none12345 :
Not going to touch these head sets until they meet at least these sets of requirements.
1) Peripheral vision is rendered. I don't want tunnel vision. This is a complete show stopper for me, if only binocular vision is rendered, i will not buy the headset.
2) 8k in smart phone sized screens(i don't want to be looking through a screen door, even 8k isn't enough but it wont be horrible) I may consider a 4k screen, i will NOT consider a 1080p screen. Approx 1000 ppi that close to your eyes is what i would consider minimum.
3) Total latency from draw call to photons leaving the screen is <=11 milliseconds.(90fps). 90fps is not enough if its for instance triple buffered, that would be a 33ms latency, and that is NOT acceptable. This obviously covers more then just the headset, it covers the entire system.
4) 2 screens, 1 per eye are used. OR they can make a single screen that renders 2 subscreens at the same time so you do not have a latency differential between right and left eyes. This is not a show stopper for me, but it is highly desired. Its pretty much required to meet the peripheral vision requirement tho; either that or a very wide curved screen.
5) eye tracking is used. This is not a show stopper for me. However, with the other requirements above, its pretty much mandatory to reduce the processing required to a reasonable level. There is no way you could render the above at full resolution with current gpus, even with quad gpus you couldn't. Nor are you likely to be able to with the next gen cards. However with eye tracking you might be able to do it with current cards, and probably with next gen cards.
Most of your complaints have already been addressed. The screen door argument holds no ground.
1) 110-degrees of view is a lot more than you likely think it is. You really don't see the sides of the headsets at all. Tunnel vision is not something that you percieve in the current crop of VR headsets. It's there's but you really don't notice it like you would expect to.
2) there is no descernable screen door effect in even the 1080p display used in the PSVR headset. The higher resolution in both the Rift and Vive is even better in that regard, but its not present in any of them really. It's not at all like a the DK2, for a couple reasons.
First, they are all using low persistance OLED displays that just work better than the display in the DK2. And in the case of the PSVR, the screen has three subpixels (Red, Green, Blue) per pixel which makes a massive difference in clarity.
It has a lot to do with the optics being used as well.
3) Latency for VR is a problem that is being actiively worked on by everyone invloved, from the headset makers, to the game developers, to the teams at Nvidia and AMD making the graphics cards and drivers. There are already steps in motion to reduce latency to the levels you expect. Tripple buffering is being bypassed by both AMD and Nvidia so that the latest tracking data is always delivered to the system without worrying about things like tripple buffereing catching up.
4) 2 screen per eye is already the norm. Both Oculus Rift and HTC Vive has one screen per eye. As does the StarVR headset I mentioned before. PSVR is limited to on screen because the console can only output to at 1080p. Both GPU companies are working on techniques to dedicate one GPU to each eye as well.
5) Eye tracking will be a big boost in VR performance, but we're not going to see this happen in 2016. The first round of VR hardware will not have eye tracking. Fove seems to be on track to be one of the first to market with this ability.