StarVR, the Acer & Starbreeze owned startup behind the recently unveiled StarVR One wide field of view (FOV) headset, is going through a pretty rocky period after it was delisted from the Taipei stock exchange last month. Starbreeze today published an open letter to its developers notifying them the StarVR Developer Program is on hold until further notice.

Here’s the letter in full, which was also emailed to developers who signed up for the program:

To our valued community of developers and partners,

We regret to inform you that the StarVR Developer Program has been put on hold until further notice.

We believe it is the most responsible course of action to put the StarVR Developer Program on hold while our company is in the process of going private, which may entail some changes to our operations.

Your interest and support for StarVR is greatly appreciated. We understand that many of you were looking forward to purchasing the StarVR One headset, and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Sincerely yours,

The StarVR Team

SEE ALSO
Pimax Announces General Sale of "8K" & "5K" Headsets with 80+ Day Waiting Period

The StarVR Developer Program was devised to make StarVR One headsets available for purchase to a “select group of development teams and professional users.” There were also a few hoops to jump through to show that developers were up to the task of creating content for the $3,200 headset, which was unveiled in late August.

Where that leaves StarVR One, we’re just not sure at the moment. It’s very likely the company is searching for venture capital to make the transition from publicly traded company back to private firm a sound move financially.

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. See here for more information.


  • Arashi

    Worst case scenario would be if a company like Facebook would buy it and then destroy it like they did with Oculus

    • jj

      explain why you think fb destroyed oculus?

      I hate fb more than anyone else please trust me, but i dont think anything got ruined, if anything it got fully funded

      *Edited for typo

      • Arashi

        Well if you want the best in VR, you’ll look at Odyssey+, Vive Pro or pimax 5k/8k. No way you’d consider that 4 year old Oculus thing.

        • jj

          so you start with saying they destroyed oculus,
          i say explain,
          you then follow with if you want the best go with these???

          thats a logical fallacy known as a straw man fallacy. (Changing the argument instead of backing it up)

          Being the best headset disregarding price vs value, which u are clearly doing because nobody is going to buy the vive pro, has nothing to do with if fb ran oculus into the ground. fb is going for longevity with affordable hardware and they’re winning by a fuck ton.

          So would you like to try again on why you think fb ran oculus into the ground?

          but just incase you think what you said made any sense, ill still retort.

          you mean best that money can buy…. not best value for your money or best for consumer or best for the vr industry?

          my favorite is vive but if you consider the vive pro as good for consumers then you must live under a rock.

          With how affordable(this is key) the rift and other oculus devices are, yet how functional they are(rift can run steamvr games, vive cant really run oculus without revive), someone getting into vr is CLEARLY going to get a rift, or a go or a quest if not an Odyssey. this is literally not even debatable its so obvious. I’d bet you ten bucks someone will agree with me in the comments

          I work with setting companies up with the device they need and the software solution for it too. I’ve spent time studying each headset with its capabilities and quality.

          sry if my answer is scattered but your last comment was pretty off topic from your main point so yeah thats your fault.

          • Arashi

            Spin it any way you want, the Oculus is 4 year old, has horrible SDE compared to modern standards, low FoV and extreme godray’s. That’s not something a VR enthousiast would buy nowadays. It was nice back then, but now it’s not.

          • jj

            so because something is 4 years old that means the company destroyed it?? especially because everything you just mentioned is common for every 1st gen device from SDE to FOV all the way to god rays. so yet again that does not prove one bit that fb ruined oculus you just explained the common issues every headset had starting out.

            try again lol

          • Arashi

            What I mean is that Oculus was THE hmd to get if you loved VR. Well of course, the only other choice was Vive :) But now, if you love VR, Oculus is not something you’d even consider to buy. That’s my point. Zuckerberg destroyed it for the people who love VR

          • jj

            Well respectfully, you couldn’t be further from the truth. I despise fuckerberge to the point where I almost boycotted their devices but if you can’t afford to be gouged out of your money oculus is the best option. The rift is dirt cheap and is extremely similar to the Vive which is twice the cost. Not to mention the go really is revolutionary with getting afordable vr into households while the quest is literally going to change the game. If you like vr, oculus is where you will go and based off of sales it’s where everyones going.

            You saying if you love vr you wouldn’t consider oculus is extremely oxymoronic. So this tells me you don’t even have a genuine opinion or the facts to form one on this topic and that you just like to hear yourself talk.

          • Arashi

            LOL, well good luck with your godray’s, your tiny FoV and blocky pixelation and SDE then. Enjoy!!

          • Eddie Barsh

            I agree with JJ but I also agree with Arashis point that Oculus has failed to deliver a followup to the Rift (disregarding the Go & Quest) and that is very frustrating and concerning to myself and others as well. I disagree with Arashi that FB has killed Oculus when they (along with PSVR) brought the market back to life with the Go and have created a ton of hype with the Quest formerly known as Santa Cruz.

          • phillmecrevis

            exactly!

          • Bryan Ischo

            It’s more “moving the goalposts” than “strawman”, but yeah … bad logic either way.

          • Laurence Nairne

            Yeah there wasn’t any attempt to make a hollow follow up argument that even related to Facebook destroying Oculus so couldn’t be considered a strawman.

        • Dave

          Sorry mate, if you had a Oculus – moving to a Vivo Pro is a financial nightmare and to be honest the lighthouses are dead weight. Inside out tracking is the future. You will not see another external Oculus sensor used in future products in VR so HTC have some serious thinking to do with the betamax that is now lighthouse 2.0

          It is more viable to move to an Odyssey+ but the Rift isn’t that far behind so for many it’s simply isn’t worth it. Make no mistake people – I truely believe a lot of 1st gen users are waiting out for a true 2nd gen headset and buying a .point upgrade just isn’t worth it.

          • Arashi

            Sure, only 78% more resolution and anti SDE technology, I’d call that pretty far behind myself. But some Oculus fanboy’s are obviously stuck with their old tech and believe that their company is still at the forefront of VR. Quite funny.

          • Laurence Nairne

            Are you reading a different thread? At no point have I seen a single comment (from other people) that even looked like the ramblings of a fanboy. In fact, beyond your incoherent bashing of Oculus (come Facebook), this discussion has seemed fairly reasoned and balanced.

            You’re the only one who has used statements like “people who love VR” which leads me to believe this is a last ditch attempt at pot calling kettle black.

            Unfortunately industries are complex and cannot be reviewed in a unilateral way. If you’re going to have an argument like, “…Facebook would buy it and then destroy it like they did with Oculus”, you have to give a more considered argument than “because I love VR and I don’t like that they haven’t given me a better toy yet”. Well if you want to be taken seriously anyway.

          • Arashi

            Yeah Oculus with its 1080*1200 resolution, its enormous godray’s, its small FoV is still at the forefront of VR man and still a player of great importance, you’re totally right. Now pass me that joint, you’re smoking some good stuff there mate.

          • Laurence Nairne

            So yes you’re reading a different thread, because if you actually read what I wrote you’d realise you’re not even slightly responding to anything I said.

          • namekuseijin

            these companies at the forefront of VR are most likely about to go bankrupt while OTOH lower spec systems like Oculus Go or PSVR really get the masses to have a taste for VR. everything in their proper time, there should be an audience before there are premium products…

            This really sounds like Crytek, which released their acclaimed Crysis way before people had actual hardware for it and are now an almost defunct company…

          • Ballpeen

            Inside out tracking is definitely the future & will only improve.

            Meanwhile, Lighthouse may have its lifespan increased as tracking for 3rd party HMDs such as Pimax, until the next gen comes along.

      • Adrian Meredith

        destroyed is a bit harsh but they certainly haven’t tried to foster a healthy market by not releasing a follow up. By doing so the “hype” has ended somewhat prematurely. People seem to forget the original iphone was rubbish, it was a smartphone that didn’t even support 3g. imagine 3 years later that still being the most modern iphone it would be unthinkable

        • Dave

          I think VR is pretty complicated – Micheal Abrash has said before that for VR to happen (again) for what we currently know as first generation (although VR has been around for decades) a lot of technologies have come together to make it viable.

          That needs to happen again for a meaningful second generation to again be viable. I don’t know what you think of say the Pimax 5K+ but Sweviver youtuber has an absolute monster of a PC but he struggles to get the most out of the 5K so for me second generation isn’t ready for wider adoption yet.

          Facebook / Oculus and HTC realise this which is why they are focusing on additional technologies to bridge the gap and make the 2gen HMD’s more accessible to the wider public.

          So in that context, how on earth can you say FB has done anything wrong. Bringing the interim Rift out is a stop gap but that’s all it is, Rift 2.0 will happen but at the moment technology wise we’re not quite there. And hell you never know Rift 1.5 might be quite good. All there products for me have added something new to VR and egonimically they have always been easy to use.

        • Laurence Nairne

          This comparison to mobile phone technology is a poor one. Comparing it to smartphones is even worse.

          Mobile phones are a tool that cover a ton of bases. When Apple launched the original iPhone, there was already a captive audience of mobile phone owners who were hungry for their pocket devices to do more than make calls and send text messages. They’d already had a flavour of web browsing on a mobile device and nothing was truly alien about the experience (bar maybe touch screen technology).

          VR is different, there isn’t an existing captive market of people with headsets strapped to their faces. There are a myriad health considerations to be factored in (like optical variables) and it’s still inherently an isolated experience in a lot of ways.

          If you look at the start of most tech industries, it takes a long time to build up speed. If you want a realistic comparison, look at the adoption of the personal computer.

    • Andrew Jakobs

      I don’t think they destroyed Oculus, without the money from Facebook the DK2 would have been the CV1.. The got a lot of capital after they buyout..

      • bud01

        Recent home experience (Rift home) was truly breath taking, FB are in this for the long haul.

        • Schadows

          They might not try to push the boundaries anymore, instead focusing on bring VR to a broader audience with cheap, constraints free headset, but you can’t deny what they brough to this industry.

          • Laurence Nairne

            I’ll also withhold my judgement until I see the end product of Quest. Yes it’s not PC VR which seems to bring on an aneurysm for many people, but it could still be a very compelling catalyst to real development in the offloading of process heavy work to remote servers.

    • Fredrik Sjöborg

      Selling to Facebook would definitely be the worst that can happen but I very much doubt they would be interested in a SteamVR headset.

  • 3872Orcs

    Maybe someone with deep pockets and an interest in VR could invest? Palmer or someone similar? I wonder if Palmer has tried the headset and what he thinks about, would be interesting to know.

    • Bryan Ischo

      Wow that would certainly stir things up.

  • bud01

    Looks like what ever is happening they are being as responsible as possible, have to hope what ever is occurring it is an accelerating agent to enable the earth to faster get its hands on higher and better quality VR for better and better experiences.

    VR for education, recreation and communication is only just starting, days ahead are bright.

    • Dave

      What a load of bollocks. The projects in trouble. Starbreeze has filed for administration in Sweden and Acer having had serious financial issues the last few years is only now coming out the other side. If they don’t find a buyer soon the project is toast.

  • Master

    We can assume that they wanted a military contract at 3200 a piece and then the military is probably like”Well it looks amazing but we think the 300 dollar ones will get the job done without having to look amazing. They were trying to get richer from the military

    • Meow Smith

      lol US tax payers throw insane amounts of $$$’s at their military compared to
      other countrys they surely can afford to buy better headsets than what your suggesting, then again America is heading for another Bush2.0 on steroids ditch(don’t you suckers ever learn).

    • Laurence Nairne

      Well the US military just signed a pretty sizeable contract with Microsoft for HoloLens, so they’re willing to spend good money when they want to.

  • Matilde Constance

    The rv has already begun to crumble like a house of cards…

    • jj

      Yeahhhhhh or not. If you think starvr falling through is an example of the entire vr industry then you’re just pulling shit out of thin air. You must not be involved and see how much has been set in motion for vr if you are saying it’s crumbling. But whatever, by all means keep on speaking out about things you don’t know, it’s pretty entertaining.

  • JesuSaveSouls

    Its just to expensive for those maximus catering for the richest.If they made those units available and obtainable sooner it would of for them been better.

  • What the f**. It was slated to be one of the best enterprise headsets, and now it risks to sink…

  • perspective2025

    I would like to point out inaccuracy that “Starbreeze today posted an open letter”… as you will notice the message came from StarVR. Starbreeze is just a minority owner in StarVR and its a completely different company.

  • JesuSaveSouls

    Always wanted to try one of these.What happened to the walking dead game they were licensed to reveal ?

  • namekuseijin

    I wonder who in their right mind are willing to wear a huge brick like that…