[happy-dude]

Absolutely. This is a long term strategy stemming from the moment Microsoft spawned their app store.

A lot of people are missing the fact that the Steam Frame is Valve's attempt at staking a position in the wide-open and malleable VR space.

With Google, they identified that Microsoft developing their own search engine as an existential threat. Additionally, Internet Explorer being the only bottleneck for the web as a platform was a problem. And thus they broke it wide open, developing web technologies, investing in Firefox initially, releasing Chrome, and ultimately delivering Android.

In mobile, Microsoft came too late to respond to Apple and Google.

Meta and Apple have identified that VR is one of the next gold-mines in terms of a similar app-store and experience rich ecosystem potential comparable to PCs, web, and mobile, and have poured billions into development of hardware and software. It's documented that Meta attempted to create a proprietary OS for their VR headsets (and has debatable success).

Valve, while having fewer resources than any of the behemoths above, decided to hedge their bets with Linux and entering the market first through their well established brand built with video games. It would not surprise me if the Steam Frame begins their entry into other entertainment experiences and app opportunities. Microsoft has reasonable success weaving their ecosystem together (PC + Xbox), but they're foolish to think that their dominance would continue into VR because they have the PC space... They made that mistake with Windows Phone.

[tanaros]

> A lot of people are missing the fact that the Steam Frame is Valve's attempt at staking a position in the wide-open and malleable VR space.

It is their third attempt.

[happy-dude]

Sure, and the VR market hasn't ossified and settled yet so it's still anyone's game.

[calessian]

VR has so far failed to reach an amount of people to make developing games for it really worthwhile, and the metaverse really doesn’t have much going for it either.

I don’t really see much momentum in that space, and the consensus among my friends is that it’s a gimmick to try a few times - with their vr headsets collecting dust since.

[andersa]

Can confirm, I have two VR headsets, and they're both collecting dust. Was a neat gimmick for a few days some years ago..

[doublerabbit]

Same. I have the index, plus special eyesight amendment lenses accessory that I had to fork out on. grudge #1.

The second, offline games are cool but with only 2MB ADSL, I can't enjoy anything online with them. It's like waiting for a custom map to download on CS:S when I was on 56k. Only to join just as the server changes the level.

[sterlind]

where in the world are you still on 2MB ADSL?

[happymellon]

Probably in the US, in an area that only ATT services.

[doublerabbit]

UK in the City centre. No fibre

[doublerabbit]

It's all I can get for now.

[cluckindan]

VR gaming is niche enthusiast stuff, it will never be a thing for everyday casual gaming.

Flight sims, racing sims and most other sims where there’s stationary hardware involved can and do benefit greatly from VR, but most games are not simulations and never will be.

[geon]

This is why I can't understand current VR goggle design. Why aren't there any lightweight wired display-only goggles? Stuffing all the hardware in the goggles seems mindbogglingly stupid to me. Poor performance, high weight and high price. For what advantage?

Even the selling point of a non-wired headset is questionable. I want to sit down comfortably when I game. Not walk around and crouch and crawl.

[numpad0]

There have been numerous such goggles for the past ~25 years with little improvement in performance or price, and the fact that you're not aware of any of them suggests what the advantages are...

[Deathmax]

So the Bigscreen Beyond 1 and 2? They've optimised entirely for weight at ~100 grams.

[bccdee]

I think it's a price issue. VR is fun, but a headset costs more than it's worth. Prices aren't out yet, but the whole foveated streaming thing seems like cost-cutting tech, and it'd be smart for them to position themselves as "the affordable one."

[standardly]

For me... I can only play for 10-15 minutes before my eyes are burning and my face is hot. The eye strain is ridiculous. I don't see how people do it.

[antonyh]

The problem for me was more a software issue than hardware or cost. It (Quest 2) just felt awkward, the software selection was meh, IPD bad for me, resolution only so-so, but most of all it felt isolated from the rest of my gear. I've been planning to give it another go recently but don't have much enthusiasm for it, but a Steam headset with my collection is something I'm very keen to try.

[close04]

> With Google, they identified that Microsoft developing their own search engine as an existential threat. Additionally, Internet Explorer being the only bottleneck for the web as a platform was a problem. And thus they broke it wide open, developing web technologies, investing in Firefox initially, releasing Chrome, and ultimately delivering Android.

That story ended up with Google supplanting Microsoft as the top market abuser. So I'm holding all my fingers crossed that it doesn't turn out the same with Valve, especially since by the time they get to have a shot at that top position Valve will very likely be under different leadership and maybe with different ideals.