To be clear, I was buying one primarily to see whether it would suffice as an alternative to a projector (hitting a nice balance between image quality and lack of eye strain) so I'm coming from a perspective of exclusively caring about resolution. I mightn't complain about a smudged visor on mars, but I absolutely would complain (and have complained) if a film was out of focus in a cinema to the point where reading the subtitles gave me a headache.

As far as more immersive experience, I probably could afford to build a new computer and get a proper VR system rigged up but the cost involved vastly exceeds the level of appeal it has to me. The image quality is definitely at a level where it it probably already is pretty great, mind!

Luke from Linus Tech Tips indicated that 3dof "VR" might be damaging VR as a whole, as it gives people an unrealistically awful impression of what VR has to offer. This is in contrast to what I originally thought of Cardboard+co: low barrier of entry teasers. After repeatedly hearing that VR isn't special from people who have only used these low-end devices I've been forced to agree with Luke.

These platforms should drop the VR moniker - they are 360 stereoscopic ten day wonders and little more.

The assumption you make here is that they'd think otherwise if they had used a 6dof headset which doesn't really seem to ring true for me. There are lots of Rifts and Vives lying unused in people's homes and in general 6dof VR hasn't taken the world by storm either.

I can agree with the resolution issue but the framerate issue I think is still a sticking point. You really lose the immersion at low framerates and things like motion sickness start to take over any fun you might have.