Comparing VR to VR isn't comparable. Okay.

Are you even trying to understand my point? I never talked any current VR iteration as its some failed 90's experiment. Not once. All I've said is all of this "groundbreaking", "revolutionary" and "gamechanging" hyperbole and all of the "now that I've tried VR I can't go back to gaming on a TV" stuff has been said by over-enthusiastic VR fans for decades now, and there's no reason to believe it's any truer now than it was in 1995.

Let's be clear. It's wonderful that VR is coming along well. It's nice that bigger players are dabbling in it. But let's stop pretending that VR is on the verge of mass appeal based on what we currently see in both sales numbers and industry support. It simply isn't there yet, and there are still many, many problems VR has to overcome before it can even begin to sniff at mass market appeal.. Even then, I really don't think some of them can be solved. I think you're going to see VR become about as popular as racing wheels, and that's it. There's something to be said about relaxing after a hard day at work, sitting on your couch and gaming for an hour or so with a controller in your hands. That's how most people game. VR is always going to be more effort to set up and use. It's always going to require more time and space. It's always going to be an added expense.

There's a 0% chance that every PS5 ships with a VR headset. There's a 0% chance GTA 6 is a VR exclusive. Let's keep our enjoyment of VR grounded in reality, stop getting way, way too ahead of ourselves. Most importantly, let's try to be a little more respectful to those who really, really do not care for VR. They're not wrong for not enjoying VR as much as you do.

How do you know that the people voted there have actually tried VR for a decent time/own VR vs the people on this site?

Ohh I know, because they voted that they prefer VR instead of 4K, so those people must not be lying like the people on this site must be.

Where is the poll posted on reddit?

The poll is from the vr subreds, most people there actually own a vr, yes.

that people that own vr/tried it think vr is better is pretty obvious as well, because well, it is much better.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. You should compare 4K to 2K or 30fps to 60fps, VR should be pitted against playing the game on your television. But 4K is the definition of an image whereas VR is a different way to play the game. So the best answer I could give you is, I'd rather play VR in 4K as being that close to a screen makes you see the individual dots much more than watching your TV whereas even on a 2K (1080p) TV you still can easily play a game without seeing pixels as you don't play with your face crushed on the TV screen.

At least that's my take on this. 

In your opinion.

Don't start using another thread for muddying up facts from opinions. 

With VR headsets and pupil tracking it will be possible to take full advantage of how the human eye works.

Cones are responsible for color vision in bright light and resolve detail, while rods are mostly responsible for vision in dim light with no color perception and low detail. They are mostly adapted to detect motion and draw your attention to that part of your field of view. At night you can see flashes of light from the corner of your eyes yet when you turn to them they disappear as the cones can't detect the faint light.

Anyway sharp 20/20 vision is only possible right in the center.

Outside a 10 degree cone (5 degrees either side) you're already down to 40% of 20/20 vision.
Outside 20 degrees less than 20% of 20/20 vision.

Rendering 110 degrees fov at full resolution is very wasteful.

20/20 vision is associated with 60 pixels per degree, yet that's the point at which you can differentiate cycles of maximum contrast, 30 cycles per degree of alternating white and black lines.

NHK did a test with people with 20/20 vision to see to what point they could tell which screen has the higher resolution, or feels more real

As you can see towards 150 pixels per degree it starts to devolve into guess work.

The higher the cpd of the display is, the more real it feels, with diminishing returns

1080p at a 30 degree fov sits at 32 cpd. 4K at a 30 degree fov doubles that. Bare in mind that's sitting max 8.8ft from a 65" tv. (1.62 x diagonal screen size) So if you sit close enough, 4K is definitely going to feel more real. Yet it's a massive waste to render the whole scene at 4K.

For VR you can for example render 5 degrees at 64cpd, 10 degrees at 32cpd, 20 degrees at 16cpd, rest at 8 cpd and create the illusion of looking at a 65" 4K display at max 8.8 ft distance (except now it's filling up 110 degrees fov), while only having to render 50% of the pixels required for the 4K display and can be reduced further with smarter rendering techniques. Of course to achieve this you still need a 14K display per eye for 110 degree fov... Yet putting a pristine image on that 14K VR display will cost half of rendering that image for a 4K tv, or the same when doubled for both eyes.

More realistically for an 8K per eye headset approaching 1080p TV experience in a headset, you'll need to render even less than half that required for a 4K display. It's just that atm we're at the very bottom of resolution where foveated rendering has the smallest gains, yet those gains will only go up as displays get higher pixel density. PSVR sits at a paltry 5 cpd, although with the distortion favoring pixel density in the center it might just reach 8 cpd in the center, 25% of 1080p at a 30 degree viewing angle or at most 270p in a 30 degree window in the center.

Anyway 8K at 150 degrees is still easily detectable by the human eye, still below 1080p at a 30 degree viewing angle. Yet even going from the current 1K per eye headset to a 2K per eye headset will be a huge gain. Long way to go before diminishing returns set in for VR. And with foveated rendering, display tech can comfortably outpace GPU power. Finally a diminishing need for more GPU grunt to get better results :)

At distance, you'd probably want to make use of a virtual theater so you can feel like you're both in the same space together. You're underestimating what VR can do as a display technology. As the tech advances, it can be totally convincing to your brain. We don't need SAO full dive VR, although I would certainly love that. But VR displays will be good enough.

VR has never been in a better position than it is now. This is the first time any serious company has stepped forward into the consumer VR space. Now we have most of the tech industry working on it.

What problems can't be fixed? Space issues? I mean 1x1m is all you need for just about all VR games that require standing up. 

As for wanting to chill, chances are, as the tech improves, you'll find yourself wanting to go through with the extra setup necessary just because the potential is too good to not experience it. You can easily chill with VR anyway. It's a bit harder for the higher-end headsets today due to wires, but if you pick up an Oculus Go in a couple of months, you could just lay back in bed and watch some movies in a virtual theater.

Pretty much most of VR's issues are going to be fixed in the next 5 years anyway.

So VR fans who are big enough VR fans to join special interest VR fan groups are less biased about VR than the average user on this site?

The least amount of bias will come from a group of people who has experienced VR. Because VR is something that can never be judged without trying, and since many people have yet to try it, their opinions don't mean anything. As a result, anyone who hasn't tried VR, but votes for something rather than just leaving the poll alone, will be injecting complete bias into it.