unconfirmed I'm fairly certain as a patent doesn't mean its in their final product I don't believe

regardless seems unecessary and unlikely for the simple fact that the Switch already has enough going for it... its a home console and handheld in one. Throwing in some other element seems like a mess

Framerate, resolution and antialiasing all play a huge part of creating an immersive VR experience, all things that require good performance, regardless of if the game aims for realistic or not.

You'll note I said visual quality, not realism.

It reminds me of the Wii remote versus Playstation Move. I don't know whether Nintendo will go into VR this gen and whether the screen is infact 1080p, but if Nintendo did do VR the most important aspect of bringing it to the masses is accessibility and game experiences. The industry will always overestimate the importance of visuals, I remember when Wii sports was first shown off, one of the main talking points was how bad the graphics looked (when infact they were just intentionally simplistic) and the lack of 1:1 accuracy. Suddenly the system is out and Wii sports is a phenomenom.

If Nintendo made a Metroid VR experience , Made a Pokemon Go/Snap type VR game,  VR Mario Kart experience, VR Splatoon experience. And they do this using the components which already come with the Switch (joycons with motion control & IR, Switch Screen+ Gyro etc) and a $50 headset, the number of active VR users on Switch would outnumber those on other platforms within a matter of weeks.

framerate, resolution, antialiasing can all be achieved to a very high standard on the Switch's hardware. The only reason they wouldn't be is if your visual standard required extensive poly counts, realistic artstyle which require high resolution textures, excessive lighting effect/particle effects etc

Walmart have lots in stock, but theyre not actually being sold by Walmart they're being sold through Walmart by scalpers for $640+

Silly me, I forgot you have the detailed system specifications to hand to make such statements on.

Yes, that is sarcasm.

You seem to intentionally ignore my point. From what I gather, any decent hardware this side of the decade can out 1080p, 4x AAA etc. Its a case of balancing this against visual detail like poly count, texture size, txture fx like bump maps,  lighting & shadows, particle fx etc..

2 pages prior I included native 60fps Wii games (which is like 1/100th the Tegra X1 specs) outputting at 1080p (like 8x the games native Wii resolution). I think people grossly overestimate the minimimum graphical requirements for an enjoyable VR experience. No doubt if Nintendo did VR the visuals would be better than those Wii games, but the idea that you need a monster of a machine to deliver VR is based on an expectation of games looking (or trying to look) like modern AAA affair  as opposed to embracing the technical limitations and creating the graphics around what can be achieved when hitting the required performance benchmarks like high res/fps/aliasing.

VR on PC is amazing folks.

nice i will just play with my PSVR lmao

If Sony can do it to platformers, why can't Nintendo do it to VR?