This can't be serious... Everyone is talking about ppi in the thread, in case you haven't noticed. 

So now you're essentially trying to argue that the swtich has a "good enough" pixel density, and that it's resoution doesn't matter, when you're ignoring the fact that the Swtich actually has worse pixel densitiy than the likes of PSVR, Oculus Rift, HTC Vive and pretty much any smart phone made in the past couple years. It's still going to offer a worse experience than any of those. This is still an argument against the Switch and you don't even know it.

So you're admitting that resolution and screen size aren't related?

It's not really ppi. It's ppd: pixel per degree. The display resolution needs to be stretched out to fill the entire fov. 

Ppi doesnt take viewing distance into consideration, while ppd is really affected by viewing distance.

Three things: if someone thinks Switch or smartphone cardbox VR would be good enough, then it is, I really can't argue him/her. Playing on a bigger screen on a close distance brings up the same problems as close to eye VR on a small screen. And, Switch having worse VR than something else, isn't making the "something else" any better, the something else is still just as bad as it was (and something being better isn't making Switch VR any worse than it would be). I think I even went on to say the whole VR is bad at the moment. As I already said, this is not black and white, but most of it is grey.

Of course they are. 

Of course they are. 

I really agree your comment on the gradient part - which is pretty much what Spemanig said too - it's just that everyone arguing him is making the binary argument. 

If you look at the comment of the guy I replied to, first he posted a link to an editorial that was talking about 8K not being enough, whereas the whole discussion is essentially about sub-2K resolutions. So far all we have is underpowered hardware because upping the resolution to a decent level, would mean lower polycount and less effects. I'm not sure how much high end PC's could do, but when talking about decent VR, I think we can put PSVR, Samsung Gear and Switch cardboard VR into the same box of low end virtual reality. If you think PSVR is good enough, it's easy to understand why Switch cardboard would be good enough.

Nice to see you noticed the sarcastic tone in my post, though.

I see the point you're trying to make, but I can't agree on putting PSVR and Samsung Gear anywhere near the same bag, especially if we're talking about gaming VR.

No mobile VR can do gaming. On the other hand we can play Resident Evil 7 in PSVR (and soon Dirt Rally VR)

PSVR= Gaming

Mobile VR= 360 Videos

720p 'mobile vr'= terrible even at videos, gaming don't even think about it

Try to understand that VR are not set in stone.. Even Oculus..Vive and PSVR use total diffent setups..

The type of sensors.. the numbers of sensors.. the placement.. the screen.. optics.. and diffent graphic types and effects and much more.. are still being testet (and will for years to come)

To think that Nintendo.. One of the pioners in VR gaming.. the biggest gaming company ever.. the master of thinking new and inovate..  the company that acording to them self have testet VR the last +15 years.. and hold a lot of gaming related VR patents..

Could come up with a new way of doing it.. is not that fare out... chill.. :)