5 ms·

For 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

by agar 10y ago

For 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 ago
So 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.
- agar 10y ago
  But then look at the clarification that he himself linked to[1], from someone far more in the know of the deal itself (Alen Ladavac, the CTO): -- I want to clarify some of the inaccuracies about our relationship with Oculus. Oculus did approach us with an offer to help fund the completion of Serious Sam VR: The Last Hope in exchange for launching first on the Oculus Store and keeping it time-limited exclusive. Their offer was to help us accelerate development of our game, with the expectation that it would eventually support all PC VR platforms. We looked at the offer and decided it wasn’t right for our team. At no time did Oculus ask for, or did we discuss total exclusivity or buyout of support from Vive. We look forward to supporting Rift and Vive. -- Whether you choose to call that "buying exclusivity" or a genuine "offer to help fund the completion of Serious Sam VR" to an independent developer depends entirely on one's bias and preconception. An established indie like Croteam doesn't need the help and declines. A group in a more precarious financial position may see a lifeline; a smaller team may see an opportunity to grow a game in ways they couldn't previously afford. The dogma that all exclusivity is bad, even if it's for a limited time, may actually harm developers or lead to weaker releases that sell more poorly (which in turn hurts the developers). Look at what the Studio Lead for Giant Cop had to say about it[2]: "We were always planning to release on one platform first,” Hale said. “We have chosen to make that platform Oculus because we’re a small team and making a video game is a huge risk. You’re basically fronting money for a product that isn’t going to pay you anything back for years. For us, it really came down to the fact that we needed a partner. Having Oculus support us and make us a part of our marketing process significantly increases our chances of making Giant Cop a success for the community, and for the people dedicating their time to build it.” Read the entire article. This does not sound like buying exclusivity. It sounds like trying to help small developers minimize the massive risk associated with being a VR pioneer. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_and_fuck_oculus/d490tdc https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_... [2] https://uploadvr.com/giant-cop-speaks-oculus-exclusivity/ https://uploadvr.com/giant-cop-speaks-oculus-exclusivity/
supergirl 10y ago
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. source?
sergiosgc 10y ago
Nevertheless, it is unavoidable that Oculus brought the concept of hardware-exclusivity to the PC gaming arena. It is unwelcome, since diversity and openness are the selling points of the platform. People pay extra for the hardware, and in return get an ecosystem that is fair, and thus rich, from indie all the way up to AAA. I believe that Valve grasps (and somewhat embodies) this specific culture. Oculus probably is being led by gaming industry executives who don't get that openness always won in the PC gaming market, and that this time is no different.
sergiosgc 10y ago
Nevertheless, it is unavoidable that Oculus brought the concept of hardware-exclusivity to the PC gaming arena. It is unwelcome, since diversity and openness are the selling points of the platform. People pay extra for the hardware, and in return get an ecosystem that is fair, and thus rich, from indie all the way up to AAA. I believe that Valve grasps (and somewhat embodies) this specific culture. Oculus probably is being led by gaming industry executives who don't get that openness always won in the PC gaming market, and that this time is no different.
didibus 10y ago
There's always a good reason for making a deal with the devil. I think it's very obvious Occlus is flexing it's big corporate muscles to buy out their way into the market. They want to be the platform for VR, and if that means paying money to buy games and force everyone into buying Occulus, that's what they will do. On the other hand, it's also obvious that some developers do not mind. Devs are not PC gamers. They also want their game to sell, make profit, and be successful. If Occulus is offering them the money they need, and they believe that the Occulus platform is well positioned to win the VR fight, then why not take the money. As a consumer, you'd want to buy the VR headset that is most appealing to you in term of price and technology, and let's you play most games. So obviously, a lot of the community actually think the Vive is a better headset, that can give you better experiences. That's why a lot of people are mad that some games won't come to it. Similarly, as an early adopter, you don't want to pick a side, you want to buy and have it all. So any strong arming of game exclusivity is just a detriment to consumers. I think I just summed it up as it is, you can decide how to feel about it, but you can't change the above facts. The motivation behind all this is money and success. None of it is about passionate individual with infinite free time, that want to create awesome experiences. All of it is about people with passion but responsibilities, with the need to make money out of this, any way they can.

by agar 10y ago

sgarman 10y ago

So 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.

agar 10y ago
But then look at the clarification that he himself linked to[1], from someone far more in the know of the deal itself (Alen Ladavac, the CTO): -- I want to clarify some of the inaccuracies about our relationship with Oculus. Oculus did approach us with an offer to help fund the completion of Serious Sam VR: The Last Hope in exchange for launching first on the Oculus Store and keeping it time-limited exclusive. Their offer was to help us accelerate development of our game, with the expectation that it would eventually support all PC VR platforms. We looked at the offer and decided it wasn’t right for our team. At no time did Oculus ask for, or did we discuss total exclusivity or buyout of support from Vive. We look forward to supporting Rift and Vive. -- Whether you choose to call that "buying exclusivity" or a genuine "offer to help fund the completion of Serious Sam VR" to an independent developer depends entirely on one's bias and preconception. An established indie like Croteam doesn't need the help and declines. A group in a more precarious financial position may see a lifeline; a smaller team may see an opportunity to grow a game in ways they couldn't previously afford. The dogma that all exclusivity is bad, even if it's for a limited time, may actually harm developers or lead to weaker releases that sell more poorly (which in turn hurts the developers). Look at what the Studio Lead for Giant Cop had to say about it[2]: "We were always planning to release on one platform first,” Hale said. “We have chosen to make that platform Oculus because we’re a small team and making a video game is a huge risk. You’re basically fronting money for a product that isn’t going to pay you anything back for years. For us, it really came down to the fact that we needed a partner. Having Oculus support us and make us a part of our marketing process significantly increases our chances of making Giant Cop a success for the community, and for the people dedicating their time to build it.” Read the entire article. This does not sound like buying exclusivity. It sounds like trying to help small developers minimize the massive risk associated with being a VR pioneer. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_and_fuck_oculus/d490tdc https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_... [2] https://uploadvr.com/giant-cop-speaks-oculus-exclusivity/ https://uploadvr.com/giant-cop-speaks-oculus-exclusivity/

supergirl 10y ago

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. source?

sergiosgc 10y ago

Nevertheless, it is unavoidable that Oculus brought the concept of hardware-exclusivity to the PC gaming arena. It is unwelcome, since diversity and openness are the selling points of the platform. People pay extra for the hardware, and in return get an ecosystem that is fair, and thus rich, from indie all the way up to AAA. I believe that Valve grasps (and somewhat embodies) this specific culture. Oculus probably is being led by gaming industry executives who don't get that openness always won in the PC gaming market, and that this time is no different.

sergiosgc 10y ago

didibus 10y ago

There's always a good reason for making a deal with the devil. I think it's very obvious Occlus is flexing it's big corporate muscles to buy out their way into the market. They want to be the platform for VR, and if that means paying money to buy games and force everyone into buying Occulus, that's what they will do. On the other hand, it's also obvious that some developers do not mind. Devs are not PC gamers. They also want their game to sell, make profit, and be successful. If Occulus is offering them the money they need, and they believe that the Occulus platform is well positioned to win the VR fight, then why not take the money. As a consumer, you'd want to buy the VR headset that is most appealing to you in term of price and technology, and let's you play most games. So obviously, a lot of the community actually think the Vive is a better headset, that can give you better experiences. That's why a lot of people are mad that some games won't come to it. Similarly, as an early adopter, you don't want to pick a side, you want to buy and have it all. So any strong arming of game exclusivity is just a detriment to consumers. I think I just summed it up as it is, you can decide how to feel about it, but you can't change the above facts. The motivation behind all this is money and success. None of it is about passionate individual with infinite free time, that want to create awesome experiences. All of it is about people with passion but responsibilities, with the need to make money out of this, any way they can.