Also, 90hz is very different to 120hz when it comes to VR. Your statement is true for some people in non-VR situations

Sorry but you're talking out your arse here mate.

No one has seen the difference between 90 Hz and 120 Hz in VR because no screen goes that high, unless you're actually in a lab working on prototype screens you've gotten from samsuing themslves you just don't know.

Carmack has said that once you hit 90 Hz, then image persistence, and total system delay (aka input lag) becomes much more important.

So while I am sure 120 or 144hz would be nicer, you're flat making shit up when it comes to your "difference" because it's never been tested. I've not seen a single VR prototype with 100 Hz or more.

Sony has claimed their will be 120, but that's still in design stage, if there is a prototype I seriously doubt it's using that 120Hz screen which doesn't exist yet except maybe in samsungs prototyping labs.

Finally you can't talk about pixels and frame rates in absolutes.

It doesn't matter the a game on the bone only does 720p@30, because those games literally have 5-6 times the graphical intensity of a Wii U game.

Hell just Ambient Occlusion + Post FX shaders (depth of field, motion blur, HDR lighting) in xbone/PC4/PC game alone is using the same graphical horsepower of an entire Wii U game. Diminishing returns are a bitch.

Xbone has proven that it can run 360 games at 1080p@60, And the Wii U isn't much more powerful than a 360, so the Wii U couldn't run those games at 1080@60 (it would maybe manage 900@30, better than the 360, but not by much).
So if a Wii U can run mario kart at 1080@60, then the xbone can probably double either the framerate or the resolution (given it has a GPU that is 5 times more powerful than the Wii U).

So yeah, I bet it could manage 1440p@80.