3 ms·
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? Bec
by 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 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.
- ericd 10y agoI 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.