Dunno, still says only Oculus support here:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/300060/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/300060/
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Oculus Store update ties DRM to headset
- Thread starter Zepp Twofist
- Start date
Chairmanchuck
Member
Chairmanchuck
Member
Sorry for the double-post, but isnt that hypocrisy?
https://www.periscope.tv/michelleosorio/1rmxPEEkvLYKN
He says in that, that the people who develop for VR should target all plattforms, not just PSVR (in that context). That somehow contradicts what was they did yesterday by killing Revive...
"Do you think it would make sense to develop content thats just tied to one plattform?"
https://www.periscope.tv/michelleosorio/1rmxPEEkvLYKN
He says in that, that the people who develop for VR should target all plattforms, not just PSVR (in that context). That somehow contradicts what was they did yesterday by killing Revive...
"Do you think it would make sense to develop content thats just tied to one plattform?"
thomasmahler
Member
I know this isn't the popular opinion, but a lot of you guys are acting insanely hypocritical here and I doubt that you guys have a long-sighted view towards VR development.
Oculus is spending a fortune on software and obviously they want to push their platform, which - honestly - is a good thing. If history has taught us one thing, it's that hardware will only get adopted by the mass market if there's proper software support and it's a GOOD thing that Oculus is actually investing a massive amount of resources into helping developers make VR games. VR could end up being forgotten and in the gutter again if we don't see fantastic VR games coming out within the next 2-3 years that make VR a must-have.
If you guys are all so against Oculus preventing you to play Oculus games on the Rift only, you should also be all up in arms about Nintendo only publishing Nintendo-software on Nintendo consoles, Sony only publishing their first party titles on Playstation platforms and Microsoft only publishing First Parties on Microsoft devices.
I'm OK with Oculus locking things down and understanding that they need to pour lots of money into making great software - They wouldn't do that if there's no business-case there for them to make their money back, since no business can survive on making constant losses (and honestly, the deals Oculus is making with devs are already not going to make them a lot of money, so they're definitely trying to do the right thing here). As a developer, Oculus is one of the better companies to deal with, they've been nothing but supportive to us and all the devs we know and they're making the right moves.
So before you actually go raise the DRM flag and shit on a company, you should really get a little more insight. I'm usually not that harsh here, but the way you guys are acting is just really shitty and what a lot of you guys want could easily lead to VR to fail once again.
I personally want VR devices to become a new, fantastic standard and I want to see amazing VR games being made. Apart from Sony (who are also not allowing their VR games to be ported to other platforms, btw) and Oculus, there is no other VR platform holder out there that's putting proper budget into VR game development, so really, think twice before you go and shit on the only companies that actually ensure that you all will get good software-support.
Oculus is spending a fortune on software and obviously they want to push their platform, which - honestly - is a good thing. If history has taught us one thing, it's that hardware will only get adopted by the mass market if there's proper software support and it's a GOOD thing that Oculus is actually investing a massive amount of resources into helping developers make VR games. VR could end up being forgotten and in the gutter again if we don't see fantastic VR games coming out within the next 2-3 years that make VR a must-have.
If you guys are all so against Oculus preventing you to play Oculus games on the Rift only, you should also be all up in arms about Nintendo only publishing Nintendo-software on Nintendo consoles, Sony only publishing their first party titles on Playstation platforms and Microsoft only publishing First Parties on Microsoft devices.
I'm OK with Oculus locking things down and understanding that they need to pour lots of money into making great software - They wouldn't do that if there's no business-case there for them to make their money back, since no business can survive on making constant losses (and honestly, the deals Oculus is making with devs are already not going to make them a lot of money, so they're definitely trying to do the right thing here). As a developer, Oculus is one of the better companies to deal with, they've been nothing but supportive to us and all the devs we know and they're making the right moves.
So before you actually go raise the DRM flag and shit on a company, you should really get a little more insight. I'm usually not that harsh here, but the way you guys are acting is just really shitty and what a lot of you guys want could easily lead to VR to fail once again.
I personally want VR devices to become a new, fantastic standard and I want to see amazing VR games being made. Apart from Sony (who are also not allowing their VR games to be ported to other platforms, btw) and Oculus, there is no other VR platform holder out there that's putting proper budget into VR game development, so really, think twice before you go and shit on the only companies that actually ensure that you all will get good software-support.
Since when is a VR HMD the same as a console? Its it running on a completely different OS? With completely different hardware?
So PC gaming has gone back to hardware exclusives of the ye old past? Hardware exclusives on what is a face mounted monitor.
I can't wait for my Asus gsync monitor exclusive games to come out, or my Logitech mouse exclusive games.
Compsiox
Banned
No its not like that at all. PC has always been open. If Oculus made their own console and did the closed wall there instead it wouldn't matter.
axisofweevils
Holy crap! Today's real megaton is that more than two people can have the same first name.
This. One gaming podcast I listen to put it best - "This is like releasing games exclusive to a make of monitor".
thomasmahler
Member
That's the point though, the Rift isn't just a HMD. It's very similar to a console-launch, they're spending tons of money on their store, software support and on really building a proper VR platform, it goes way beyond a Hobbyist HMD where you cobble your own shit together (personally, that's what the VIVE feels like to me, which I'm not a fan of - VIVE feels like a quickly cobbled-together HMD with Steam support, but the Oculus stuff personally feels more like what Apple would do).
Chairmanchuck
Member
Its a peripheral, not a console.
The thing isnt, that the games are tied to the Oculus store, but tied to the headset now. And now look at what Palmer said before. They didnt want to have them tied to the Hardware, but tied to their store.
Now see the link I posted up there from a conference about 13 hours ago. He still said locking down content to just one plattform might not be a good decision for content-creators.
We are still talking about a peripheral, not a console. With that logic you could actually lock down games to GPUs. Nvidia helps with effects in Asassins Creed: Only Nvidia GPUs can play it. AMD uses Mantle? Only AMD GPUs are able to run Game ABC.
This is stupid and actually isnt consumer friendly. Now lets see what happens if I want to change my HMD manufacturer in Gen 2+3. I cant play the games that I bought on Oculus anymore, just because I changed a peripheral.
This is stupid.
People defending that decision seem to be the same people that would defend the Xbox One DRM and not see that it was a decision that might be good for their business, but is bad for the consumer in the long run.
Sorry, but that is stupid. I have an Oculus preordered and chose against the Vive, but most Vive users can tell you that the Vive is also a premium VR headset, that doesnt feel "quickly cobbled-together".
They might spend tons of money on exclusives, but their storefront (Oculus Home) is a joke...
No, it's not a console, a locked down store running the exact same OS as all other VR headsets does not make it a unique snowflake.
I can't believe, people are advocating bringing a locked down console mentality to PC.
thomasmahler
Member
That makes absolutely no sense. This is more like Valve putting a game on STEAM and complaining that Valve isn't also making that game available on Origin.
Why in the world would it be 'better' if Oculus would force you to buy a box...?
Chairmanchuck
Member
No. Its not. One is a software "DRM", the thing we have now is a hardware-drm...
I can still play games on Origin with my PC. I just need to download a free client for that. If I would want to play games from Oculus Home, I need to buy another 600€ headset.
What hardware DRM exists for steam and Steam games? Rift can play steam games and yet Oculus is the one locking things down.
Oculus already had software DRM, that's called their locked down store, they went one step further With actual hardware DRM, something PC gaming abandoned a long time ago because it was dumb.
I think I've made my displeasure with this move pretty clear already, but that isn't really the context of what they're talking about.
The question asked is essentially about exclusivity contracts. Sony right now is throwing a fair amount of money around in return for what exclusivity they can manage. That is, actual contract terms preventing you from releasing that content on any other platform or storefront (whether for a set timeframe, or altogether).
He also straight out tells the guy that if they can make a lot of money, they should seriously consider taking said exclusivity deal. Right now, the amount of return you might be able to see on a piece of content just in sales revenue is going to be extremely limited even if you are hitting multiple VR devices. His point about whether to consider remaining open is about wider mobility; the danger in getting too tied to a console platform is that if you work exclusively on the PS4 platform for, say, 3 years, how easily are you going to be able to move out of that space when you decide you want to pivot to a broader selection of platforms. PC and particularly mobile VR are going to be accelerating in their requirements very fast year by year (both developmentally and on the user end), whereas in the console space you are going to be targeting a set of requirements that isn't going to change much in that same time frame.
Targeting more platforms allows you to respond better to the VR market as it continues to accelerate on the PC and mobile side, and particularly in the mobile space that "pie" is going to get dramatically bigger in the next few years. It was more the time frame of the market; for a developer, that kind of deal is probably worthwhile now, but a few years from now is a very different and much more limiting proposition.
thomasmahler
Member
It's their own platform. It's what they need to do in order to make their moves financially viable. I'm pretty certain that if there'd only be a VIVE out there, VR just would never take off - That fucking thing ships with NAILS and a camera that you need to drill into your walls. No normal person is going to do that, it's not a mass-market device. And in terms of software support for it, that thing is very far away from being a 'premium device' - It's a 'let's be first to market' device, it's not ready for the mass-market at all yet.
Oculus is spending a shit ton of money on developing a VR platform that the mass-market would actually adopt and of course they're tying the games they fully funded to their own platform, otherwise they'd just lose money on both ends (software and hardware) and then it wouldn't make sense for them to support devs financially to make VR games.
And everyone gets to called them out for turning back on openness and embracing a console segregated experience on PC, an open platform.
thomasmahler
Member
What? If you buy a game on Steam, you'd need to re-buy the game to play it on Origin, if it's available there.
Oculus isn't forcing devs to only publish on their platforms - but of course they only ship their first party games that they fully funded on their own platforms, otherwise there's no business-case you could make to support that.
Neither Steam nor origin require you to buy valve or EA hardware to use their services and play the games you buy on their stores.
Oculus does
thomasmahler
Member
I honestly appreciate that. The Oculus guys could've shipped their first DK to market and made a shit ton of money, but they didn't. They've very clearly shown that they want a healthy VR market by developing a device for years that's actually mass-market ready.
If you ask me, that's the case for the Rift and it's not yet really the case for VIVE.
So yes, it's a matter of interpretation - What Oculus wants to do is more than just ship a HMD, they want to create THE VR platform that the masses out there would actually buy and they also pour a shit ton of money into devs to help giving people amazing VR experiences, cause if that doesn't happen, VR will soon end up being a bubble.
obviously they can do what they want, we can then criticize them for it. meanwhile the hackers ignore everyone and work around whatever DRM they come out with in a matter of days.
and long term they're not making money off of the hardware, not once the components become commoditized and there's high-quality ripoffs and no reason to buy an oculus. they're going to make money off of software or not at all, and limiting the reach of your software platform on such a niche nascent technology makes no sense.
thomasmahler
Member
So does Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, who all spend insane amount of money on First Party titles that are exclusive to their platforms.
If you see Oculus as a PLATFORM, which is what they're going for, all of this makes sense and asking them to support VIVE and other HMDs where they also can't guarantee that you'll have a proper experience is just crazy, it'd make absolutely no business-sense in that case to spend any amount of money on first party titles to push VR.
You are cheering them for trying to monopolize VR when the only ones trying to create a healthy VR platform and market with multiple hardware and software vendors are Google with Daydream and Valve with OpenVR.
It's a face Monitor, It's not a console, it's not directly running the games anymore then the kinect is directly running it's games on Xbox
Oculus is a console in the same way 3D TVs are platform, in which they are not.
The platform is PC, just like the platform for PSVR the PS4.
it's kind of a stupid strawman that you're even bringing up consoles. i personally think you should be able to play any game on any hardware you like, so don't try to act as if people are necessarily hypocritical for being skeptical of oculus.
you can say platform all you like but oculus is a piece of hardware and a piece of software. neither are unique and there's no practical reason for them to be tied to each other.
n0razi
Member
Id say its more like releasing a game that requires a Gsync monitor... there is definitely some proprietary hardware hurdles but can easily be worked around
thomasmahler
Member
That's a fucking insane comparison that has no validity at all. Does any monitor-manufacturer actually create a PLATFORM? Does any monitor developer pour money into developing games? No, they don't.
Oculus is trying to create a platform that's as plug and play as possible, a platform that the mass market could adopt. Similar to what Sony is doing with PSVR -> If you cry about Oculus making their first party titles exclusive to the Rift, you should also cry about Sony not porting their PSVR games to the PC. Just because they sell you a box with some hardware in it doesn't make an ounce of a difference.
thomasmahler
Member
That's the actual definition of what a console is. It's a piece of hardware and a piece of software and both are tied together to provide a great experience.
Oculus is doing the same - You'd not put up a rant if Oculus would also sell you a box with hardware on top of the Rift, but you do rant if they allow you to use the device on any PC out there? Makes no sense at all to me.
Once a company creates a PLATFORM, they have to make certain moves to create an actual business-case, which is exactly what they did.
Oculus recommemds a high performance computer, that is its platform, the PC platform, them trying to create a walled garden doesn't mean they created a console.
It is the antithesis of plug in and play. No amount of oculus marketing about the being a platform will change that it's just a PC peripheral on the that platform.
The fact that they need to specifically code in a hardware DRM supports that if they didn't, any HMD could run oculus home games with little trouble.
the fact that oculus games ran perfectly well on the vive before this change basically trashes all of your arguments here. i get that they have a business case for this, but it's shitty for consumers and i am going to call them a shitty company for doing it. there's no technical reason for them to be doing this and i think it will actually hurt them in the long run since the player who dominates this space will have compelling software that can run on a wide variety of hardware.
building a closed PLATFORM on top of an open PLATFORM is not going to go well for them. if you find it so hard to hear criticism of oculus you're going to have issues because the way things are proceeding they're going to catch a lot of it in the future. PC people are fundamentally different from the console audience and they do not appreciate moves like this.
Teletraan1
Banned
Just because Oculus setup their business model ala walled garden overseer doesn't mean everyone needs to accept this nonsense and wilt and hand over wallets especially when there is a competitor who priced their product accordingly to not have to play ransom. They should have just set things up where they were making enough off of the hardware like every other hardware manufacturer on the planet or actually made an all in one device that is actually a platform where you make money off of software/services rather than just being a walled peripheral for the most open ecosystem ever with current and future direct competition doing the opposite.
Zepp Twofist
Member
I'm not being hypocritical. I don't buy console exclusive games either.
And I would imagine the long sighted view towards VR development would be to give consumers a wider variety of options for what device they run their content on. Especially when Oculus on multiple occasions have explicitly stated that they wish to make money on software. In light of that it makes no sense at all to limit the number of people who can buy their software.
also mahler you keep strawmanning me. i absolutely would complain if oculus were selling the rift as part of a proprietary console package, though my attitude would be a bit closer to despairing laughter since that would absolutely guarantee a massive failure.
not everyone is entirely accepting of the console business model. i hate it generally, and i hate it even more when shitty companies try to staple it on top of an open PC.
it's just baffling anyway. DRM like this basically means they want hardware sales at the expense of software, when it should be the other way around. long-term they could easily make a hugely profitable multibillion dollar business off of software, but hardware? not a fucking chance.
not everyone is entirely accepting of the console business model. i hate it generally, and i hate it even more when shitty companies try to staple it on top of an open PC.
it's just baffling anyway. DRM like this basically means they want hardware sales at the expense of software, when it should be the other way around. long-term they could easily make a hugely profitable multibillion dollar business off of software, but hardware? not a fucking chance.
Why is blaze rush VR compatible on the oculus store but not on steam? And the developer has said he has no plans to update the steam version to support VR even though he clearly can.
Why are oculus apparently withholding their latest SDK updates from developers wanting to release their software outside of oculus home, effectively strong arming them into supporting oculus home.
This has all the hallmarks of the Xbox parity clause. If they aren't careful they'll get a backlash from indies that could quickly build up steam. Vive appears to be shipping quite fast now and has a shorter lead time from order to delivery, Sony will not have any of these supply fuckups, and Google are about to put a lot of pressure on GearVR with daydream.
End of this year oculus rift will likely be a minority market share and in that position they simply can't afford to be restrictive like this - as tempting as it might feel. Invest in great games to show VR as a whole in a good light. Make the experiences polished on your own hardware, sure. That all reflects well on oculus as a brand and keeps their mindshare high as people decide which headset to buy - bith this gen and next gen. Those that already chose vive are not going to buy another headset for a few bits of software - you made your pitch and they chose the other option. So keep doing good things to persuade them next time.
Honestly the only reason I went with vive was the tracking. If oculus delivered that next gen with a light, comfortable headset I'd be happy to switch. Well, would have been
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Why does someone think this is a reasonable thing to do? I just don't get it.
Oculus had the opportunity to collaborate on an open standard that would have been healthy for everyone in the VR market, but very obviously opted for the greed of both hardware and software DRM for what will be seen as just another I/O device to support within a few years. That you actually think consoles are a justifiable model to follow for these PC devices is a joke. Consoles exist entirely because of the benefits to the manufacturer - they are proprietary and closed because the manufacturer can extract royalties and heavily control the market to their own benefit if successful. If you think Oculus trying for a de facto monopoly during the early adoption of VR is a good thing you are deluded, it creates nothing but risk for the entire VR business. The fact that the Vive, until the latest update from Oculus, played Oculus titles without issue, completely disproves that there were any tangible software/hardware benefits of locking down the Rift (besides of course, for Oculus).
That they have now complicated development for what will be a standard I/O device deserves nothing but scorn. The PC market has dealt with "hardware DRM" bullshit in the past with the early era of GPUs and the market responded by getting rid of what was an awful way of doing business. This is why we have a massive GPU business today. Attempting the same failed practices during the early phase of VR adoption is completely at odds with creating a stable future for VR devices and software.
Azure Dream
Member
The Smashing the Battle dev made an odd comment about why the Steam version didn't support VR, and that they'd have to make a semi-sequel to support Vive. Interesting to hear that there's another case of that.
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1201636
My mind is full of fuck. You do know Steam originated as the DRM for Half Life? That this was 'necessary to make PC gaming viable'?
You don't get it, if they have no edge over the competition come the end of the year they don't have a smaller market share, they have NO market share.
It sounds like you're pretty misinformed about the Vive. The lighthouses are not cameras. In addition to the wall mounting hardware, they come with tripod mounts as well. I have mine clipped on my lamp and curtain rod. It really isn't a big deal. You also only need to mount them if you want to play roomscale. If you want a sitting/standing experience (like what the Rift currently offers) you can just set it on your desk.
Yup
Because that someone is not smart.
MaulerX
Member
I don't think it's fair to say that the Rift or Vive are just "face monitor's". You just can't downplay these things like that.
They are face monitors with 6DoF.
Compsiox
Banned
Actually yes. Game companies were afraid to spend time making games for PC because of piracy. Steam made them more confident.
The Vive is ready for mass market. You don't need to nail both sensors to a wall to have the Rift sit down VR experience. However, the option is there for room scale VR which the Rift won't be able to match until later this year.
I also think implementing this hardware DRM is incredibly short sighted. A lot of people will be buying the Vive, so why not make more money on software sales by selling to Vive customers too? Implementing this DRM is ultimately pointless since people can easily break it. If Oculus wants to be the top headset then it should focus its resources on making the hardware the best it can be - not enforcing software exclusivity through DRM that can be broken.
Speakng of hypocrites.
You leverage an argument that the Vive isn't mass market ready (*not sure why, since no one is arguing otherwise...) because it brings nails.
Then go on to paint the Oculus Rift as the opposite, or that they're trying to push that way.
You are talking about a headset that requires a massive financial investment on just the base unit (no actual VR controllers included) and then an even more expensive investment in a gaming PC that can sustain acceptable performance so that this mass market doesn't throw up while playing.
Oh, yeah, not to mention that since these consumer friendly games built for the Rift are traditionally controlled, many people are going to feel nauseous anyway. This isn't even touching the actual issue with connecting a shit load of USB cables that may or may not work, depending on your motherboard or drivers, or the fucking porn you watched last week. It's Windows. Consumer friendly indeed.
The Vive software, with motion control and room scale experiences are literally the opposite kind. They are EASIER for consumers to jump into.
The point is, neither unit is mass market consumer ready not even close. They exist purely as delivery system to get the ball rolling; to allow developers to get their VR feet under them, you know, figure out what works. Doing what Oculus and Facebook are doing with locking shit down and rolling with the exclusive game strategy, THIS FUCKING EARLY, means SLOWER growth for VR in general. Less software is purchased as a result of less MEANS of purchase.
So pull your head out your ass my man, and get the living fuck out of here with drawing lines in the sand when the box is only this small. Ain't no one trying to hear your close minded bullshit.
Edit: *except the guy above me.
staticneuron
Member
How can this be a walled garden?
This is what I am seeing people discuss here. The oculus home games are DRMed within that store. But if you by the same title on steam or from the content creator directly it is unaffected by this.
So why so much discussion. This seems simple. If you do not like this practice then only purchase rift exclusive games using home and purchase everything else on a storefront that isn't doing this.
If they pushed the idea that developers should make for as many HMD's as possible logic dictates that because of Vive, most third party content will end up on steam.
Not sure I get people getting so upset over a silly choice they made with the store that actually doesn't prevent you from acquiring the games or using the hardware in another manner.
You glossed over the part where people are upset they can't play Oculus funded games on their Vives (any more). Also, some of the games that ARE multiplatform, only have VR support in the Oculus Home storefront.
Vive owners used to have access to those versions. Not any longer.
Clear?
Edit: Even for arguments sake, we say folks are overreacting, let's just admit the cause is noble and benefits (consumers) in the VR game. At worst, Oculus sells less headsets, but more software, at least until Oculus move controllers are out.
Chairmanchuck
Member
You cant start games in the Oculus store with another headset. Thats the problem. So lets say I would buy Edge of Tomorrow on the Oculus store, then change to Vive 2 next gen, I cant play it anymore .as it stands right now.
If I buy Technolust on Steam right now, I can play it with Oculus and Vive and I am sure with Oculus CV2 and Vive CV2 in the next years.
Btw. you can already see it now. Most third party content is on Steam/Open instead of Oculus Home. There are devs even reporting their game has been rejected from Oculus Home without any reason, so they opted for Steam.
And like I said in this thread before. Its not about that. Its about what Palmer says and what Oculus does. Look at my video I linked on this page. Palmer is still saying a closed enviroment isnt healthy for VR content creators...
It was cracked a few hours after that. But it had to be cracked in such a way Oculus games can be pirated now. Funny, since the official reason the update went live is to counter that....
The argument is that its not a whole ecosystem. And neither Vive nor Oculus as a hardware are an own ecosystem. Technologically they are monitors. 2 "Monitors", headtracking, some lenses and some other technical objects, but its not a console. It is a peripheral.
This is lame. I hope Revive gets around this and there aren't further changes on the Oculus side.
I wonder if Oculus didn't expect Lucky's Tale to be playable on the Vive so quickly and regret not bundling keys for the game with headsets instead of giving it to everyone who logged into the store.
In the same way that a television is a "radio with video", I guess.
I wonder if Oculus didn't expect Lucky's Tale to be playable on the Vive so quickly and regret not bundling keys for the game with headsets instead of giving it to everyone who logged into the store.
In the same way that a television is a "radio with video", I guess.
It's reductive, I agree, but there's an actual stickied post for that argument.