Steam Frame (Valve Index 2)

glenimp617 said:
because valve said they are trying hard to get it under $1k

meta heavily subsidize the quest so I can't see it being cheaper than £800
Click to expand...

I don't know why Valve don't subsidize the Steam Frame. It's not like they are short of money. I have seen people on other forums go on about how Valve is going to save PCVR with this headset, that they have outmanoeuvred Meta and have won the VR wars. And that this headset is Valve making it easier than ever for people to get into VR. I have also seen one website claim that Valve has listened to what the true VR gamer wants, unlike Meta. Ok, what true VR gamer wanted a wireless only headset for a start? All the enthusiasts wanted Valve's headset to support Display port. What VR enthusiast wanted standalone games to be at the same graphic level as the Quest 3? And one thing everyone wanted from a Premium VR headset was it to have either MiniLED or Micro OLED displays. Valve listened really well!! :cry:

Sorry bit of an rant there and lost my way :p

Back to my question, why doesn't Valve subsidize the Steam Frame? What is the purpose of this headset? It hasn't got the specs to be a premium headset and won't be cheap enough to sway people on the fence about VR. It seems to be aimed at a very small market, basically Valve Index owners who haven't upgraded to anything else yet and who hate Meta.
 
drakulton said:
Did you want to put meta horizons OS on it? ;)
Click to expand...
why not, lots of older games didnt get ported over really. if the headset could boot from the TF slot its as simple as remove facual interface remove card, put new card in, put headsetback togeather again and boot up with new os.

@Tykey consider Tykey you could create a whole OS around your app with total control over the hardware. would you be able to do more with that access?

what does the usb-c port function as?

i think you could see a lot of inovation with this headset.

developers potentially have full access to take advantage of the recourse and not resticted to what Meta allows.
think of the prawns! the prawns i tell you!! theere will be millions of Prawns!!!!
 
Last edited:
Saw an article on this the other day and was kinda interested, had assumed it would be OLED.
I wasn't expecting it to be high end, but I've never owned a VR headset (the only one I've played on was the OG HTC Vive), this seemed like a decent option, especially for the ergonomics/balance.

If it was around £500 I'd still consider it just to have a play about with, but ~£800+ is a hard pass
 
AHhh I'm like others here, dissapointed in the power of this thing and lenses. I would have loved a pro version. I will wait and see what's what closer to release but I think I'm gonna pass on this unfortunately.
 
people will pay it for 3 reasons
1) its Valve - "they can do no wrong"
2) its not meta
3) better access to the hardware, less restrictions
Bonus :
4) some one comes out with a killer app or OS Bundle
example :
Tykey's AI
privacy focused mobile headset - 5g connected / Tor / tails / QubeOS
retro arcade
mobile media centre
custom home experiences
far more exposure to work possibilities / training ect
5) its looking like you can easily swap OSs on the fly
6) its not locked in to a single eco system
7) faster development times

i feel the potential of the device is understated and not really acknowledged there's to much focus on spec (which is important to a point).


often people lament over star trek bridge crew. its not super graphics i even had the vr side working on an i7 gen 6 cpu with no dedicated graphics card for a short while, what made that VR experience great was the game play not the graphics.

if this had colour pass through, id suggest a social app in concert with the hyperscapes, to map out rooms and then invite avatars in as social exchanges, introduction to table top games and or role play games ect as examples.

i dont remember seeing much on the spacial and augmented reality side (other than monochrome cameras, theres clearly no depth sensor as far as i've seen either which would be nice to have with the colour passthrough.

i feel like the minority in how i see the headset
 
LostCorpse said:
people will pay it for 3 reasons
1) its Valve - "they can do no wrong"
2) its not meta
3) better access to the hardware, less restrictions
Bonus :
4) some one comes out with a killer app or OS Bundle
example :
Tykey's AI
privacy focused mobile headset - 5g connected / Tor / tails / QubeOS
retro arcade
mobile media centre
custom home experiences
far more exposure to work possibilities / training ect
5) its looking like you can easily swap OSs on the fly
6) its not locked in to a single eco system
7) faster development times

i feel the potential of the device is understated and not really acknowledged there's to much focus on spec (which is important to a point).


often people lament over star trek bridge crew. its not super graphics i even had the vr side working on an i7 gen 6 cpu with no dedicated graphics card for a short while, what made that VR experience great was the game play not the graphics.

if this had colour pass through, id suggest a social app in concert with the hyperscapes, to map out rooms and then invite avatars in as social exchanges, introduction to table top games and or role play games ect as examples.

i dont remember seeing much on the spacial and augmented reality side (other than monochrome cameras, theres clearly no depth sensor as far as i've seen either which would be nice to have with the colour passthrough.

i feel like the minority in how i see the headset
Click to expand...
A lot of this is true.

But I do think the biggest factor really will be how much it costs.

edit: As in people "on the fence" re VR and more casual gamers and that. If it's at the right price point it will make a lot of sense.
 
Last edited:
Nate75 said:
A lot of this is true.

But I do think the biggest factor really will be how much it costs.

edit: As in people "on the fence" re VR and more casual gamers and that. If it's at the right price point it will make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
How much would it cost to manufacter a VR with those specs? if the answer is close to 1k and people expecting it to be 300. thats mental
 
jonneymendoza said:
How much would it cost to manufacter a VR with those specs? if the answer is close to 1k and people expecting it to be 300. thats mental
Click to expand...
Depends on manufacturing capabilities, logistics and all the rest of it I guess.

Nintendo used to sell the console at a loss and make money on the games, licensing or otherwise.

We'll see I guess.
 
LostCorpse said:
people will pay it for 3 reasons
1) its Valve - "they can do no wrong"
2) its not meta
3) better access to the hardware, less restrictions
Bonus :
4) some one comes out with a killer app or OS Bundle
example :
Tykey's AI
privacy focused mobile headset - 5g connected / Tor / tails / QubeOS
retro arcade
mobile media centre
custom home experiences
far more exposure to work possibilities / training ect
5) its looking like you can easily swap OSs on the fly
6) its not locked in to a single eco system
7) faster development times

i feel the potential of the device is understated and not really acknowledged there's to much focus on spec (which is important to a point).


often people lament over star trek bridge crew. its not super graphics i even had the vr side working on an i7 gen 6 cpu with no dedicated graphics card for a short while, what made that VR experience great was the game play not the graphics.

if this had colour pass through, id suggest a social app in concert with the hyperscapes, to map out rooms and then invite avatars in as social exchanges, introduction to table top games and or role play games ect as examples.

i dont remember seeing much on the spacial and augmented reality side (other than monochrome cameras, theres clearly no depth sensor as far as i've seen either which would be nice to have with the colour passthrough.

i feel like the minority in how i see the headset
Click to expand...

If it's over £800 people won't pay it. That's the point. Even The Quest 3's price was too high for VR adoption. The Quest 3s is outselling it.

1. It's Valve, they can do no wrong. This is true, but only for the tech community. Consider the Valve Index, a much better advancement in headset tech than the Steam Frame. You got a lot for your $999. A device that was definitely the best VR headset of the time. The original Quest was released at the same time. It sold more in the first 3 months than the Index did in it's entire lifetime.
2. It's not Meta. Again, this only applies to the tech community, the nerds etc. The ordinary joe does not care. It's not going to be something that's going to sway ordinary people if they are considering buying a headset. Price is still the single biggest consideration.
3. More access to Hardware? How many people will actually care about this? Even the techies? It's primarily a PCVR headset. Also, the hardware isn't as open as you think it is. (more in 4)
4. Not sure about any of this stuff. If it's really fully open, like the Steamdeck, then yeah, you will be able to put your own OS on it for whatever you want. There are tons of problems though. You will lost a lot of the VR Functionality. It's also an ARM based solution from Qualcomm, their SOC's don't use open source. And if it is like the Steam Deck, you want to put a custom os on it, Valve will say go for it, but you are on your own. One more problem with this headset with regard to work and training etc. Valve doesn't do that kind of thing. Whereas HTC, Meta etc. have a lot of experience in this area. They also have the support platforms in place.
5: Might not be as simple as that. see above.
6. Your points 3, 4 and 5 and this one are all basically saying the same thing. Besides you aren't locked into a single eco system with the Quest 3 either?
7. Why do you think faster development times or why does it matter? I doubt there will be any games made exclusively for the Steam Frame. It will just be like the Steam deck. You will have games verified to run on the Steam Frame with a rating of how well they will run.

Interesting phrase, the Potential of this device. Lets be real here. How many people who will buy the Steam Frame have any interest in making custom OS's, or whatever else? And yes, we have to focus on the spec as that's what we are paying for and you are comparing it to the specs of what has been out for nearly three years already.

Your example of a game is any entirely different situation. If told you the next Xbox was going to be only slightly more powerful than the current PS5 Pro but it would be open and you could run whatever OS you want on it or use it as PC if you wanted. But it was going to be £400 more. Would you be happy?

You feel like the minority? The Steam Frame seems to be aimed at the minority. It's too expensive for the regular Joe and offers very little if anything to the VR enthusiast. I bet if you asked, most people would sacrifice all the "open source" ability the headset has for Better lenses, displays and more powerful processor. Most would probably pay extra too.

Phew!! tired typing :p
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
melmac said:
If it's over £800 people won't pay it. That's the point. Even The Quest 3's price was too high for VR adoption. The Quest 3s is outselling it.

1. It's Valve, they can do no wrong. This is true, but only for the tech community. Consider the Valve Index, a much better advancement in headset tech than the Steam Frame. You got a lot for your $999. A device that was definitely the best VR headset of the time. The original Quest was released at the same time. It sold more in the first 3 months than the Index did in it's entire lifetime.
2. It's not Meta. Again, this only applies to the tech community, the nerds etc. The ordinary joe does not care. It's not going to be something that's going to sway ordinary people if they are considering buying a headset. Price is still the single biggest consideration.
3. More access to Hardware? How many people will actually care about this? Even the techies? It's primarily a PCVR headset. Also, the hardware isn't as open as you think it is. (more in 4)
4. Not sure about any of this stuff. If it's really fully open, like the Steamdeck, then yeah, you will be able to put your own OS on it for whatever you want. There are tons of problems though. You will lost a lot of the VR Functionality. It's also an ARM based solution from Qualcomm, their SOC's don't use open source. And if it is like the Steam Deck, you want to put a custom os on it, Valve will say go for it, but you are on your own. One more problem with this headset with regard to work and training etc. Valve doesn't do that kind of thing. Whereas HTC, Meta etc. have a lot of experience in this area. They also have the support platforms in place.
5: Might not be as simple as that. see above.
6. Your points 3, 4 and 5 and this one are all basically saying the same thing. Besides you aren't locked into a single eco system with the Quest 3 either?
7. Why do you think faster development times or why does it matter? I doubt there will be any games made exclusively for the Steam Frame. It will just be like the Steam deck. You will have games verified to run on the Steam Frame with a rating of how well they will run.

Interesting phrase, the Potential of this device. Lets be real here. How many people who will buy the Steam Frame have any interest in making custom OS's, or whatever else? And yes, we have to focus on the spec as that's what we are paying for and you are comparing it to the specs of what has been out for nearly three years already.

Your example of a game is any entirely different situation. If told you the next Xbox was going to be only slightly more powerful than the current PS5 Pro but it would be open and you could run whatever OS you want on it or use it as PC if you wanted. But it was going to be £400 more. Would you be happy?

You feel like the minority? The Steam Frame seems to be aimed at the minority. It's too expensive for the regular Joe and offers very little if anything to the VR enthusiast. I bet if you asked, most people would sacrifice all the "open source" ability the headset has for Better lenses, displays and more powerful processor. Most would probably pay extra too.

Phew!! tired typing :p
Click to expand...

Now breath...

My position is, anything more than £400 and they can keep it.

I can't justify paying more as I know it won't get enough use to warrant it.
 
I'll post another review, kinda enjoy listening to the content made by BB....


As well, the content is kinda VR focussed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom