4 ms·

Never ever write software for Oculus

67 points by colinramsay 11y ago

mgo 11y ago
This is pretty damning. It's pretty amazing how Oculus will lose the VR battle despite being "first". The HTC Vive and other more open solutions for developers that aren't behind a walled garden will win with gamers.
s_dev 11y ago
Seems almost over reaching. I wonder if this sort of strict ToS and Privacy Policy comes from management at Facebook or Oculus.
- cryowaffle 11y ago
  FB
  - xlib 11y ago
    Do you have a source for that or is it speculation?
smoyer 11y ago
This is going to alienate the indie game (and content?) producers, but there's no way they're going to get big commercial companies to join with those terms of service. When press, it's going to be Oculus that capitulates to a more equitable agreement - Let's say it was Steam - I'd expect them to form an agreement that says in principle "You own the games you produce for our platform and we own the hardware. Working together, we might both sell more units."
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
appleflaxen 11y ago
The only thing that will alter this kind of behavior is refusing to support them economically. If devs don't develop and gamers don't consume, it will stop. Unfortunately, it requires things to be bad enough that a big sector of the consumer sector follows through, which is rare.
bio4m 11y ago
This is for user submitted content; not items put up for sale by a developer. From the linked document In the event you are a developer who submits User Content to Oculus, you acknowledge and agree that our agreements with you as a developer may supersede this section of the Terms.
- metafunctor 11y ago
  Right. So, the viewpoint in the article is basically based on an incomplete (an apparently angry) reading of the WRONG DOCUMENT.
  - vrfcodf 11y ago
    Read it again. Author is concerned about how Oculus threats their users, therefore as a developer he/she decided to not contribute to that system.
- cokernel 11y ago
  I thought the point of the post was that it was "antidemocratic, immoral and plain evil" for developers to contribute to the success of an environment with such user-hostile terms. Am I reading too much into it?
- kaio 11y ago
  Yep. I think the more interesting stuff for developers is here: https://share.oculus.com/developer-distribution-agreement https://share.oculus.com/developer-distribution-agreement
vrfcodf 11y ago
And from their privacy policy https://www.oculus.com/en-us/legal/privacy-policy/ https://www.oculus.com/en-us/legal/privacy-policy/: Information Automatically Collected About You When You Use Our Services: -Information about your physical movements and dimensions when you use a virtual reality headset. So even if I play single player games in my home I have no expectation of privacy anymore.
- IshKebab 11y ago
  Oh come on. That's clearly reasonable data to collect to improve future products. They should probably ask you if you want to do that but still... You probably wouldn't be happy to know that many many mobile apps track every click you make.
  - vrfcodf 11y ago
    I have no problem with that if it is an opt-in. Otherwise I expect privacy in my home. No mobile app is tracking me. The only information stored by the use of my phone is the cell tower location, the use of that information requires a court order in my country (although it is possible that even that isn't stored anymore, I would have to check).
Nutmog 11y ago
You could make the same warning about writing open source software. Nobody calls that evil. As soon as you release anything under the GPL or MIT license, you're also giving Oculus a worldwide, ... perpetual, .. right to use, ... and distribute it.
sbuttgereit 11y ago
Alright, I'll bite. In practice, how does this differ from most open source licenses? Yes, I appreciate that there is a corporate entity which is reserving these rights for itself (non-exclusively), but at some level this writer's response seems a bit overdone. But really, if I license something, say, via an MIT license: Am I not saying in effect that I grant anyone that comes along a "worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content[...]"? Don't get me wrong, if I want to keep something proprietary and under my control, I best not publish to the Oculus services. But "antidemocratic, immoral and plain evil"? Nonsense. (note: I didn't read the Oculus terms, more than I want at 5am on a Monday, but am responding directly to what the author's complaint is aimed at.)
- vrfcodf 11y ago
  Am I not saying in effect that I grant anyone that comes along a... With the MIT license you grant those permissions for your own work, not for their work back to you.
  - sbuttgereit 11y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm not saying anything in conflict with that statement. The MIT License does not require reciprocal licensing nor does the Oculus terms of service. You can only ever license your own work (the "I grant" from my original post) and sub-license the work of others according to the terms you've agreed to with them. Only do certain open source licenses require re-licensing and re-distribution of derivative products back to the public. That's why I did not mention restrictive open source licenses like the GPL and picked a permissive license in my example.
    - vrfcodf 11y ago
      I think you're trolling but here goes: Oculus terms of service require (among other things) of the user this: By submitting User Content through the Services, you grant Oculus a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual (i.e. lasting forever), non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others) right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content in connection with the Services... and so on This is absolutely not the case with the MIT license, which only requires the licensee to do this: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. and nothing else. Oculus license (terms of service) requires the licensee give to Oculus right to his/her User content if he/she agrees to the Oculus license (terms of service).
hoodoof 11y ago
Why isn't it called the Facebook Oculus?
hoodoof 11y ago
Seems to me legal departments get to own this stuff till they break the company reputation then the CEO snarls at the chief legal officer and says "what the fuck are you doing?"
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Dashron 11y ago
Looks like Steam has similar conditions: http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ "YOU AND VALVE AGREE TO RESOLVE ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS BETWEEN US IN INDIVIDUAL BINDING ARBITRATION." "You grant Valve and its affiliates the worldwide, non-exclusive, right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and publicly perform, your User Generated Content, and derivative works of your User Generated Content, in connection with the operation and promotion of the Steam site." One key difference is which services this applies to. Steam: "in connection with the operation and promotion of the Steam site" Oculus: "in connection with the Services". Where services are defined as "use of physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content"
- vrfcodf 11y ago
  As a future dev it makes me sick. I have to choose either to support a business like that or never make any money.
baltar 11y ago
So their definition of "service" is "physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content". Does this mean that if I wrote, say, a 3D modelling tool for the Rift, than anything that my users create could be grabbed by them (and given to others) for free?
atticusalien 11y ago
Mirror: http://i.imgur.com/Qh2ezrJ.png http://i.imgur.com/Qh2ezrJ.png

67 points by colinramsay 11y ago

mgo 11y ago

This is pretty damning. It's pretty amazing how Oculus will lose the VR battle despite being "first". The HTC Vive and other more open solutions for developers that aren't behind a walled garden will win with gamers.

s_dev 11y ago

Seems almost over reaching. I wonder if this sort of strict ToS and Privacy Policy comes from management at Facebook or Oculus.

cryowaffle 11y ago
FB
- xlib 11y ago
  Do you have a source for that or is it speculation?

smoyer 11y ago

This is going to alienate the indie game (and content?) producers, but there's no way they're going to get big commercial companies to join with those terms of service. When press, it's going to be Oculus that capitulates to a more equitable agreement - Let's say it was Steam - I'd expect them to form an agreement that says in principle "You own the games you produce for our platform and we own the hardware. Working together, we might both sell more units."

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

appleflaxen 11y ago

The only thing that will alter this kind of behavior is refusing to support them economically. If devs don't develop and gamers don't consume, it will stop. Unfortunately, it requires things to be bad enough that a big sector of the consumer sector follows through, which is rare.

bio4m 11y ago

This is for user submitted content; not items put up for sale by a developer. From the linked document In the event you are a developer who submits User Content to Oculus, you acknowledge and agree that our agreements with you as a developer may supersede this section of the Terms.

metafunctor 11y ago
Right. So, the viewpoint in the article is basically based on an incomplete (an apparently angry) reading of the WRONG DOCUMENT.
- vrfcodf 11y ago
  Read it again. Author is concerned about how Oculus threats their users, therefore as a developer he/she decided to not contribute to that system.
cokernel 11y ago
I thought the point of the post was that it was "antidemocratic, immoral and plain evil" for developers to contribute to the success of an environment with such user-hostile terms. Am I reading too much into it?
kaio 11y ago
Yep. I think the more interesting stuff for developers is here: https://share.oculus.com/developer-distribution-agreement https://share.oculus.com/developer-distribution-agreement

vrfcodf 11y ago

And from their privacy policy https://www.oculus.com/en-us/legal/privacy-policy/ https://www.oculus.com/en-us/legal/privacy-policy/: Information Automatically Collected About You When You Use Our Services: -Information about your physical movements and dimensions when you use a virtual reality headset. So even if I play single player games in my home I have no expectation of privacy anymore.

IshKebab 11y ago
Oh come on. That's clearly reasonable data to collect to improve future products. They should probably ask you if you want to do that but still... You probably wouldn't be happy to know that many many mobile apps track every click you make.
- vrfcodf 11y ago
  I have no problem with that if it is an opt-in. Otherwise I expect privacy in my home. No mobile app is tracking me. The only information stored by the use of my phone is the cell tower location, the use of that information requires a court order in my country (although it is possible that even that isn't stored anymore, I would have to check).

Nutmog 11y ago

You could make the same warning about writing open source software. Nobody calls that evil. As soon as you release anything under the GPL or MIT license, you're also giving Oculus a worldwide, ... perpetual, .. right to use, ... and distribute it.

sbuttgereit 11y ago

Alright, I'll bite. In practice, how does this differ from most open source licenses? Yes, I appreciate that there is a corporate entity which is reserving these rights for itself (non-exclusively), but at some level this writer's response seems a bit overdone. But really, if I license something, say, via an MIT license: Am I not saying in effect that I grant anyone that comes along a "worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content[...]"? Don't get me wrong, if I want to keep something proprietary and under my control, I best not publish to the Oculus services. But "antidemocratic, immoral and plain evil"? Nonsense. (note: I didn't read the Oculus terms, more than I want at 5am on a Monday, but am responding directly to what the author's complaint is aimed at.)

vrfcodf 11y ago
Am I not saying in effect that I grant anyone that comes along a... With the MIT license you grant those permissions for your own work, not for their work back to you.
- sbuttgereit 11y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm not saying anything in conflict with that statement. The MIT License does not require reciprocal licensing nor does the Oculus terms of service. You can only ever license your own work (the "I grant" from my original post) and sub-license the work of others according to the terms you've agreed to with them. Only do certain open source licenses require re-licensing and re-distribution of derivative products back to the public. That's why I did not mention restrictive open source licenses like the GPL and picked a permissive license in my example.
  - vrfcodf 11y ago
    I think you're trolling but here goes: Oculus terms of service require (among other things) of the user this: By submitting User Content through the Services, you grant Oculus a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual (i.e. lasting forever), non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free and fully sublicensable (i.e. we can grant this right to others) right to use, copy, display, store, adapt, publicly perform and distribute such User Content in connection with the Services... and so on This is absolutely not the case with the MIT license, which only requires the licensee to do this: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. and nothing else. Oculus license (terms of service) requires the licensee give to Oculus right to his/her User content if he/she agrees to the Oculus license (terms of service).

hoodoof 11y ago

Why isn't it called the Facebook Oculus?

hoodoof 11y ago

Seems to me legal departments get to own this stuff till they break the company reputation then the CEO snarls at the chief legal officer and says "what the fuck are you doing?"

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Dashron 11y ago

Looks like Steam has similar conditions: http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ http://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ "YOU AND VALVE AGREE TO RESOLVE ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS BETWEEN US IN INDIVIDUAL BINDING ARBITRATION." "You grant Valve and its affiliates the worldwide, non-exclusive, right to use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, distribute, transmit, transcode, translate, broadcast, and otherwise communicate, and publicly display and publicly perform, your User Generated Content, and derivative works of your User Generated Content, in connection with the operation and promotion of the Steam site." One key difference is which services this applies to. Steam: "in connection with the operation and promotion of the Steam site" Oculus: "in connection with the Services". Where services are defined as "use of physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content"

vrfcodf 11y ago
As a future dev it makes me sick. I have to choose either to support a business like that or never make any money.

baltar 11y ago

So their definition of "service" is "physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content". Does this mean that if I wrote, say, a 3D modelling tool for the Rift, than anything that my users create could be grabbed by them (and given to others) for free?

atticusalien 11y ago

Mirror: http://i.imgur.com/Qh2ezrJ.png http://i.imgur.com/Qh2ezrJ.png