Support NeoGAF

[Dragon Puncher]

Considering how many companies are suddenly entering the VR space, it makes sense that everybody need something to differentiate their platform. It sucks a bit for consumers that some games will be exclusives, but if I were in charge of a company betting millions on a VR headset, I wouldn't hesitate to do the same thing.

 

[Seanspeed]

Again, you could just as well be describing the approach used by Xbox One and PS4. You seem to have no issue with it, and I don't have any issue with it. But let's not pretend that it's exactly what everyone has wanted since Oculus first came to their attention.

I'm not talking about what people want, I'm talking about how 'confusing' it is.

Frankly, its not what I want at all. I'm not necessarily ok with it. I find it hard to complain or say what they're doing is wrong or unjustified, but I definitely wish things weren't like this. It's just I can understand the position they are in and the reasoning behind all this.

 

[Seanspeed]

I never thought it was. However, the implication by Palmer is that the Oculus API is so highly integrated into the design of the game that it would be difficult for developers to use multiple APIs when developing the game. Who knows, it could be difficult but the developers of this game clearly are doing so.

I think he's saying that multiple API/SDK compatibility is something that generally requires forward thinking and extra time and effort in the early design stages. Which, seeing as they're pressed for time as it is and are funding everything themselves and even helping development with their own manpower, they don't feel is a good use of their resources, particularly when they haven't released anything yet and have no income coming in.

 

[cyberheater]

Whoops. Wrong thread.

 

[tuxfool]

I think he's saying that multiple API/SDK compatibility is something that generally requires forward thinking and extra time and effort in the early design stages. Which, seeing as they're pressed for time as it is and are funding everything themselves and even helping development with their own manpower, they don't feel is a good use of their resources, particularly when they haven't released anything yet and have no income coming in.

In the case of Eve Valkyrie, it doesn't seem like it is forward thinking and early design. That game was designed for Oculus first. It seems to me that Morpheus is a much later addition. We'll have to see how much later it appears on Morpheus and how the experience is different.

 

[Train of Midnight]

I'm sure eventually these games will make their way to the Vive, officially or not, but Oculus's attitude towards other companies in VR is very unfortunate. Obviously you have to be concerned with your success first as a business, but you don't need to sacrifice the chances of VR as a whole for some short term gains. There's no reason to keep them exclusive to your device given Oculus's capabilities. They need their money ans that's fine, but make your games exclusive to your own VR market, get your cut that way and open up your games to everyone's devices. Hell you'd probably end up with more profit at that point because you're widening your playerbase.

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm sure eventually these games will make their way to the Vive, officially or not, but Oculus's attitude towards other companies in VR is very unfortunate. Obviously you have to be concerned with your success first as a business, but you don't need to sacrifice the chances of VR as a whole for some short term gains. There's no reason to keep them exclusive to your device given Oculus's capabilities. They need their money ans that's fine, but make your games exclusive to your own VR market, get your cut that way and open up your games to everyone's devices. Hell you'd probably end up with more profit at that point because you're widening your playerbase.

It's a philosophical issue.

Here are their options.

Allow less than optimal ports and work well for 75% of people.

Don't allow less than optimal ports and work well for 95% of people.

The technology is simply too new too demanding. The last 10ms of latency requires a tight integration of all components.

Obviously as gamers, we want choice, and we don't want to be hamstrung.

But from the perspective of doing well being for the medium... having 5 times as many people reporting their negative experiences is a worrying situation. They'd rather have lower initial adoption than fast initial adoption that slows down significantly because the 'well has been poisoned' by the negative word of mouth reports.

In fact, the numbers are likely worse - because that 75% and 95% only really accounts for people with systems that are up to scratch.

For people with systems below par (and there'll be plenty, irrespective of how much Oculus wants them to not use it if they're below spec), people that will be ok with the experience will be even less.

Their explanation can be accepted at face value provisionally - because their actions are congruent with their explanations thus far, even if as gamers we want to reject that notion.

The real test comes when they have a bit more time and breathing room after launch, and things start to play out a bit more - whether or not they choose to come to the table with other industry players and agree on a workable middleware solution with tight integration across the board.