to be happening with OOO. A small group of siblings versus the Oedipal tension of triangulation. (One of the triangulation points can now be, but need not be, Deleuze and Guattari, rather ironically, for those who know their work as an assault on Oedipus.)
Our other sin appears to be to do with not-being-French. Distance is required for accurate triangulation, and French texts supply this for us Anglo-Americans, just as brie triangulates jack cheddar.