Yep, can totally see developers investing the time and money to fine tune an engine to run VR without any guarantee one will ever exist.

Be real man.

Try it. All games that are played on a Nintendo System have to be certified by Nintendo. If they're not, then the game can't be digitally signed, and the game won't run on Retail Switch units.

Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have complete control over the kinds of games that are released on their system. One of the companies I worked for released a camera-based game for the PS4/XB1 that used a prop. We had to get special permission from both Sony and Microsoft to use a prop with the camera that was technically against the rules because of how the prop would need to be used was potentially dangerous. If we didn't get that permission, the game never would have been allowed to be released. If Nintendo doesn't want the Switch used as a VR headset, it won't be.

It happened on iPhone.

Who says Nintendo wouldn't approve a game with a VR option? It's literally just a split-screen mode. It's not the same thing.

My point wasn't whether or not they would or wouldn't. My point was that you said they had no control over whether or not someone could make VR games for the Switch, and I was just pointing our to you that they actually do have that control.

Oops. Totally forgot Cardboard existed for a second.

You proved my point though, so all is well. You're right. There is a mighty big step up in price tag and it does more than explain the disparity. That's my point. 

I don't know why you're still going on. Don't you get it? None of that matters. Even if the Switch VR didn't come with a solution for depth tracking, it would still sell better than the competition because, as you literally just said, the mighty big step down in price would create a disparity in sales. People don't care that it's not as good when they're paying that much less for it. That's common sense. I don't buy a $20 shirt expecting $80 quality. The question is, is this $20 shirt good for $20?

VR on the Switch for $100 would far and away blow the competition out of the water in the same price bracket in almost every concievable way. The only downgrade would be the screen quality. Better games, bigger, more ambitious, have higher production values, more polished games, and more of them released at a consistent pace. Better control in every concievable way without the need to buy unreliable third party controllers. And remember, those cell-phone VR experienced has blown every single dedicated PC/Console gaming HMD out of the water in terms of sales without any of that. Because nobody really cares about any of the things you're talking about when it costs that much.

You know why the stock is ample on the HMDs that sell better? I'll let you put 2 and 2 together there. You know why the cheaper PSVR is selling more than the superior but more expensive Vive and Oculus? I think you get my point. Nintendo doesn't need luck. They have basic economics.

Oh, well what I meant was that Nintendo doesn't need to make the HMD for VR games to exist on the Switch. Someone else could, and it would be possible. My bad. You're right.

his numbers are wrong, Samsung just said last month that they sold 5 million Gear VR