See, that's the thing, though. I don't think PSVR is VR's best be because I don't think anyone will be willing to pay more than $150 for an accessory device like a VR headset. And I do think that my shitty cellphone VR is impressive, even after the novelty.

I still fail to see how, for example, the Switch would be too weak to host VR experiences. Every game would basically look as good as Mario Kart 8 in split screen in VR. I don't see how that's an issue, especially if Nintendo actually implemented AA. Again, I can obviously imagine a gap in quality, and I'm not denying that, but my point is that I've wowed by VR on a cellphone too small for my headset with a sub-hd resolution screen, no controllers (motion or traditional), and with absolutely no ambitious games.

Where we disagree is that you don't think that a worse VR technical experience for cheaper would do better than the PSVR, while I think it would absolutely destroy PSVR, because no matter how much better PSVR is, people won't care because what ever Nintendo does will be cheaper, more accessable, more convenient, and have a more agressive and deliberate 1st party push, guaranteeing a steady push of high quality games. That's something no other VR headset has, and I don't think people will care enough about the quality difference for it to matter when it comes to mass market success, the same way people buying PSVR don't care that the Vive is better.

You seem stuck on the idea that the Switch isn't powerful enough for "real" VR games. Would Mario Kart 8 not count? Is the Switch not powerful enough to do that game in VR? Of course it is. It's all about building a game around your limitations. Would Mario Kart 8 not be a fun VR game? Would F-Zero not be fun in VR if it looked like an HD remaster of GX? What about Pilot Wings? How realistic would that game have to look for the experience of flying/gliding/hovering to be compelling? A lot of the novelty is wearing off because the games on mobile aren't good. Nintendo games would be good, regularly released, premium experiences, which is something VR still has a massive shortage of. Why does the Switch need to be more powerful for what is essentially just split screen mode?

I understand that, for example, an open world game would need to be 60fps, so that's essentially splitscreen and a perfect framerate, but that's totally achievable. The game just won't look as realistic as a 30fps single-screen open world game on the same system, which is fine because no one paying $100 for VR on the Switch is expecting a game that looks like TLoU in VR, the same way no one who buys VR on mobile expects something that looks like PSVR.

I can immediately see where the flaws of VR are. I can imagine how much better PSVR, Oculus, and Vive are. But there's not a doubt in my mind, even after playing on mobile, that the Switch would easily be home to the most successful VR experience from a mass market POV. If the experience on a $20 headset with an iPhone 5s and shitty mobile games is already this good, what Nintendo would do with the Switch would be out of this world for the mass market.

Nintendo would need something to solve drift, they'd need to figure out a way to cheaply and wirelessly allow people to lean, they'd probably want to figure out a way to output to the TV so the experience could be social, and they'd need to decrease the feeling that you're looking through binoculars (a feeling I know is still present in even the Vive), but they would absolutely and be a dominant force for VR. If there was nothing wrong with a tiny 640p screen for me, the mass market will be absolutely floored with a 720p screen, especially because the next best thing would be $500 to have everything the Switch would give you for $100 - $200 absolute max (on top of the price of the console).

I'm thinking of the Switch as the Wii of VR. Not the best VR, but the one that makes it mainstream.

Ok, I think there's some confusion here since you keep bringing up some mario kart 8 as an example.

A VR game needs to be rendered twice, once for each eye. So actually if you'd want to have a game run at 60fps, the game needs to be actually rendered at 120fps.

So in short, no a game like mk8 would not run on the switch in VR at 60fps.

For comparison, if you play Drive Club VR on the vanilla PS4, the level of graphics pretty much looks on part with what a late PS2 game would look like. The depth of view is really small. You see the turns when you're quite close to them as the world is not even rendered far enough with any level of detail that allows for a smooth experience.

And this is on a console at least 4 to 5 times more powerful than the Switch.

So, in short, could they bring some sort of VR to the Switch? Yes.

Would you be able to play any 'real' VR game on it? No

Would you be able to play some VR videos? Sure

Would your eyes bleed on a 6 inch screen / 720p VR setting? You can bet on it.

So yeah, you think it will be the Wii of VR, I'm saying it will be the Virtual Boy 2. Nothing like a wait and see at this moment :)

...I am confused. All VR does is split the screen in half. I've literally seen what it does on my phone. It's the exact same thing as any split screen mode. That's exactly what split screen mode is on MK8. I don't understand what you mean by 120fps. It's not. It's running two separate screens at 60fps. If you think I'm not aware that running two separate screens is more taxing than running one single screen on a game like that, I am aware. That's why MK8 can't, for example, run 4 player split screen at 60fps; it has to downgrade to 30fps then. But Mario Kart 8 does do 60fps with two players, which is exactly what's going on in VR. It's rendering two images of the same game.

So in short, yes a game like MK8 would run on Switch in VR @ 60fps.

Also, about Driveclub, I just looked at a comparison, and it definitely doesn't look like a PS2 game. I guess you could say it looks like a PS3 era game, but a lot of the "bad" you see in VR is just due to noticing workarounds devs always use when programming games because you're in the world. EDIT: The VR version also Driveclub runs at 30fps on the regular PS4, and has to run at 90fps split screen in PSVR. By your math, that's 180fps, or 6x the fps of the vanilla game, so obviously there's gonna be a downgrade there. Switch will never face such a downgrade targeting 60fps on two screens, especially with Nintendo games which mostly target 60fps anyway.

So again, the idea that the Switch is too weak to handle VR games is absolutely absurd. Even on mobile, a big reason you don't see big games on the marketplace is because of limits on game size enforced by Apple (and i assume android) that won't be there on Switch. The idea that 'real' VR games aren't possible on Switch is flagrantly false. They would be there aplenty.

I get that we're just talking about opinions here and all, but Gear VR sold 5m it's first year on the market, and that sold on just mobile hardware and freemium mobile games alone. If the PSVR sells even 2.5 million its first year, I'll be incredibly surprised. Much of that is due to a naturally higher attatch rate because it's on dedicated gaming hardware, an advantage the Switch will also have. The mass market doesn't care about the quality difference. They care about accessibility above all else, and $500 for everything just isn't accessible.

$100 for everything is, and I can't wrap my head around how you can see something like the Gear VR do demonstrably better than every other dedicated VR headset, but a better headset in literally every way for the exact same price wouldn't do better than PSVR. I guess we can wait and see, but the answer is already set in stone with numbers already. Again, my eyes didn't bleed at 640p. No one's will bleed at 720p, even at 6 inches. People don't care. Not with what you're getting for $100. And not with a software push that VR otherwise just isn't getting right now because no one wants to invest in it yet.

1- You're rendering a different frame per each eye, that's why in order to perceive 60fps, the total fps count must be 120. There are different techniques to achieve this effect, but still, it requires a much more taxing hardware to maintain this framerate on current demanding console/PC games than what the Switch is carrying.

It is pointless to compare it to a phone VR, because the types of VR experiences on a phone are not the ones we are talking about for real gaming. It's one thing to play the lates $1 shitty vr game on the app store and another thing trying to play resident evil 7 in VR. Hell,  really basic VR experiences like job simulator probably wouldn't even work on an Xbox 1, much less a low powered handheld device like the Switch.

1. I don't understand why you're overexplaining this. It's just splitscreen. It's not pointless to compare it to phone VR because phone VR SELLS MORE. It doesn't matter if it's inferior. It. Sells. More. Nintendo can do what phones do. And. Sell. More. It doesn't matter what the minumum specs for that game are. Phones prove VR can be on weaker devices. The requirements for a device with two individual 1440p screens running at 90fps each is obviously going to be higher than a device with a single 720p screen with split into two 60fps images. Just because those are the minumum requirements for that device doesn't mean it's the minumum spec for VR to be consumable or enjoyed. Again, look at Gear VR.

2. Gear VR sold well because it was cheap enough to be bundled with their phones and not be outrageous. Think PSVR would be more sucessful with an $800 console bundle? Didn't think so. But the Switch would do the same thing with a $400 (or less by the time Switch VR is actually out) console bundle? It would light the world on fire. It doesn't matter how much software Gear is selling. Mobile doesn't have a strong VR software push. The fact that it's selling so well without much software is a literal testiment to how much more important accessible tech it to superior tech. The fact that PSVR is an infinitely better experience with more embitious software, yet still is selling well below sales expectations should make that obvious. A Switch VR unit would have cheap hardware and an aggressive software push.

Are you really comparing a 1 GB mobile game to Switch/Console game sizes? Come on, dude.

You seem to have a lack of understanding of what phones can do. There is no difference between mobile and consoles other than power, control input, game size, software price, and a dedicated gaming audience. Stop looking at them as if there isn't connective tissue linking the two, because there is. If you want me to focus on comparing Switch VR to mobile VR, okay.

It's VR on your phone, only more powerful than the Wii U, so games can look exponentially better than mobile VR. Also, it has two motion controllers, so games will control much better than mobile VR games and because of that will have a completely different design philosophy that is actually nothing like mobile VR games and everything like traditional VR games, but I digress. The rumoured standard cart size for Switch games is 16 GB. Now it's entirely likely that games will be bigger, but I like working with limits to prove a point. Mobile games, on the extremely large end, tend to be about 3GB at the very maximum, and the standard is much lower; in the megabytes. That, combined with Switch's approx. 3GB Ram dedicated only to gaming, means that Switch VR game will have a far bigger scope than mobile VR games. Once again, closer to more dedicated gaming systems. I digress again. The standard for mobile games in terms of pricing is... free. The upper end will be like $4. The point is, unless a studio wants to go bankrupt, they can only put in as much money as they expect to get back. Switch, like other dedicated gaming platforms, has a pricing standard of $60. $60 games have higher production values because the procing model means that they can get that money back once games are sold. This becomes obvious when you see games like Bioshock Mobile charge $20 with much higher production. This means that Switch games will also have exponentially higher production values than literally any mobile VR game. One might call it... console-like. Anyway, the reason dedicated gaming devices can charge so much is because people buy dedicated gaming hardware to buy dedicated gaming software. People buy mobile hardware to... make phone calls. So, naturally, dedicated gaming hardware has better software sales at premium prices than mobile hardware does, meaning devs trying to make more ambitious games will develop for devices with a more reliable audience first. Switch just so happens to be a dedicated gaming system, and not a mobile gaming system, but we're comparing it to mobile right now.

So let's put together what we've learned. The Switch is like cellphone VR only more powerful than the Wii U (and much more powerful than your phone), two motion controllers, and games that are designed in every conceivable way like games on dedicated gaming hardware with an audience willing to pay for them because obviously they would be - the Switch is not a phone.

The only difference then is fidelity. Screen clarity. Which, like I've said, doesn't matter to the mass market when the device is $100-sh and the next best thing costs 5x more just for games that look better and nothing much else. But let's assume that you don't think that all of that qualifies as 'real' gaming in VR for some incomprehensible reason. Fine. It will be a good enough totally fake imitator to vastly outsell anything anyone else is doing, especially PSVR/Oculus/Vive, turning VR of every kind a mass market phenomenon that all VR would benefit from to some capacity. And then 'real' VR platforms like PSVR/Oculus/Vive would just get ports of the Switch's "fake VR" games, because that's how money works. You develop for the platform that makes you the most money, and then you port to everything else. And you should be happy about that, because now you'll get the best versions of 'fake VR' games.

3. So... It's not 90fps, which was supposed to be absolutely necessary for not getting sick and VR having any hopes of selling on Switch? My bad. I made an incorrect assumption based solely on information you gave me that I trusted. As for "upscaling" to 120fps... It's not. It's just rendering two independant 60fps images. The literal exact same thing every split screen multiplayer game does. Either way, it's still a difference of 30fps vanilla and, by your math, 120fps when you combine the workload of rendering two separate images at 60fps simultaneously, which of literally just split screen. MK8 already runs at 60fps - most Nintendo games do. Doing what VR does would, once again, only require rendering the game in split screen, which MK8 already does whenever you play split screen. VR isn't some magic new way to render games. The downgrade that happened in Drive Club was obvious. It was never going to look the same doing 4x the work, especially when it strives for realism. Mario Kart was designed to look good and run well in splitscreen because it's a local multiplater game. The same way native VR games are designed to look good based around the requirements of those platforms.

Every Switch game can look as good as Mario Kart 8, and the only ones that will look worse are games that are more open. Which is the case for literally all games, not just VR ones. But games with the look of, say, Metroid Prime 3, but with a much bigger scope because of more space and more powerful hardware? That would look and play amazingly on Switch VR, even at 720p. Is that not a "real" VR game to you? Doesn't matter. It's enough to sell a $100 VR platform far more than any 'real' VR can ever hope to at $400+.

Ok I guess we'll agree to disagree on most of it, that's fine.

Just to correct something factual here though, 120 fps is higher than 90 fps, not sure what your confusion was with this really. 2 images of 60 fps each= the gpu is rendering 120 fps.

What happens in your MK8 example is that in order to do split screen at 60 fps each player, the graphic settings and resolution are (obviously) reduced, so yeah, you could consider it 120 fps if you want to. Hardware limitations are part of the reality based world and Nintendo is not immune to it.

Feel free to wait for this so called Nintendo VR, let me know how you like it if it ever comes to light. I'll chose not to get eye cancer if they ever do attempt it lol