3 ms·
The transgressions are not assumed. All they've done is reverted a small piece of DRM that was leading to piracy. They have not opened up their store at all. It
by nilkn 10y ago
The transgressions are not assumed. All they've done is reverted a small piece of DRM that was leading to piracy. They have not opened up their store at all. It's still completely closed to non-Oculus hardware.
Perhaps you're missing context to understand why people are upset. Oculus has went so far as to actually pay developers of open, non-exclusive VR games to restrict their games to the Rift and Touch only, either indefinitely or for a period of at least six months. These are games that were already in development. In one case, people had even pre-ordered Giant Cop for the Vive through the Humble Bundle, but Oculus purchased timed exclusivity rights for the game afterwards.
It's a really nasty situation, and Oculus deserves every bit of criticism they've received. This reversal of a tiny piece of their overall exclusivity strategy does not in any way diminish or undo everything else they've been doing. In fact, it's completely irrelevant for anyone who wasn't planning on pirating content.
- corysama 10y agoEverything you've listed is well publicized and I'm quite unhappy about. "because we can't catch their wrong doing all the time" made it sound like you assumed there was even more that we have not caught, so let's keep punishing them based on that assumption.
- abiox 10y ago> They have not opened up their store at all. It's still completely closed to non-Oculus hardware. i don't follow this VR stuff; why should Oculus do that?
- BigJono 10y agoBecause it's anti-consumer and it stifles innovation. It's the same problem with console exclusives. It allows a company to release an inferior hardware product and crush the market by using other people's software offerings, rather than have to compete on the hardware front.
- reitanqild 10y agoSame reasons why nvidia shouldn't pay anyone to make sure a game won't run on ATi cards?