10 ms·
Valve funding VR projects, exclusivity-free, with pre-paid Steam revenue
- dang 10y agoUrl changed from http://www.vg247.com/2016/06/17/valve-offers-vr-developers-funding-to-avoid-platform-exclusive-deals/ http://www.vg247.com/2016/06/17/valve-offers-vr-developers-f..., which points to http://www.pcgamesn.com/valve-vr-funding http://www.pcgamesn.com/valve-vr-funding, which points to this. The latter article seems to have the clearest title so we took that.
- corysama 10y agoThe actual source email is shorter than any of the articles in the citation chain. https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4odsce/ive_sent_gabe_newell_an_email_asking_for_valves/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4odsce/ive_sent_gabe_... If you need context: Oculus has been offering funds to VR devs in exchange for limited time exclusivity to the Oculus Store. This wouldn't be such a stink if the news didn't immediately follow Oculus Store DRM adding checks for the Oculus headset hardware. So, a game bought through Steam can play on either a Vive or a Rift depending on support put in by the dev. But, a game bought on the Oculus Store is blocked from running on a Vive. IMHO, the conversation about this topic is very muddied between the four issues of funding, store exclusivity, DRM and hardware blocking. But, AFAICT, the PC gaming openness advocates are clearly OK with Steam DRM and mostly fine with funded, temporary store exclusivity. However, the hardware block is a serious issue. (At least in it's intent. In practice, it was immediately worked around.)
- mmanfrin 10y agoNowadays, I try to buy most games on GOG. However, Steam 'DRM' is less DRM and more SDK. It assuredly adds value (compared to things like uplay or origin which are honest-to-god DRM schemes). Steam/Valve aren't perfect, but they do provide good service and I trust them to try to do the right thing more than most other game publishers. That being said, GOG has gotten great, and their download client has been getting more and more robust.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Fej 10y agoIt is still very much DRM, no matter how much people are okay with it.
- icelancer 10y agoThis is simply false. An SDK is not DRM. They offer optional DRM but the platform itself is not managing rights inherently.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sangnoir 10y agoIn practice, how many games opt out of the DRM, and for would one still be able to play those games should their steam accounts be cancelled?
- cosarara97 10y agoI'd call their drm opt-in, not opt-out.
- mastax 10y ago> In practice, how many games opt out of the DRM Quite a number: http://steam.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games http://steam.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games but the vast majority of the store is DRMmed.
- ekianjo 10y agoStill no linux version for GOG galaxy though.
- madeofpalk 10y ago> However, Steam 'DRM' is less DRM and more SDK It's definitely 'DRM' - its just a good DRM that tends to not get in the way of the users.\
- mikejmoffitt 10y agoSteam itself doesn't force DRM on a developer. As an SDK, it provides a very easy DRM platform to choose to use. They offer it, but it doesn't have to be utilized.
- Cyph0n 10y agoIndeed, this is a common misconception for some reason. There are many games, especially those from indie developers, where Steam simply acts as a light wrapper for launching the game. You can literally copy the game files from your Steam folder to another PC and it would work fine.
- SXX 10y agoIt's not misconception. Requirement to setup some proprietary software just to download your games makes Steam DRM no matter if it's enforced after download or no. Currently everything needed is reverse enginered so you can actually download games using open source tool, but I pretty sure this is forbidden by Steam EULA. Even if we all know Valve will unlikely enforce it it's still gray area you don't want depend on.
- Cyph0n 10y agoI'll have to disagree, as I think you're taking the concept of DRM way too far. The fact that you need a client to download your game is not DRM, but it is inconvenient I suppose. DRM comes in when you cannot distribute your purchased game freely, and you're limited to a set number of PCs or installs. Still disagree? Let's look at GoG, the standard DRM-free game store. You need to login before you can download your games, correct? Would you call that a form of DRM? The difference between logging in and downloading a client is negligible in this day and age imo. If you don't agree with any of the above, then I'm afraid that the way you think of DRM-free gaming is only achievable through piracy.
- optforfon 10y agoHow are logging in and installing someone's software even remotely similar? I personally find Steam, buggy, ugly, intrusive and effectively spyware that is logging and tracking god knows what. I feel very uncomfortable installing it on my machines and in general having to go through software A to get to software B makes a lot of people uncomfortable. By contrast, logging in confines the the website to tracking my activity on the website itself - which they probably can do with a cookie anyways...
- jsprogrammer 10y agoI thought Oculus was funded as an open device? Why is it now locked down?
- J_Darnley 10y agoFacebook. They bought it so that can have a display which guarantees ad views and consumer tracking.
- jrockway 10y agoThat seems very unlikely to me. Nobody is going to put on a VR headset to kill time at work, which is what Facebook is. (There was an article posted here recently that says most videos posted on Facebook have subtitles instead of sound, because people won't even put headphones on while using Facebook.)
- GuiA 10y agoThe idea isn't that people will put on a VR headset to kill time at work- their goal is for people to be wearing a VR headset at work in the first place.
- dave2000 10y agoWell obviously nobody's going to be doing that.
- saiya-jin 10y agojust you wait... if pitched properly, with higher resolution (so gen2 at least) and office apps developed with VR in mind it can bring added effectiveness (although probably impossible to wear 8 hours daily).
- jessaustin 10y agoYeah facilities managers will love it. They won't even have to buy cubicles anymore, because with VR we won't notice we're packed cheek-by-jowl at long tables.
- sjburt 10y agoI think Oculus's attitude is actually fairly sensible for the position they are in.. First, the success of VR is an existential risk for Oculus. This is not true for Valve; Valve just doesn't want to be left behind (at least at a business level, I have no doubt their engineering organization wants to continue to be the tech leader). Second, they are very concerned about whether people have good VR experiences, because the well has been poisoned by people's memories of 90s VR, Cardboard, concerns about motion sickness, overhype, headsets looking dumb, etc. Third, they're a fairly small organization, and they already have to support engagements with GPU vendors, OS, as well, as getting their hardware built and supported. Having to support other hardware on their platform (especially as there is a race to the bottom between HTC, Razer, etc) is a huge additional burden. They do have financial resources from Facebook, but you can't just throw money at an engineering org, you have to scale carefully. So to make VR is successful, they have to make sure that people have good experiences, but they have a small team. Buying exclusives makes perfect sense for them: it's a way to leverage Facebook's financial resources, and since the titles are exclusive they can focus on making those titles work as well as possible on a SW/HW stack that they own.
- SXX 10y agoBy now Oculus VR is clearly larger organization than Valve and likely only small portion of Valve works on anything VR-related. So I just not sure you can call them "small" anymore.
- usrusr 10y agoHow much of the Vive is Valve and how much is HTC? Valve was very lucky to find a hardware partner content with not trying to establish their own content delivery platform.
- mpeg 10y agoCan hardly call it luck when Valve runs the largest PC game content delivery platform in the world. They can definitely set the terms of that kind of partnership.
- 10y ago
- TwoBit 10y agoAFAIK the hardware block was only partially worked around. It doesn't let arbitrary Rift apps work on Vive.
- Jarwain 10y agoHe says no strings attached. I just wonder why, with his stance, he doesn't apply just one string: a sort of "non-exclusivity clause" where the devs agree not to sign any game exclusivity contract.
- scanr 10y agoI wonder if the 'strings attached' is that the 'pre-paid steam revenue' needs to be paid back if the game doesn't make the money back on steam.
- JustUhThought 10y agoHow can one change the game anymore without selling out to the VCs or Google or Facebook? It's sad really. To be expected, in a maturing industry, but very sad.
- Alphasite_ 10y agoWell oculus was well on its way after its Kickstarter, but the they sold out. Good for them, but it sucks for the rest of us.
- sangnoir 10y agoBecome Valve-like. Still not sold-out, still privately held, and "crushing it". Not coincidentally, they probably[1] didn't have VC-appointed board members making "exit" decisions for them. 1. I have no idea if Valve took any VC funding. I think Gabe Newell was pretty well-off already from his Microsoft gig.
- usrusr 10y agoI'd go so far as to consider Gabe Newell a "founder-VC" all by himself. Their interests might therefore be a bit better aligned than in many other cases. A closed-source implementation of BDFL, maybe?
- curiousgal 10y agoSo basically, Facebook is buying out devs? Surprising practices... I remember when I had to decide on a Samsung monitor over an Asus monitor because Samsung had the exclusives I wanted. Wait...that didn't happen because that would be insane.
- SeanBoocock 10y agoFacebook is funding game development through its Oculus publishing arm to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Part of those publishing contracts include a clause to keep Oculus published titles exclusive to their store for some duration of time. To speak to your example, no monitor manufacturer is funding the development of games to play exclusively on their monitors as monitors are largely a commodity at this point.
- hatsunearu 10y agoThe real infuriating thing as a Vive owner myself is that Facebook paid off a bunch of Vive compatible games and made them retract the compatibility. Completely scummy. There was a massive drama incident about it on /r/vive about this as well.
- cma 10y agoKingspray was releasing in a couple weeks for Vive and has been "mysteriously" delayed until around the supposed timeframe of the Touch launch. Giant Cop was even already pre-sold on Humble store with Vive support and then the support was pulled back and it became an Oculus timed-exclusive.
- ajmurmann 10y agoI also find the concept of exclusivity for a VR headset very problematic. People in conversations have been comparing it to console exclusivity. However, I don't need to connect my console to a $1k PC and now am not only committed to one platform, but to a combination of two. I was really excited about VR when Oculus was still a kickstarter project. The Facebook acquisition killed some of that excitement. However, what really killed it for me was learning that it wasn't just another PC peripheral, but that these things have their own stores, etc. Until I can connect a VR headset and play a game I bought anywhere with it, I will stay away from this. I understand that some things don't work due to technical limitations like Vive's room tracking, but that's not the issue here.
- Kuiper 10y agoGabe Newell's phrasing makes it sound like Valve is basically offering a cash advance to some developers (similar to trade publishing, where authors get an advance check which they must then "earn out" before they can receive future royalty checks). It's basically an interest-free loan which doesn't need to be paid back if the project is a failure (i.e. fails to "earn out" its advance). Quite generous, assuming Valve isn't taking any more than their usual cut of the Steam revenue as part of the arrangements.
- cma 10y agoPlus they are still allowing you to sell on other stores and platforms like PSVR.
- OedipusRex 10y agoAs much money as Valve and HTC have put into the Vive it makes sense. The more VR games and content available = more Vive's sold. You have to spend money to make money.
- shinymark 10y agoThis is how all traditional game financing deals work and isn't anything unusual. How the recoupment on the advance on royalties is calculated is where you can usually see if the deal is generous or not. Sometimes the entity funding (in the old days it would always be a publisher like EA) would try to set recoupment terms that made it difficult to ever earn a royalty for the developer taking the advance.
- kendallpark 10y agoTwo thoughts on this: 1. I'm still not sold on that VR is the future of gaming. I do agree that exclusivity will hurt more than it can help. Similar to the way Telsa opened their patents because the adoption of electric cars by the populace is better for their business than protecting their IP. 2. It makes sense that Valve is investing so much in this because it's just another excuse to not make video games anymore. RIP HL3. ;) EDIT: oh, the down votes. Heaven forbid there be any sarcasm on HN.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- TillE 10y ago> that VR is the future of gaming It's not the future of gaming. I don't think anyone believes it is. There are far too many types of games which are fundamentally inappropriate for a VR headset. However, it is a part of the future of gaming. Probably a big part, especially as more interesting control peripherals are developed. It's already amazing for basically any type of game where a joystick / HOTAS setup is appropriate.
- kendallpark 10y agoI agree that there could be a future for it. I just haven't seen anything demonstrating it's market viability. So far it feels like VR has been all talk and development and less so people rushing out to get headsets in mass droves.
- pyrophane 10y agoVR right now has a lot of first generation problems. It's expensive as a peripheral, and until PSVR comes out it is only available to people with gaming PCs. The resolution is too low, the headsets are kinda awkward, and most of the content available now barely rises above the level of tech demo. That and we still don't have a better solution to movement than teleportation. Still, I think for first person-gaming experiences, VR is the future, and that for the next generation of gamers who will likely grow up experiencing first-person gaming in VR first, the idea of anything else will seem pretty silly.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- agar 10y agoFor those new to VR drama, be aware that VR has become infested with the kind of dogma, fandom, agenda setting, and selection bias that once was limited to game consoles. At this point, Oculus could give their headsets away for free and certain people would complain that Facebook is using unfair business practices to create a monopoly. Most of the (fairly reasonable) statements Oculus has made about its practices are ignored, dismissed, or called outright lies. Actual developers have tried to explain that Oculus's behavior isn't evil, designed to split the VR community, etc., but they are called liars, accused of doing damage control, or are somehow paid off by Oculus. The reality is that Oculus has 100% funded the development of certain games, and contributed engineering talent and best practices based on their VR research. These include Chronos, Edge of Nowhere, The Climb, and others - titles at major developers that would not have otherwise existed. In return, those games must be sold through the Oculus store. However, the studio (i.e., Insomniac, Crytek, etc.) maintains ownership of the IP. Any future game built by those studios (including sequels) can be sold anywhere, using the VR expertise they otherwise wouldn't have. Oculus also offers development grants to independent developers. An indie that is starved for cash and may otherwise need to release a game early to recoup their investment now has the option to spend extra time on the game. In return, the game must be released first on the Oculus Store; afterwards, it can be released on Steam or anywhere else. Many call this "buying exclusivity" - but thus far, every developer that has taken advantage of this has admitted that they were farther away from release than appeared to the public, were running low on cash, and/or needed the assistance that Oculus could provide. Also, most people don't seem to realize that Valve's offer of pre-paid royalties is just another kind of store exclusivity. Developer won't host their app outside of Steam until the advance is paid off, as those non-Steam royalties don't count towards the pre-pay. Accepting the pre-pay also forces them to use the OpenVR SDK, which means they cannot host the game on the Oculus store. Valve isn't altruistic. They merely have a more sophisticated strategy and a technology (the OpenVR SDK that can wrap the Oculus SDK) that allows them to position themselves as taking the high road while they focus on boxing out a competing software platform.
- sgarman 10y agoSo what is this all about: https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_and_fuck_oculus/d480x6v?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_... Seems like trying to buy exclusivity to me - unless Serious Sam has some reason to distort the offer.
- pandaman 10y agoIt's funny people in the comments mention that they did not buy games exclusive to the monitor manufacturer. It's true but it also reminded me of the 3D movies wars of 2010. Major CE manufacturers all got exclusive rights to the parts of a small 3D movie library and made these titles available only with the HW purchase. E.g. Panasonic had Avatar so to watch Avatar in 3D you had to buy a Panasonic TV, Samsung had How To Train Your Dragon, Sony had a bunch of Sony titles and I don't remember if LG had anything. We all know how this turned out for the home 3D.
- usrusr 10y agoAre you implying that 3D would be in a different position now if Sony owners had the opportunity to sit through Avatar a bit earlier? 3D certainly did not fail due to lack of hardware adoption. In that metric, 3D has won. It just turned out to be one of the many, many features that are only important to check boxes in a product comparison matrix.
- pandaman 10y agoNot quite. I am saying that the already small library of 3D titles had been further fragmented and this had a negative impact on 3D adoption.