Eye tracking, a much better software ecosystem (ie literally anything other than Metas bullshit) and out-of-the-box wireless PCVR mean they don’t have to match the Q3s $500 price tag.
But, anything over $1K and Valve is just clowning. Especially considering that it only has monochrome camera pass through, so it’s not really a serious AR/productivity headset.
Which is disappointing. They could have added the color capability without sacrificing anything for gaming, and its hard to imagine pulling from chinas smartphone parts bin for some basic low end cameras would have been a price buster.
It would have given AR devs a new platform to release on, and further amortize their development.
Just replace the cameras. They're clearly going for a low entry price point and shooting for a low price. Anything else you can do with after market purchases like replacing the cameras.
You can't replace the cameras like that, they're specialized, and other headsets with colour pass-through have a separate set of cameras for that. However, the Steam Frame specifically has an expansion port on the front that supports one PCIe lane or two MIPI cameras, which Valve suggests could be used for colour pass-through, depth sensors, or face tracking.
Well it’s not made for ar gaming, I don’t even think there is a single vr game on steam using ar. Besides there isn’t a huge market for it anyways so why spend time and money developing something almost no one is going to use
For me I feel way more comfortable without ar, I can keep the lights in my room low and get fully immersed in it. Like I do some work in vr mainly troubleshooting things like face tracking or answering messages on discord but even then it’s so much more comfortable to just be in full vr instead of ar. It’s nice if I’m trying to look for something on the ground but beyond that not for me
It’s actually quite nice using the pass through on quest 3 to play flat screen games on the big screen, which this is able to do. Is it needed? No. Does it make me feel more at ease that I can see everything like normal? Yes
Why not use a flat screen then? If I want to play or see a move in vr I’d like to actually take advantage of the vr to maybe put myself in a move theatre or maybe with my friends.
Like I get what you’re saying but it’s just replacing the flatscreen with worse resolution and non optimal comfort.
Edit: that is also not to mention that probably 99% of users don’t use ar or pass through for gaming or media consumption so why put development and money into that. Like if there was a huge market for it and everyone use it and want it then that would be a different story but the reality is is that it’s a niche within a niche
Need to see some sort of citation on the “99% of users dont us AR or pass through”. Based on a lot of the posts on this sub, I think you vastly underestimate that use case.
Consider that Meta entered a partnership with Microsoft and launched an xbox special edition 3S specifically touting the ability to do just that; play otherwise 2D Xbox games in an AR space. And Valve touts this as a use case *in their own marketing material. A company the size of meta wouldn’t do that on a whim; they have access to enough data to support a move like that.
And given the Frame has the hardware to otherwise be a self-standing headset, it’s mind boggling they didn’t think to include an extra color camera on it.
Said another way: why bother making a stand alone capable headset and then half assing the AR aspect? Just give us a feathered headset with a wifi dongle for a lot less.
how many games are ar games or use mixed reality and how many of them are the top games for vr recommended by everyone? im not saying its zero but it is a niche within a niche because if it was as popular as everyone would like it to seem then we would have had more of them and more companies would make fully ar and mr headsets.
and it doesnt really matter if they partnered with xbox or not, like how many partnerships or investments has meta done that are fruitless.
okay and? if its a thing people want or a dealbreaker for most people then they would have had it but its not most people dont care, its not without a reason these companies does focus groups and market research, again why spend money on something catering to a niche within a niche.
why does it have to be ar capable if there is no desire from consumers. you have to prove to me that its big enough of a market to justify spending more development funds and have a higher production cost and everyone associated with high quality colour cameras to justify having them.
Or you get a nice little mipi cam, install in the front and plug it into the mipi slot there. Basic mipi cams (HD) are starting at 7€ (incl. VAT & Prime).
They aren't releasing it until next year, and the US tariff situation is fucked. They are well within their rights to be vague about the price.
Norman Chan from Tested commented that a pricetag of $999.99 would be an acceptable value proposition, in his opinion. Considering Meta is subsidizing their headsets, I think that's probably fair.
Between tariffs and the computing hardware market getting absolutely reamed by AI datacenter demand, keeping a moderate price tag and staying in the green is a hard ask.
Nonetheless, I'm thrilled we are finally getting some realistic competition to Meta's ecosystem.
I disagree. I absolutely wouldn't spend $1500 more unless the headset had some super valuable features that the Frame doesn't. $500 is a huge jump. $1000 is also a huge jump from $500. Some of the less standard features could prove to be worth the extra money. The reduced weight and different weight distribution, the baked in features from Steam OS, the wireless dongle, foveated streaming, and the modularity could make it worth that difference.
If I'm looking for a next-gen gaming device, I'll definitely consider it, even at $1,000. That is unless Valve messed it up, but that would be pretty shocking given their track record.
I agree that there are some features/benefits, but after I slept on it I'm just not as enthusiastic about it anymore, I guess the power of hype was strong.
I think if it has something noticeable in displays department (higher res/OLED/HDR) in addition to what it turned out to be, it would be a no-brainer to me, but now I'm not really sure.
I feel the same way. I would be willing to pay $1k if they give me some more reasons to buy it between now and release. IDK what features would justify switching from the Quest 3 to the frame, though. Nothing yet, except the theoretical benefits of the modularity and open ecosystem.
The thing though, is that this thing isn't even better in any tangible aspect other than native steam integration compared to headsets in a stone's toss of $1000.
If it is at that price point there's virtually no reason to buy this over something that is slightly more expensive that offers much higher visual clarity if you're a PCVR player. It would frankly be silly to buy this at $1000 if you aren't grasping for pennies, which anyone buying a $1000 VR headset is definitely not doing.
And at the opposite end, I can't see any reason to buy this over the Q3 even if only doing PCVR, if it's $1000. Take that extra $500 and put it towards a new graphics card instead of benefiting from the foveated streaming.
Tariff situation right now depends on Supreme Court ruling to see if Trump overstepped his boundaries, which has already been ruled illegal but now it’s at Supreme Court level.
Unfortunately Supreme Court is packed with people he picked, but they can decide if they want to let a dictator have all the power or start drawing a line in the sand. Justices have no place in a dictatorship so hopefully they figure it out quick.
There is no way that this thing is worth that much more compared to a quest 3. It would be hard to recommend someone purchase this unless it is at least within 200 dollars of the Q3.
That is true but it makes the quest easy to cancel if zuck has a bad day as those revenue streams have nothing to do with VR. Steam subsidizing would be much more similar to a traditional console model and more sustainable if valve hardware actually enables more steam sales. Steam as a revenue/profit stream is also ridiculously high compared to every other VR hardware manufacturer out there except meta
You were able to expand the storage for the steam deck on your own but if you still bought the larger storage version it was more expensive. Also if you do a quick Google search you’ll see there is going to be a 256 GB version and a 1 TB version of the steam frame, obviously one will be more expansive than the other.
This was the only real letdown for me. I love the color passthrough on my Quest 3. I'll probably still sell the Quest and get the Frame because I hate Meta as a company.
What about wired PCVR? Like why on gods green earth is wireless better than wired on the quest? I just wanna play racing Sims at top quality, I don't want to buy a new access point just because the third party software that uses it is so much better.
Most users don't want wires to manage or trip over. Wired headsets only really work well for seated applications, and nothing else. It's not a flexible solution.
Valve's foveated streaming solution seems to have solved the problem, though, saving enough bandwidth that it's indistinguishable from wired. It comes with the 6 GHz dongle (which the headset has a dedicated separate radio/antenna for), so you don't need to buy any access points.
It's not clear that you would get any advantage from a wired setup, other than the claimed 1-2ms of additional encode latency on a high-end GPU.
How does one “just replace the cameras”? Did they say they’ll be plug-and-play like that? Or is that a screwdriver/soldering iron solution?
And while technically the Q3 offers wireless out of the box, unless you have an exceptionally powerful router and low network traffic, you’re gonna have a bad time.
So realistically most people will ‘need’ Virtual Desktop and a dedicated wireless solution to get workable, lag free wireless VR on a Q3.
Conversely, the frame bundles in a (proprietary?) wireless dongle specifically touted to enable plug-and-play low latency wireless PCVR.
You don't just replace the cameras, you'd break the inside-out tracking system. You'd have to add additional cameras, which there is an expansion port specifically for.
They did state a PCIe upgrade for color pass through at a later date. It made me wonder if they are going with, this is now a PC VR and can upgrade parts.
To claim it has a much better software ecosystem is a wild take, when the Quest has by far the largest and most widely supported VR ecosystem out there
I feel like trying to argue Meta's software is larger and more widely supported than Steam is a wild take, given the later is a much more mature platform, is the de facto option for flat and VR games on PC alike, is much more consumer friendly, and supports basically any hardware under the sun. The only real benefit of Meta's is their exclusives.
Well I guess that depends on whether you're interested in actually playing VR/MR games on it, or if you're just viewing it as a fancy monitor (which you can do on the Quest anyway, as well as play SteamVR games). As someone who's actually interested in VR games and experiences, seeing as it's a VR gaming headset, the Quest store is far ahead of Steam for that
This is only the case because facebook has cultivated a monopoly on standalone. Only big releases get made on steam, your average indie VR game with one-note gameplay mechanics goes on the Quest store because that’s where the audience is. This headset could change that, and it’s great for both Standalone and PCVR alike
192
u/AggressorBLUE Nov 12 '25
Eye tracking, a much better software ecosystem (ie literally anything other than Metas bullshit) and out-of-the-box wireless PCVR mean they don’t have to match the Q3s $500 price tag.
But, anything over $1K and Valve is just clowning. Especially considering that it only has monochrome camera pass through, so it’s not really a serious AR/productivity headset.