5 ms·

I 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 fund

I 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 ago
It'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 ago
  The 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 ago
    It makes so much sense that Valve is doing it. Valve loans funds to developers and gets paid back in future Steam sales.
  - csallen 10y ago
    I 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.
  - ericd 10y ago
    I would be fine with them not doing that. I canceled my Oculus pre-order and ordered a Vive instead when they started doing that, even though it meant an inability to play the locked-down games. I have 0 interest in having a part of my game library being locked into a DRM'd hardware ecosystem, where my games stop working if I want to buy a different brand of second gen hardware. Also, in return, they get more hardware sales and a more vibrant VR ecosystem, so they don't get nothing. One alternative is to set up a joint VR development fund with Valve. It sounds like Valve is doing this on their own, without exclusivity requirements.

ericd 10y ago

It'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 ago
The 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 ago
  It makes so much sense that Valve is doing it. Valve loans funds to developers and gets paid back in future Steam sales.
- csallen 10y ago
  I 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.
- ericd 10y ago
  I would be fine with them not doing that. I canceled my Oculus pre-order and ordered a Vive instead when they started doing that, even though it meant an inability to play the locked-down games. I have 0 interest in having a part of my game library being locked into a DRM'd hardware ecosystem, where my games stop working if I want to buy a different brand of second gen hardware. Also, in return, they get more hardware sales and a more vibrant VR ecosystem, so they don't get nothing. One alternative is to set up a joint VR development fund with Valve. It sounds like Valve is doing this on their own, without exclusivity requirements.