Except that isn't true, at all. Plenty of phones far weaker than the Switch has been used for VR gaming with a 720p LED screen, and there's never a major issue. It just looks worse, which I never objected to. As for fonts, Nintendo will just use big fonts then. Problem solved. No eye bleeding. And again, of course the Switch is powerful enough.

I've seen enough impressions of just that to believe that it absolutely is fine.

Have you actually every tried it yourself? Ever?

Use VR on a 720 screen and tell me it's an enjoyable experience. I dare you

Why did the new 3DS-XL add eyetracking?
"eye-tracking ability means that the headset can increase the resolution of the area that the user is looking at, and decrease the resolution elsewhere, allowing for better graphics with a lower-end processor."

Screen door effect can be reduced by moving the display further from your eyes and using a bigger screen instead. Say a 6.2" display v 5.7" on PSVR.

Nintendo doesn't need to split displays in half to achieve 3D like other VR setups. They already have 3D tech remember?

If Nintendo has shortened the focal length of 3DS tech, 3-4" instead of 18" and added eye tracking, Nintendo's VR power requirements won't be as high as other VR setups.

I want VR but when ready and good and cheap!

In the absence of first hand experience, I've read plenty of second hand experience saying it's fine. Your word is no better than theirs.

If that's your best argument, then I guess you don't really have anything to add to this debate. I'm far from the only person in this same thread pointing out how undoable VR is in a 720p.

I have personal experience with different types of VR solutions and enough technical knowledge to understand why the Switch as actually underpowered to do modern VR gaming.

But I guess nowadays reality is multiple choice and what feels real is more important than what is real.

So what's "real" is that you're the sole authority on VR? Right. It doesn't matter that you have personal experience. You're not the only person with that experience. Other people have had it too, and they've been fine with 720p 60fps. Doesn't matter if they are present in this thread. It's well documented. Your personal experience doesn't supercede theirs.

As for "technical knowledge," don't be absurd. VR isn't some magical computational anomaly. It's just a split screen. Like I said, there are phones far weaker than the Switch that do VR gaming just fine. Games are designed around the specifications of their hardware. That's how it's always been. If someone wants to make a VR game for the Switch, they just have to account for its power and target 720p/60fps with a split screen. That's how you've gotten split screen multiplayer since the SNES. VR doesn't need to look realistic to be immersive.

Just so we're clear, you're saying you've never tried it but you're convinced it would be accepted en masse by millions of people. But even assuming that a Switch VR would be fine for you, you still have to justify how you can know it would be fine for others.

Meanwhile many who have tried PSVR say that their VR experience isn't fine with a higher resolution and a higher framerate than you could ever expect on a Switch. They say they get motion sickness. They say they get eye fatigue very easily. For others it is just barely tolerable for half hour intervals. In fact most people i know that have tried the PSVR find it very difficult to use it for more than an hour at a time because to be quite frank, the technology at the pricepoint just isn't there yet. Add in games that are more vibrant and cartoony, and the fatigue becomes even more of an issue. The fact that games like Job Simulator are broken down into half hour chunks is not a coincidence. It's to make the game more digestable in smaller chunks. Now here you are advocating for worse technology at a cheaper price and expecting the same results, when that just isn't realistic.

Well arent we onto the age of alternate reality lately?