15 ms·
“Oculus removed the headset check from the DRM in Oculus Runtime 1.5”
- rosstex 10y agoVictory!
- mashlol 10y agoDoes this mean any vr headset will work with games from the Oculus store?
- Blaaguuu 10y agoI believe that it doesn't let you just plug in another Headset and use it with the official Oculus store - but it becomes pretty trivial for 3rd party 'hacks' like Revive to let you launch your Oculus games on an unsupported headset, rather than needing to go through a ton of trouble to circumvent the DRM.
- jsheard 10y agoYou still need a third party wrapper like Revive to translate the games Oculus API calls to the OpenVR API most other VR headsets use. This change just means Oculus will no longer deliberately block such wrappers from working.
- ultramancool 10y agoWow, this must have been a hell of an internal fight. Glad this was the conclusion though, open platforms are the only way I can see these current solutions being useful at all. Let's just hope we don't see similar restrictions cropping up on the other side of the fence.
- e1ven 10y agoThere's a more in-depth article about this (rather than just the changelog) at http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-course-dumps-its-vr-headset-checking-drm/ http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-course... The Article quotes Oculus - "We will not use hardware checks as part of DRM on PC in the future."
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mtgx 10y agoBecause there was backlash. But I doubt Facebook changed its original intentions of locking down the platform. What happens if Oculus Rift takes 80% of the market? Will it still allow the Vive or other headsets to play nice with Oculus-exclusive games? This is Facebook we're talking about here. Why even take the chance?
- jonny_eh 10y agoJeez, you can't even give them some credit for doing the right thing?
- ethbro 10y agoTo be fair, doing the right thing after the wrong thing is different than the right thing in the first place.
- asddubs 10y agothey're not doing the right thing, they're undoing the wrong thing they went out of their way to do. And it's not the only sleazy thing they're doing, that palmer & co. previously said they wouldn't (read: buying exclusivity)
- jsprogrammer 10y agoOculus didn't announce this. This is an independent developer making the claim. Oculus has now said they won't use hardware checks in PC DRM, but didn't rule out checks on other platforms. Oculus also indicated that they will use methods other than "hardware checks" to implement a DRM scheme.
- 50CNT 10y agoSomeone righting a thing doesn't mean you can't be wary of them.
- JoshTriplett 10y agoDoing the right thing in response to backlash suggests that you would rather do the wrong thing, but couldn't get away with it. There are several other VR vendors; this provides at least some motivation to favor another vendor.
- throwaway7767 10y agoI had to google this to have any idea what it was about. The linked release notes don't explain any of the background, the entirety of the content relevant to the headline is this: "I've only just tested this and I'm still in disbelief, but it looks like Oculus removed the headset check from the DRM in Oculus Runtime 1.5. As such I've reverted the DRM patch and removed all binaries from previous releases that contained the patch." Apparently Oculus was testing for a present oculus headset in its runtime, so it was difficult for a third-party devs to build shims to connect other VR hardware to it and enjoy VR games built for oculus. Mods, I'd suggest changing the URL to something with a better explanation, like http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-course-dumps-its-vr-headset-checking-drm/ http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-course... which includes the above quote in addition to explaining the backstory.
- asddubs 10y agoto expand on this a little bit; There were two functions, one that checked whether the occulus headset was connected, and one DRM function. Occulus consolidated those functions into one, in what many assumed to be a move to be able to justify taking down projects like these under the guise of "they break our DRM", which did end up being a talking point against the projects later on. Apparently they reversed this change now, and you can write a compatibility shim without breaking the DRM once more
- misiti3780 10y agoforgive me for my ignorance here but what is a DRM function ?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jdiez17 10y agoThe function that checks if you own the game. Which LibreVR didn't have to bypass before they consolidated both functions.
- gthtjtkt 10y agoThey deserved the backlash for implementing it, and I hope the Rift continues to suffer now that people know Facebook's true intentions. Not to mention how poorly they treated early supporters after the buyout, e.g. stocking Rifts on retail shelves before they'd fulfilled orders for all backers, then telling backers who complained to get a refund and go buy one from a store... They're only doing the "right" thing because they have no choice. They couldn't pump enough money into third party development to make up for the ill will they'd garnered with this exclusivity DRM, especially not with companies like Valve doing the complete opposite -- giving money to third party devs with no exclusivity deals whatsoever. Turns out some developers can't be bought[1]. Who'da thunk it? 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_and_fuck_oculus/d480x6v https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_... (For the sake of fairness, it was a time-limited exclusivity offer that was made to the Serious Sam devs, but an exclusivity offer nonetheless.)
- Klathmon 10y agoI never got the quest for punishment for actions like this. They did something bad, the community reacted negatively. If they fix the problem, rewarding them is going to make sure it sticks around. Continuing to "punish" them for something they fixed only sends the message that the fix was pointless and that it would have been better to ignore the problem like so many other companies (including Facebook themselves) do.
- burke 10y ago> Continuing to "punish" them for something they fixed only sends the message that the fix was pointless It also sends a message to other companies that things like this aren't forgiven easily, whether or not that's the immediate intent.
- dawnerd 10y agoAs a consumer it's a trust issue. How can I trust that they wont try to sneak this in some time in the future?
- Vexs 10y agoThe checks made no sense in the first place, it's a loose-loose on all ends for occulus. A closed ecosystem basically does not work when it comes to PC gaming, and with hardware this expensive it's not like you could buy the valve-sponsored vive and the rift.
- faldore 10y agoYou lost me at loose
- balls187 10y agoIn order to support the original intent of LibreVR (allowing any headset to run occulus content), the only way to bypass the hardware check was to remove the DRM checking completely. This had an unintended consequence of potentially allowing abuse. With Occulus removing that hardware check, LibreVR was able to revert it's "YANK ALL THE DRM" solution.
- ryanlm 10y agoWhat does this mean?
- Wile_E_Quixote 10y agoContent has almost always sold hardware in the video game industry. Look at all of the exclusive content for Nintendo consoles. Or how many people bought XBox's for the sole purpose of playing Halo. Sure, most VR hardware options may technically be peripherals for PCs, but at a cost of several hundred dollars or more, it isn't in the same category as PC mouses or joysticks. The way I see it, VR hardware is essentially a standalone device that connects to PCs, simply so that many people won't need to buy that too, saving them $1k-2k. Creating exclusive games and buying exclusive content licensing/distribution rights for any gaming platform, especially ones in stiff competition for early adopters and the lion's share of a new market, is a great business decision. If Oculus hadn't secured exclusive content, people would have simply bought whichever hardware worked better, or shipped first. In this case, most people would have likely bought the Vive. Oculus knew that superior content is the tie-breaker and can even overshadow slight technological shortcomings, if they exist. Oculus should never have reversed their plans to keep the content exclusive. Now, many people will just buy Vives and use them to play Oculus-subsidized content. Oculus could have created a great monopoly. Now I suspect they will have serious difficulty building a sustainable business. Peter Thiel is on Facebook's board and Marc Andreessen is on both Facebook's and Oculus's board. I can't imagine either one would support reversing the decision to make exclusive content.
- Ar-Curunir 10y agoVR is effectively a better monitor. The cutting edge monitors also go for hundreds of dollars. Do you agree that monitors should also have proprietary ports that refuse to play non-licensed games or content?
- Wile_E_Quixote 10y agoI think your argument is a great defense for whichever VR company ultimately secures a near-monopoly on this market. “Your Honor, my company is really just a fancy monitor company. We are actually in close competition with dozens of monitor and television manufacturers. We don’t have anything close to a monopoly.” Again, I don’t believe VR hardware is in the same category as most PC peripherals, including monitors. The hardware could easily be marketed as a standalone system if the more traditional PC hardware was put into a pretty box and sold with it. The system would just cost $1k-2k more and few would be able to afford it. If I was a traditional monitor manufacturer and I created some kind of magical new content for traditional monitor viewing that people would be willing to buy a new monitor to experience, I would definitely try to make it exclusive. Though I’m not sure the best way to do that would be a proprietary port.
- sajan80 10y agoThis is actually big news. My trust in the Oculus store however remains broken
- marknutter 10y agoWhy? They fixed the problem. Do you cut people out of your life the first time they make mistakes?
- tdb7893 10y agoAs with all things it would depend on what they did. If the mistake was stabbing a homeless person I certainly would. At the very least losing trust based off of mistakes seems pretty reasonable to me.
- orbitingpluto 10y agoAnd why is the person making amends? Shouldn't that be taken into consideration? If they're only saying sorry to take advantage of you again?
- michaelmrose 10y agoIn the prior thread you accused people of being emotional. I don't have personal relationships with people I do business with. I don't do business with people who treat me badly even once unless I have limited options.
- michaelmrose 10y agoSo how long have you worked for facebook?
- azernik 10y agoDifferent context, but Dan Savage articulates this well. Relevant (and censored, because he is who he is) paragraph from a long blog post [1] on Sanders vs. Clinton: 'It's ####ing moronic—it's political malpractice—to attack a politician for coming around on your issues. There are lots of other issues the queer community is going to be pressing politicians on, from passing equal rights bills and trans rights bills to defeating anti-trans bathroom legislation and RFRAs. If pols who are currently on the wrong side of any of those issues see no benefit to changing their positions—if they see no political benefit—they're going to be harder to persuade. Why should they come around on our issues, why should they switch sides or change their votes, if we're going to go after them hammer and tongs for the positions they used to hold? ("Please change your mind and support us." "No." "Pretty please?" "OK, I've changed my mind and I'll vote to support you." "#### YOU FOR NOT ALWAYS AGREEING WITH ME! I'M NOT VOTING FOR YOU! #### YOU SOME MORE!")' [1] http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2016/02/22/23606058/hillary-clinton-used-to-be-terrible-on-marriage-equality http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2016/02/22/23606058/hi...
- golergka 10y agoIt's because people want to see politicians as idealists — while usually, cynics who just want to get elected actually make the best politicians in a functioning democracy while idealists tend to become bloody tyrants.
- pessimizer 10y agoMao and Pol Pot, maybe, but the vast majority of bloody tyrants are cynics, too.
- duncanawoods 10y agoIn the Clinton case, she doesn't own her flip flops, she tries to rewrite history. Instead of discussing in depth how and what changed her mind (which would be really powerful), she will just claim to have always been a tireless campaigner for the issue. Its evident her flip flops are not from a change of personal philosophy but only because its now politically expedient to adopt a position. Similarly with Oculus. Have they changed their philosophy on openness? Probably not. We will just see them attempt their goal in a different way e.g. all sorts of incompatible features in their v2.
- kartickv 10y agoI disliked the DRM as well, and applauded when they removed it, but on second thoughts, I don't find it unfair to expect something in return when Oculus is funding a game. Developers are free to refuse Oculus's money and make a cross-platform game. I don't see what was wrong here in the first place, when I step back and think about it calmly.
- ericd 10y agoIt's an attempt to bring hardware-based exclusivity agreements to a gaming platform (PCs) that has traditionally been more of a free-for-all. PC gamers overwhelmingly do not want this. The same goes for many of the other norms of gaming consoles. Many choose PC gaming over consoles for its relative openness and customizability. That's where a lot of the outrage is coming from, even if Oculus is fully within their rights to do this. Also, Palmer used to go on record saying that they wanted VR to be an open platform. So there's a bit of betrayal mixed in.
- kartickv 10y agoThe Palmer statement makes sense. Regarding the rest of what you wrote, would you be fine if Oculus stopped funding games and so there are less games made? Because the alternative of Oculus funding games and not getting anything in return makes no sense.
- sergiosgc 10y agoIt makes so much sense that Valve is doing it. Valve loans funds to developers and gets paid back in future Steam sales.
- csallen 10y agoI would be totally fine if Oculus stopped funding games resulting in fewer games made. That's a tiny price to pay for openness. Would you have wanted Microsoft to fund web startups in the 90s that only worked on some sort of proprietary MicrosoftWeb? Probably not.
- 10y ago