- Steam Frame 256GB: 1,059 USD / 1,529 CAD / 1,049 EUR / 889 GBP / 1,609 AUD / 4,539 PLN
- Steam Frame 1TB: 1,299 USD / 1,859 CAD / 1,279 EUR / 1,089 GBP / 1,969 AUD / 5,549 PLN
- Steam Frame 256GB: 1,059 USD / 1,529 CAD / 1,049 EUR / 889 GBP / 1,609 AUD / 4,539 PLN
- Steam Frame 1TB: 1,299 USD / 1,859 CAD / 1,279 EUR / 1,089 GBP / 1,969 AUD / 5,549 PLN
The integrated computer killed it.
If it were just a headset that depended on the Steam Machine/PC it could have been significantly cheaper. Adding enough RAM to make it a useful computer was probably most of the price.
How would you do wireless streaming without some kind of compute to handle the networking and video decoding? The frame is primarily a wireless streaming device
Thin client vs full computer.
Essentially it ahould have been an extreme edition chromecast that can decode the 6ghz datastream. Nothing more.
But it can boot and run cyberpunk (in shit quality but whatever). That was not neccessary.
The capacity is like half the Steam Deck, which is years old. It’s an older mobile chip. All the magic comes from foveated rendering.
They could’ve saved maybe a hundred dollars from a cheaper chip, a little more with less storage and RAM. Then it wouldn’t be able to compete with the Meta Quest while being more expensive still. It would just have had slightly better tracking and controllers.
There are third party wireless streaming devices that function with the Index. It doesn’t take much compute to operate wifi and process minimally compressed video.
A headset with Chromebook equivalent hardware would be significantly cheaper than a headset with Steam Deck equivalent hardware.
They wanted a device like the Quest that would let people play decent VR without needing a strong PC. I think that was the right decision when it was being planned. But now that we’re mid-RAM apocalypse, the better move may have been to iterate on the Index and not try to make a new platform.