I really hope not. I’m really hoping it’ll be around $1000. If it is $1500, I do have enough money that I’ll still buy it, but it would suck.
I was hoping for 1000€. I might still get it for that.
$1500 is both exorbitant and reasonable given the circumstances.
I’d really like to have one, but that’s a lot of money.
Actually less than I expected. I won’t be getting one (too expensive), but that’s a decent price for what it is.
BTW the article is based off Tyler McVicker’s prediction. He was never good at predicting…
He predicted both Half-Life: Alyx and Deadlock with details years before the games came out.
Well that better be good news… I groaned at $1,500 but Ive been waiting YEARS to get into VR because I wanted to wait for whatever new set valve would make and Jesus did it take forever
… I’ll do $1,500 begrudgingly, but it better not be $2k+…
I think I’m out at that price. I’m thinking it will be closer to $1000, maybe a bit higher with hardware prices.
Sadly, same. Everything just keeps going up. Except our income.
So? I bought an index for $1000 approx. 8 years ago and it’s still awesome and still going strong. Considering inflation and the value added by being cordless and not needing a high-end gaming pc, $1500 seems pretty reasonable.
At 1500 it’s priced alongside higher end boutique headsets like the big screen beyond and pimax’s offerings.
And that’s not to mention just how much cheaper the Quest 3 is.
Ugh, here we go again, say it with me now:
Meta sells their hardware at a loss and then make it back through store sales and advertising data. Steam cannot do this because it’s just a PC and they are not an advertising company.
A dollar denied Cuckerberg is worth ten times its face value
Theoretically? Sure. Realistically though? Money is finite for most of us. And some stuff is just out of budget.
Yeah for you maybe, but for the general market is that going to be the case?
even if if I get a job I am unlikely to make appreciably more than I did in 2015. i was waiting for the next gen of this but looks like its not meant to be.
There is one thing about the Frame: Its not a general purpose computer like a Steam Machine, and therefore Valve can subsidize it a bit. Maybe? I expect that most Steam Frame customers would play Steam games on it.
Well, it actually is. Like the Deck you are free to install your own OS. Apparently there is already an Arch build available.
Yes, but its not as suitable for a general purpose computer like a PC. Its HUGE difference. Anyone want to buy Steam Frame for general purpose computing is better off buying a normal computer (or even Steam Machine), as it is cheaper and x86 based. Well see how powerful that thing is.
Being an open platform makes a perfect candidate for a wide variety of use cases that are not gaming, including general computing.
Note: I am NOT arguing you cannot general computing stuff with it. I am arguing that anyone buying Steam Frame does not with the intention to do that only. Most likely anyone purchasing Steam Frame wants to play virtual reality games on Steam. Steam Frame is NOT a perfect candidate for wide variety of uses cases.
A mobile device you put on your head, with ARM architecture is not the perfect device to do general computing only. Anyone buying a Steam Machine could happily ignore the Steam store and do normal PC stuff with it. So that’s why Valve did not subsidize the price. But Steam Frame is not like that. If someone wants to do general computing ONLY, then this is not a device for it. It would be cumbersome to work with, probably underpowered for its price and in general the CPU architecture is not ideal for that.
Compare this to Steam Machine. If the Machine was subsidized by Valve, then it would be cheaper than a comparable PC. In that case any company or other users would buy it to use it without Steam. In which case Valve would lose money on every single hardware.
