436
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2026
436 points (99.1% liked)
PC Gaming
15497 readers
869 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
What I don't understand is why didn't they release a "Steam Frame Lite" that is just the VR headset without the onboard computer. It would be cheaper, lighter, and still fit most users.
Because it will take a year and a billion dollars to design, will still cost more than Quest since they won't subsidize it and nobody will buy it?
If it's a Valve product, it's going to be sold out
That's specifically because they mostly make good products they themselves are proud of. What OP proposes is not that.
Yeah seriously. People can complain all day, myself included. But I'm still gonna buy it.
Why? I've been holding out, I don't have any VR system, is this is the most well rounded without selling my soil to Meta
Fuck Meta, keep the fertile stuff for yourself
Yes, but putting everything aside, why not? /s
I presume it's the onboard computer that does the camera processing for tracking, and managing the wireless stream when streaming. They'd need to get a supply of cheaper chips that can still keep up with the processing, alongside less RAM and minimal storage, and develop a cut down system image that cannot run games and only does tracking and streaming. Unless you want a wired steam frame, I guess.
Which is all feasible, but it would take work, and then you'd get to manufacturing another variant, maintaining another version of firmware/software, how many people would go for it. And I have the impression Valve is already having trouble procuring enough hardware as is.
You need the whole setup for streaming. You could maybe save ram ny using 8 gigs instead of 16 but at that point its just better to have one sku. From ltts review it seems like the hardware is used pretty heavily even when streaming the games.
From the dev interviews, Valve people said they originally wanted it to be just a wireless PCVR headset with no standalone. But after giving it a powerful enough chip to handle the tracking, the foveated streaming with low latency, and be responsive enough, they were left with enough power budget to run things locally.
So I guess that answers your question. It just wouldn't be much cheaper anyway.
Making it do only tracking and streaming would still require at least some notable fraction of the current processing power, and most importantly they need all the bandwidth for even supporting high quality passthrough (especially with the color camera attached). They could've reduced RAM, gotten a CPU at maybe half or third of the performance, but that would still leave it more expensive than the Quest. Would that even be an interesting product?