I am currently arguing with Chris Corry, former Head of Oculus Studios Operations, about whether or not the Valve Frame can succeed.'n'nHere’s my position: the Quest didn’t fail because VR itself has no runway.
-
I am currently arguing with Chris Corry, former Head of Oculus Studios Operations, about whether or not the Valve Frame can succeed.
Here’s my position: the Quest didn’t fail because VR itself has no runway. It failed because Meta has never had what Valve has always had: enthusiastic customers.
Meta pushed hard into VR with a product that was heavy, had weak battery life, pushed constant updates, and required a Facebook login, but those were surface-level problems. The real issue was trust. Meta just doesn’t have a consumer base that genuinely loves its ecosystem. People used Quest because it was cheap, not because they believed in the company behind it.
Valve lives on the opposite end of that spectrum. Everything they build lands with an audience that is already invested, already excited, and already inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Steam Deck didn’t become a breakout hit because it was the most powerful device in the world—it wasn’t. It became a hit because Valve showed up with a piece of hardware that aligned with what their customers actually wanted, and then supported it relentlessly.
That’s the part critics keep missing. Saying Valve “can’t catch up” assumes they’re chasing Meta. They’re not.
Meta needed VR to become the next smartphone. Valve only needs VR to become the next great piece of PC hardware. One company was trying to build a platform for everyone—while fighting against its own reputation. The other is building for the exact people who already love them.
That’s why the Valve Frame has a real chance. Meta never had enthusiasts. Valve does. And in emerging tech, enthusiasm is the oxygen that keeps the fire alive.
-
I am currently arguing with Chris Corry, former Head of Oculus Studios Operations, about whether or not the Valve Frame can succeed.
Here’s my position: the Quest didn’t fail because VR itself has no runway. It failed because Meta has never had what Valve has always had: enthusiastic customers.
Meta pushed hard into VR with a product that was heavy, had weak battery life, pushed constant updates, and required a Facebook login, but those were surface-level problems. The real issue was trust. Meta just doesn’t have a consumer base that genuinely loves its ecosystem. People used Quest because it was cheap, not because they believed in the company behind it.
Valve lives on the opposite end of that spectrum. Everything they build lands with an audience that is already invested, already excited, and already inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Steam Deck didn’t become a breakout hit because it was the most powerful device in the world—it wasn’t. It became a hit because Valve showed up with a piece of hardware that aligned with what their customers actually wanted, and then supported it relentlessly.
That’s the part critics keep missing. Saying Valve “can’t catch up” assumes they’re chasing Meta. They’re not.
Meta needed VR to become the next smartphone. Valve only needs VR to become the next great piece of PC hardware. One company was trying to build a platform for everyone—while fighting against its own reputation. The other is building for the exact people who already love them.
That’s why the Valve Frame has a real chance. Meta never had enthusiasts. Valve does. And in emerging tech, enthusiasm is the oxygen that keeps the fire alive.
@atomicpoet quite.
I fundamentally don't trust Facebook to treat me like a customer, because in every interaction I have with them they treat me like livestock on their attention farm. I would never buy anything from Facebook, let alone something I put on my head and cover my actual eyeballs with.
I'm not an enthusiast for Valve, but I trust them to sell a device they think I want to buy, not the device they want me to be locked into so they can fill it with fucking adverts.
-
A Chris Trottier shared this topic
-
I am currently arguing with Chris Corry, former Head of Oculus Studios Operations, about whether or not the Valve Frame can succeed.
Here’s my position: the Quest didn’t fail because VR itself has no runway. It failed because Meta has never had what Valve has always had: enthusiastic customers.
Meta pushed hard into VR with a product that was heavy, had weak battery life, pushed constant updates, and required a Facebook login, but those were surface-level problems. The real issue was trust. Meta just doesn’t have a consumer base that genuinely loves its ecosystem. People used Quest because it was cheap, not because they believed in the company behind it.
Valve lives on the opposite end of that spectrum. Everything they build lands with an audience that is already invested, already excited, and already inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Steam Deck didn’t become a breakout hit because it was the most powerful device in the world—it wasn’t. It became a hit because Valve showed up with a piece of hardware that aligned with what their customers actually wanted, and then supported it relentlessly.
That’s the part critics keep missing. Saying Valve “can’t catch up” assumes they’re chasing Meta. They’re not.
Meta needed VR to become the next smartphone. Valve only needs VR to become the next great piece of PC hardware. One company was trying to build a platform for everyone—while fighting against its own reputation. The other is building for the exact people who already love them.
That’s why the Valve Frame has a real chance. Meta never had enthusiasts. Valve does. And in emerging tech, enthusiasm is the oxygen that keeps the fire alive.
@atomicpoet customer trust is an extremely important point, and I would add to that another one: Valve doesn't even need the Frame itself to succeed. One of the things that Valve can afford to do and Meta cannot is “iterative improvements”. If you look at the history of the Valve hardware programs, the takeaway is that they don´t actually need to succeed as long as they're a meaningful increment and an experience Valve can learn from. Benefits of being privately own, I guess?
-
@atomicpoet customer trust is an extremely important point, and I would add to that another one: Valve doesn't even need the Frame itself to succeed. One of the things that Valve can afford to do and Meta cannot is “iterative improvements”. If you look at the history of the Valve hardware programs, the takeaway is that they don´t actually need to succeed as long as they're a meaningful increment and an experience Valve can learn from. Benefits of being privately own, I guess?
@atomicpoet IOW, it doesn't even *matter* if it succeeds or how much it succeeds (e.g. Steam machines were arguably a commercial failure, but paved the way for everything that has come out since).
-
@atomicpoet IOW, it doesn't even *matter* if it succeeds or how much it succeeds (e.g. Steam machines were arguably a commercial failure, but paved the way for everything that has come out since).
Oblomov Exactly. The first Steam Machines were such a clear failure that they became an industry punchline for years. But Valve didn’t fold. They iterated quietly, made adjustments most people never noticed, and kept moving the ball forward.
And then, almost out of nowhere, they created an entirely new customer segment that didn’t exist before—while simultaneously making desktop Linux genuinely viable for everyday use.
The fact that I wiped Windows off my own machine and replaced it with what is essentially my own version of a Steam Machine says everything.
-
I am currently arguing with Chris Corry, former Head of Oculus Studios Operations, about whether or not the Valve Frame can succeed.
Here’s my position: the Quest didn’t fail because VR itself has no runway. It failed because Meta has never had what Valve has always had: enthusiastic customers.
Meta pushed hard into VR with a product that was heavy, had weak battery life, pushed constant updates, and required a Facebook login, but those were surface-level problems. The real issue was trust. Meta just doesn’t have a consumer base that genuinely loves its ecosystem. People used Quest because it was cheap, not because they believed in the company behind it.
Valve lives on the opposite end of that spectrum. Everything they build lands with an audience that is already invested, already excited, and already inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Steam Deck didn’t become a breakout hit because it was the most powerful device in the world—it wasn’t. It became a hit because Valve showed up with a piece of hardware that aligned with what their customers actually wanted, and then supported it relentlessly.
That’s the part critics keep missing. Saying Valve “can’t catch up” assumes they’re chasing Meta. They’re not.
Meta needed VR to become the next smartphone. Valve only needs VR to become the next great piece of PC hardware. One company was trying to build a platform for everyone—while fighting against its own reputation. The other is building for the exact people who already love them.
That’s why the Valve Frame has a real chance. Meta never had enthusiasts. Valve does. And in emerging tech, enthusiasm is the oxygen that keeps the fire alive.
@atomicpoet I agree with your position, but I think you glossed over how fundamentally different the two versions of "success" are. Valve can generate the trust and enthusiasm because success for them isn't limited to the next quarter.
-
I am currently arguing with Chris Corry, former Head of Oculus Studios Operations, about whether or not the Valve Frame can succeed.
Here’s my position: the Quest didn’t fail because VR itself has no runway. It failed because Meta has never had what Valve has always had: enthusiastic customers.
Meta pushed hard into VR with a product that was heavy, had weak battery life, pushed constant updates, and required a Facebook login, but those were surface-level problems. The real issue was trust. Meta just doesn’t have a consumer base that genuinely loves its ecosystem. People used Quest because it was cheap, not because they believed in the company behind it.
Valve lives on the opposite end of that spectrum. Everything they build lands with an audience that is already invested, already excited, and already inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Steam Deck didn’t become a breakout hit because it was the most powerful device in the world—it wasn’t. It became a hit because Valve showed up with a piece of hardware that aligned with what their customers actually wanted, and then supported it relentlessly.
That’s the part critics keep missing. Saying Valve “can’t catch up” assumes they’re chasing Meta. They’re not.
Meta needed VR to become the next smartphone. Valve only needs VR to become the next great piece of PC hardware. One company was trying to build a platform for everyone—while fighting against its own reputation. The other is building for the exact people who already love them.
That’s why the Valve Frame has a real chance. Meta never had enthusiasts. Valve does. And in emerging tech, enthusiasm is the oxygen that keeps the fire alive.
@atomicpoet I considered myself to be an early adopter of VR, used a Virtuality headset in ~1996, always dreamed of a Forte VFX1, had Oculus DK2, PSVR1, Quest1-3. I gave the whole VR thing so many tries, but it always felt lackluster.
On the Quest, the ecosystem felt neglected pretty much from the get go: Obviously fake app reviews, terrible lobbies in multiplayer, not-so-great update politics, etc. - after Zuckerberg pitched the whole Metaverse idea, I bailed. Incidentally, I sold my Steam 1/2 -
@atomicpoet I considered myself to be an early adopter of VR, used a Virtuality headset in ~1996, always dreamed of a Forte VFX1, had Oculus DK2, PSVR1, Quest1-3. I gave the whole VR thing so many tries, but it always felt lackluster.
On the Quest, the ecosystem felt neglected pretty much from the get go: Obviously fake app reviews, terrible lobbies in multiplayer, not-so-great update politics, etc. - after Zuckerberg pitched the whole Metaverse idea, I bailed. Incidentally, I sold my Steam 1/2@atomicpoet Deck at around the same time.
I had a hard time playing games in VR because they were extremely exhausting for me - due to immersion and the more immediate sensations. I'm no longer convinced that VR is capable of becoming a mass, mainstream market at all.
That being said, if anyone is able to make it work, it's probably Valve, if they are able to repeat the success formula of the Steam Deck.
Do you have a link to the discussion?
2/2 -
@atomicpoet I agree with your position, but I think you glossed over how fundamentally different the two versions of "success" are. Valve can generate the trust and enthusiasm because success for them isn't limited to the next quarter.
Cassander This is true, but I wouldn’t say it was glossed over so much as it was the a priori assumption behind my argument.
Valve could go public tomorrow and try to become the next Nvidia. They’d have one of the most attractive IPOs in the industry. But they’ve deliberately chosen not to. They’d rather stay private and avoid the pressure to chase short-term gains at the expense of long-term success.
That’s exactly why they can cultivate trust and enthusiasm in a way Meta simply can’t.
-
@atomicpoet Deck at around the same time.
I had a hard time playing games in VR because they were extremely exhausting for me - due to immersion and the more immediate sensations. I'm no longer convinced that VR is capable of becoming a mass, mainstream market at all.
That being said, if anyone is able to make it work, it's probably Valve, if they are able to repeat the success formula of the Steam Deck.
Do you have a link to the discussion?
2/2Dr. Christopher Kunz Yeah, the whole conversation is right here. In the end, he ended up agreeing with me.
People who don’t game often underestimate how pivotal video game tech really is. So let me put the Steam Hardware Announcement in perspective: * Google, Amazon, and Nvidia *all* tried to make game… | Christopher Trottier | 13 comments
People who don’t game often underestimate how pivotal video game tech really is. So let me put the Steam Hardware Announcement in perspective: * Google, Amazon, and Nvidia *all* tried to make game streaming happen. None succeeded. Valve probably will. * Google, Dell, and Lenovo *all* tried to make desktop Linux mainstream. None succeeded. Valve probably will. * Meta, Microsoft, and Apple *all* tried to make VR happen. None succeeded. Valve probably will. Why? Because Valve has already built the *ecosystem* to make all of this work together—and I know this because I use it every day. Valve doesn’t just innovate. They integrate. Take Proton. Before Valve got involved, running Windows games on Linux was a nightmare. Now it’s practically plug-and-play. And once Windows games run well on Linux, Windows *apps* follow suit. Or take streaming. I’ve been streaming Windows games to my Mac through Steam Link for years. It’s not flawless, but it’s given me an unmatched game library that Apple alone could never deliver. And here’s the bigger picture: Nvidia may be the most valuable company on Earth, but what built their empire wasn’t AI—it was *games.* GPUs first became essential because people wanted to play Quake and Half-Life. Now we’re entering a new phase. All those overhyped, half-forgotten tech ideas—streaming, VR, desktop Linux—finally have a shot at mass adoption. Because the best way to truly *validate* new technology is to make it work for gamers. | 13 comments on LinkedIn
(www.linkedin.com)
