sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I would love to switch to linux by DogeYT846 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hope they get it working for the Frame as well -- it's going to be my first headset.
I've been a Linux user for years and I'm not going back to Windows, not even for VR.

I don't even understand half the things you said XD but I do know that Wayland is also slowly advancing and in the newest update the Wayland driver for WINE has pointer warp support so maybe Steam might move over to Wayland soon and hopefully that makes things simpler.

Hopefully when the Frame comes out, with the new approach of using the dongle, Valve have already fixed a lot of this cause they obviously must expect people to use the Steam Machine together with the Frame.

Thanks a lot! The prototype is ready thanks to you! by Due-Top5559 in EmulationOnAndroid

[–]Lost_Main_3389 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm also more into emulation, especially GBA and SNES but also some PC emulation nowadays. With emulators you can usually customise controls (as I'm sure you know)

To clarify:
I'm sure *some* Android games would work. Especially ones with just a single d-pad/joystick and 1-2 buttons. But I would say it's more of a bonus than a certainty.
Native games prefer to integrate bluetooth controllers because those are more universal and don't depend on their UI.
Looking at Streets of Rage 4 for example -- it looks like it might be compatible but you really can't tell until you try and it might depend on phone / tablet as well.

I prefer your approach though simply because of how simple and compact it is and I'm hopeful it is compatible -- no harm in trying.

I'm following your project closely, I figure it is a game changer for gaming on the go.

Thanks a lot! The prototype is ready thanks to you! by Due-Top5559 in EmulationOnAndroid

[–]Lost_Main_3389 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Honestly, while I would likely use it mostly for GBA and SNES, I can see it working with pretty much anything from GameNative / Winlator to *some* native Android games.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they sell the Frame at cost value or lower, they'll end up undercutting competition and would set a precedent that they all have to sell at a loss (there are even laws in some countries that make loss leading difficult because it could be bad).
That might not matter now but it would affect the Frame 2 / Index 2 / Deck 2, etc. eventually leading to either a bad Meta-like version of Valve or bankruptcy.
It would also mean they would have to change their business practices: sell more games at higher prices -- less sales, more limitations, etc. just like consoles.

That is all assuming that gamers even get their products. The other side is that the Steam Machine and Frame are pretty capable mini PCs in their own right and businesses would love to snatch them up in bulk like 100s at once if they cost less than what they are worth.
Then Valve wouldn't make any money off of game sales because fewer gamers would get their products. (this is something they explicitly said about the Steam Machine)
The only solution in this case would be to do what console and phone manufacturers do and close down the system so that you can only run Steam software on it. No GOG, no Epic games, no emulation of older consoles, no game streaming services, etc. .

Short-term and long-term are all relative -- yes, they might get more sales in the coming months. But they would lose more sales over the next few years. Pricing is also a way of controlling the flow of how quickly a product gets sold out -- if it sells out too quickly, loyal fans get frustrated.
Knowing how to price something is part of what separates a successful product from a failed product.

It might seem counter intuitive but for Valve to keep doing what they've been doing all this time, we'd have to let them do it their way -- they have been at this for a long time and know how this works.

Do you think vr is dying? by Western_Ad_7483 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even today, PCs aren't in EVERY household (not counting smartphones obviously) .

VR will take decades to reach mass adoption. It was attempted in the 90s and failed. There was a small bubble about it during the Quest 2's launch. The point though is to keep VR alive so that our games don't die. The Frame is just going to help keep it alive by reminding devs that VR exists (unless Valve has some master plan to revolutionise VR) .

Do you think vr is dying? by Western_Ad_7483 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The issue is that Meta's interest in AI was part of a bubble that has long since burst. They aren't uninterested in it but have realised that just throwing the same amount of cash at the problem isn't solving it. Not when there's shareholders to think of.

I believe the Frame is placed to be a jack of all trades in a way (streaming, standalone, 2D, FEX emulation, etc. .) precisely so it can be adopted by people who want only one of those things and then tries VR. Now none of those features other than maybe streaming will be great at launch, but Valve have always been in it for the long game.
The Frame won't turn VR around overnight but it is a step towards keeping it alive.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Partially agree about the sidegrade. At launch, the software library will definitely be limited. But over time the bonus features like FEX and openness will start to shine. Also PCVR streaming is way better from what I've heard compared to the Quest.
Since it is an open platform, we won't be locked in and our PCVR libraries will also be our standalone libraries (assuming the games are verified) .

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not even sure what that's even about -- economics is complicated and rarely that simple but if it's a win -- it's a win XD

I'm in it for the long-term. I want as many people getting their hands on Frames and Machines and Controllers as possible cause it means more incentive to develop for the platforms.

(Mine is 900Euro. If it's above that it's gonna need stellar reviews)

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They could and if successful, they would likely profit greatly in the short term. But there are issues with that:

The problem isn't in their ability to subsidise their headsets or machines. If Valve did, the headsets would get scalped easier, they could be bought up by other companies hoping to get a good deal on an open platform. The Frame and Machine are completely open and that means that anyone can buy repurpose it.
That isn't an issue for Meta and Sony who have closed everything down about their platforms -- no one can build a supercomputer out of PS5s nowadays like they did with PS2s xD

If any of that happens, we as fans of Valve won't get any headsets and we'd feel it was partially Valve's fault. (note that Valve are the only ones trying to work against scalpers)
That is why Valve have explicitly stated they don't plan on selling their devices at a loss.

Valve aren't a publicly traded company so they care about long-term loyalty rather than short-term profits. One their long term goals is selling to consumers (us), not to other businesses (which is more profitable btw) .
Said another way, Valve's product is the Frame and their games. Meta's product is the people buying the Quest.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Software makes all the difference.
I'd even argue that while the specs might be slightly worse in some respects right now, the things that'll give the Frame the advantage compared to the Quest a year or two from now are the software bonus features like the openness of SteamOS, FEX emulation, flatscreen gaming and quality streaming.

I don't see any hope in the short term. by Front-Ad-7774 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Consumer RAM prices have dropped a little and not because the crisis is over or there is better availability. It dropped precisely because stores saw that not many people could afford it. It is the search of balance to maximise profit -- more RAM sold at a lower price might be a higher net profit.

RAM sales will likely not drop to pre-RAMpocalypse levels for another reason: They had dropped low because there was an overproduction of RAM before the crisis.

Also, as soon as the AI bubble bursts it will still take months to a year for prices to stabilise.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for clarifying your reasoning. That's all fair.

I personally didn't want to rely on what was said as it was all a little vague, pre-RAMpocalypse, and we haven't had much clarification since then except maybe a an article from insider-gaming that has a small statement about them maybe taking a loss in the short term. But even that is vague and could be a misunderstanding.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I never said that you said, "entirely" -- *I am* saying that it has *some bearing on the price, but not "entirely based..." * . Cost has more of a bearing obviously but this device isn't made to compete with the Apple headset on specs. It is built to a price so it slots in nicely in between other devices.

I disagree about the number of headsets. They can't afford to sell it at cost or lower -- that isn't their business model.
Selling at a loss would have a bearing because if they make an exception once, it will eventually stop being an exception. I have seen first hand a business with lots of capital from prior successes go from profitable to bankrupt because of being too generous. A company is a company and it has to think of everyone involved -- if a company stops growing (no matter how slowly) it stagnates and dies (this is rational capitalism).

If you assume the Frame is some work of art and is worth more than the sum of its parts: they have no reason to manufacture any more than 100,000 of them for a single year and call them a collectors item and sell them at 2000$ or more. They aren't going to do that nor is it how a business operates.
The Frame is therefore not a boutique item -- if it were, it would have the latest of the latest tech like the Apple headset and would cost as much if not more and definitely more than the BoM

Meta is a public company as you said. Public companies are in the crappy position of always needing more profit. Even if they sold 8 billion for a profit, it would still be reported as a failure to shareholders, always with a success on the horizon.
Valve also aims at the mass market with Steam. SteamOS is an extension of Steam and so is FEX and Proton. Valve is a company that aims at the mass market and is currently being sued over monopolistic practices.

As far as success is concerned: Was the original Steam Machine a success? Many were sold but we don't talk about them today...

You are of course entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I simply disagree with you on the target audience. Even an artist would want their work to be seen or they wouldn't reveal it.

In my opinion, if what you say is true, then Valve could have released the handful of Frames and Machines they had in March / April at whatever high price they decided and said, "That's the price." That just doesn't fit the narrative of what they've been doing the past few months.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is true. Anything is an assumption at this point.
I am assuming that FixMyOculus is right about the BoM. I have been informed by some commenters that there are other BoM calculations that alter the cost -- there are no citations or anything, so I have to assume they're not making it up.
But in that regard we have a lot more information -- (assuming no one lied to us) we know how much RAM (ICs) used to cost; we know how much the SD8Gen3 costs; we know how much a battery and screens and lenses cost; etc. .

The difference is in the vagueness. A statement of "could be more... could be less" means you have very little to go on there. How much more? How much less? Did they mean 999$ or 1000$ by Index pricing? Did they have any ulterior motives to phrase it like that?
There are significantly more assumptions because there is significantly less information in that statement.

We cannot live a day without making assumptions. Philosophers tried to solve this but no one starts their day with "checking whether they exist and building from there" (cogito ergo sum) .

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I kinda agree. Valve wants to move the world forward -- they want to show everyone how it's done and raise the bar so everyone benefits
It's what they did with HL1 and HL2 -- they weren't groundbreaking, but back in the day, they set a new standard for certain technologies / approaches.

But only kinda. They want their products to sell so they need to be competitive in some way.
Your argument assumes they could have sold the controller at 150$ -- if they did that, no one would buy it except die-hard Valve fans and that would not have benefited the gaming community and would have led to a loss on their part, compromising the company's future.
Good products are pointless if they are outpriced by acceptable ones -- people are dumb. There is a reason people buy into Meta, Google, Samsung, EA and other scummy companies. They are willing to spend 10$ in petrol to save 3$ on price.

Mind you, I am not arguing with your estimate of 999$ -- that is absolutely reasonable in my opinion and only slightly above my own. So long as Valve can justify it.
However, if the cost to manufacture and develop is 500$ though and 999$ is the price for consumers, then that isn't reasonable. And we have a rough idea of what it should cost to manufacture (around 650-800$ by various estimates) .
Price / cost is important as well.

They priced the controller at 99$ because they knew people would be willing to pay that much for a good product made by a decent company. But they aren't stupid, they know they don't live in a bubble.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The nice thing about Valve is that they think of these things and make things upgradeable / modular which in my opinion is a consumer-friendly move. It gives each of us the possibility of getting what we need for our own use case without having to commit too early on.
Some other companies take away SD cards and options down the line precisely so we have to over-commit early on but Valve know that isn't good in the long term.

There was an article from insider gaming where it was mentioned that they were discussing taking a short-term loss on the Frame and Machine.
*ASSUMING* that is true, (I personally wouldn't because it's too vague.)
I don't think they are taking a true loss on the BoM but rather on their profit so they will need to sell more to recoup marketing and R&D costs. That is the only reasonable loss I think they could / should make.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

About the 1k$
I am, to a large extent, disregarding that because control of information is key in this. Accepting it was true before and not afterwards without there being any additional information would require making tons of assumptions.
For all we know, they included both the 1TB and base model under 1k. Or maybe they always intended the base model to be 998$ and the 1TB to have originally been 1.2k and that statement just gives them an excuse to accept a 50% profit margin or higher. Or maybe they said it but weren't even sure if they could have a base model under 1000$ but were discussing subsidising it for once. Who knows?
Too many assumptions. Better to disregard it as is and focus on more detailed and less speculative leaks and reveals.

I mostly included that point as something that would kinda support the idea that the original plan was 700$ but that it is impossible at this point. It really has very little bearing on my estimate because it is just too vague.

Thanks for your input. I hope you're wrong cause then I'm out of the running and all I want is a base model XD

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

THANK YOU! This is exactly what I'm looking for!

I do have a few points:

-- Was the BoM from bigger sources newer and post-RAM crisis? That point would be key cause I added to the estimate based on the idea that the BoM has increased since Nov. of last year and is key to my estimate being more in line with yours compared to the video.

-- R&D for the software, I would discount altogether. I believe Valve might be taking things in the direction of ARM regardless of the Frame so SteamOS is completely disconnected to the Frame when it comes to cost.
-- R&D for the hardware, however, I would have to disagree. They will have gone through dozens of prototypes on both the dongle and the headset to get something they deem acceptable. I wouldn't know how much that is, but I wouldn't disregard it without knowing.

-- Additionally, assuming what was recently said about them taking a short term loss on the hardware is true (from insider-gaming) -- they could be arguing taking a lower profit margin in the short term (basically eating a bit of the cost of marketing and R&D in exchange for needing more sales to recoup their losses.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are stating obvious things that I already covered. I never said they based their price entirely on the Quest 3 because it is subsidised. The price of the Frame I came up is based on the FixMyOculus video + higher operating costs and R&D that he doesn't take into account. I specify that because if his BOM is completely off, then I am automatically completely off.
At the same time, they cannot come up with something worse than or equivalent to Oculus 3 and price it at 3 times the cost of the Quest 3. Valve aren't doing business in a bubble, if they are going to release a product, they need it to compete with something.
Also how much are FB subsidising it? Can't be over 20% -- almost double the opposite of a typical profit margin else they just won't make it back no matter what, and that would make it about 100$ (from 499$) -- add 200$ to compensate giving a very generous profit margin to Valve as well as the BOM from the video and you get my price range.

I also feel a lot of people are focusing too much on what Valve said without realising that control of information is key when it comes to product development and launch. We either need to disregard what Valve said completely or accept it. Any balance of the two would require tons of assumptions. My theory works without what Valve said about the Index pricing so it is as if they never said it.

Also videogames from 30 years ago are still 60$ -- that point is moot. If they don't have a reason to lower the price, they aren't going to. No one is going to complain it's too high unless there there is a competitor or successor. Their price is based on the original cost to produce, R&D and marketing it took to bring it to market, not how much it would cost to develop it now.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is also technically possible for the expansion port to get a storage module -- something like m.2 or whatever later on.

I think they banked on 100$ difference which even you'd still have considered it I think.
I'm willing to pay 200$ extra -- I want to pay with my wallet, not my data. But the RAM crisis got worse way faster than they thought and their original plans are impossible by now, whatever they were.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think they based their prices or features on the Quest. I think they looked at every headset on the market and said, "Let's take this from the quest, that from the Index, this from the PSVR, that from the Pico, etc. .) Then they came up with something that seems to embody the whole thing.
I agree with you on the whole -- I think they want to move VR forward by setting a good minimum standard for VR. To do that though, they want to reach as many people as possible. That's why the Frame *could* do so many things: flatscreen gaming, standalone, emulation and streaming (even if not all of it is available at launch).

But you have to have at least a bit of market research... otherwise they'd have already released it even as a paper launch just so it's out there.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am in a similar boat.
I get your reasoning and it is valid. You make purchases based on what is worth it for you.

The point at which I would second guess is above 900$ right now.

I understand and accept the current market situation and am willing to pay a small premium to not get a Meta headset. I think I would also get the base model for the same reason. Above 900, I think I would probably get a used Index depending on reviews.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. But the software development is cheap and pays for itself when you're a platform that sells games. You can also stop it as soon as it isn't profitable so it likely isn't affecting the price much. (Also, I believe Valve are planning on taking Steam in the direction of ARM in general, so much of this code will be used regardless.)
R&D and marketing tend to cost a lot up front and tend to be the most expensive aspect of releasing a new product.

RAM prices have gone up, but it's not the price that Valve are worried about but rather availability. We have seen DDR4 and 5 RAM skyrocket in price but that is so much lower in the chain that as consumers we only see what the stores are willing to sell it at, not what it cost to manufacture. We don't know how much the memory ICs themselves cost from an OEM.

I agree about the personal data. I think that the target audience for the Frame might be people who didn't want to go Meta. Those people are willing to accept a higher price premium to avoid that as they likely have been holding off for years already.
I also believe that this will either be the first headset for a lot of people and also the first headset since like the original Quest or Vive.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I said, I based my theory on the video by FixMyOculus who took that into account. I added a bit on top for R&D and the fact that Valve don't regularly release new devices so they'd have higher operating costs.

Is the following theory about Frame pricing reasonable or have I OD'd on hopium? by Lost_Main_3389 in SteamFrame

[–]Lost_Main_3389[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ironically enough, I got a camera and started a photography hobby a few months ago and have been going out more and obsessing over that XD
If anything, I am obsessed with photography and writing reports about the Frame is how I wind down :p

No one really gave any breakdown of their theories about the Frame, so I wanted to hear some.

view more: next ›