Oculus has been offering funds to VR devs in exchange for limited time exclusivity to the Oculus Store. This wouldn't be such a stink if the news didn't immediately follow Oculus Store DRM adding checks for the Oculus headset hardware. So, a game bought through Steam can play on either a Vive or a Rift depending on support put in by the dev. But, a game bought on the Oculus Store is blocked from running on a Vive.
IMHO, the conversation about this topic is very muddied between the four issues of funding, store exclusivity, DRM and hardware blocking. But, AFAICT, the PC gaming openness advocates are clearly OK with Steam DRM and mostly fine with funded, temporary store exclusivity. However, the hardware block is a serious issue. (At least in it's intent. In practice, it was immediately worked around.)
Nowadays, I try to buy most games on GOG. However, Steam 'DRM' is less DRM and more SDK. It assuredly adds value (compared to things like uplay or origin which are honest-to-god DRM schemes). Steam/Valve aren't perfect, but they do provide good service and I trust them to try to do the right thing more than most other game publishers.
That being said, GOG has gotten great, and their download client has been getting more and more robust.
GOG had a promotion where they would add (some of the) games that you already owned on your Steam account to your GOG library. Hopefully they continue that.
If I have a game on GOG or Steam, I'm more likely to use Steam, unless I'm traveling and might be Internetless.
Yeah, GOG Connect is pretty awesome. I got half a dozen DRM free copies of games I have on Steam. I guess most of the ones they introduced initially were temporary, but they claim they'll add more over time, as they can make arrangements with developers.
Honestly, I wonder if they may have suspended GOG Connect during the GOG Summer Sale. Everything is still up at gog.com/connect, but nothing's available.
It does get in the way if you eant to run two instances of a game (one controlled by keyboard the second controlled by gamepad so that you can play with a friend) I've used sandboxie to get around this.
By the nature of what it is, the point of their DRM is to stop multiple people playing from one license. Sure, your example is much more friendly than, say, uploading to a torrent site, but you're still trying to get around the license restriction. If you want to get around the rule of one license per person then of course you won't like any implementation of DRM, but your complaint should be about the license policy, not the DRM implementation.
That's not true. The only way to get VAC-banned is to cheat in online games, and it only affects the game you cheated in and--for Source or GoldSource games--a few other multiplayer games that use the same engine. Source: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=7849-RAD...
That's no different from what you'll get in non-Steam games. You cheat, you get banned.
That's suspended, not banned. Suspended accounts can usually be recovered if you talk to Steam support, and suspension still doesn't block you from playing your games, just from buying/selling/trading games and in-game items. (At least since 2013 or so; it may have been different before that, it's not entirely clear, but it's definitely the case now.)
Steam itself doesn't force DRM on a developer. As an SDK, it provides a very easy DRM platform to choose to use. They offer it, but it doesn't have to be utilized.
Indeed, this is a common misconception for some reason. There are many games, especially those from indie developers, where Steam simply acts as a light wrapper for launching the game. You can literally copy the game files from your Steam folder to another PC and it would work fine.
I think only like a half dozen of the 2 thousand Steam on Linux games actually use the Steam DRM as well, even titles that use Steamworks DRM on Windows.
It's not misconception. Requirement to setup some proprietary software just to download your games makes Steam DRM no matter if it's enforced after download or no.
Currently everything needed is reverse enginered so you can actually download games using open source tool, but I pretty sure this is forbidden by Steam EULA. Even if we all know Valve will unlikely enforce it it's still gray area you don't want depend on.
I'll have to disagree, as I think you're taking the concept of DRM way too far.
The fact that you need a client to download your game is not DRM, but it is inconvenient I suppose. DRM comes in when you cannot distribute your purchased game freely, and you're limited to a set number of PCs or installs.
Still disagree? Let's look at GoG, the standard DRM-free game store. You need to login before you can download your games, correct? Would you call that a form of DRM? The difference between logging in and downloading a client is negligible in this day and age imo.
If you don't agree with any of the above, then I'm afraid that the way you think of DRM-free gaming is only achievable through piracy.
How are logging in and installing someone's software even remotely similar?
I personally find Steam, buggy, ugly, intrusive and effectively spyware that is logging and tracking god knows what. I feel very uncomfortable installing it on my machines and in general having to go through software A to get to software B makes a lot of people uncomfortable.
By contrast, logging in confines the the website to tracking my activity on the website itself - which they probably can do with a cookie anyways...
> I feel very uncomfortable installing it on my machines and in general having to go through software A to get to software B makes a lot of people uncomfortable.
The only difference between Steam and GoG is that GoG runs software A on their servers and in your browser, whereas Steam runs software A on your machine in the custom-skinned browser they give you.
Any security or privacy ramifications of the two different approaches are quit irrelevant to a discussion of whether it constitutes DRM in the generally accepted sense of technical measures to prevent you from copying, sharing, etc. digital content that you already have in your possession. It's not DRM to require some authentication before they'll serve up the download to you. DRM is what gets in the way after the download.
I think I understand the distinction you're making. However I think it's only technically correct. I understand that I can boot up a VM with Steam, download the game, copy it from the VM to my machine that doesn't their software and it'll probably work. But that's in the realm of "technically possible but completely impractical". In practical terms I actuality have to run their software on my machine to have access to the software I buy through them.
The only difference between Steam and GoG is that your browser is already providing the VM to sandbox (albeit without hardware enforcement) GoG's code running on your machine, while for Steam you have to supply your own VM if you want that degree of isolation. (If you happened to be running Qubes OS then this matter of degrees of convenience would be trivial.) In either case, running some of the store's code on your machine in order to obtain the product is unavoidable. In neither case is it DRM.
I think Oculus's attitude is actually fairly sensible for the position they are in..
First, the success of VR is an existential risk for Oculus. This is not true for Valve; Valve just doesn't want to be left behind (at least at a business level, I have no doubt their engineering organization wants to continue to be the tech leader).
Second, they are very concerned about whether people have good VR experiences, because the well has been poisoned by people's memories of 90s VR, Cardboard, concerns about motion sickness, overhype, headsets looking dumb, etc.
Third, they're a fairly small organization, and they already have to support engagements with GPU vendors, OS, as well, as getting their hardware built and supported. Having to support other hardware on their platform (especially as there is a race to the bottom between HTC, Razer, etc) is a huge additional burden. They do have financial resources from Facebook, but you can't just throw money at an engineering org, you have to scale carefully.
So to make VR is successful, they have to make sure that people have good experiences, but they have a small team. Buying exclusives makes perfect sense for them: it's a way to leverage Facebook's financial resources, and since the titles are exclusive they can focus on making those titles work as well as possible on a SW/HW stack that they own.
No, they don't have to make them Oculus exclusive to support VR devs and fund the development of more titles.
VR headsets on the PC are just another device like your keyboard, mouse and monitor. I haven't heard of an LG-monitor-exclusive game before, so why should it exist for VR?
It's different on consoles.
Firs there was DRM and now the insistence on exclusivity. For some reason Oculus seems to have forgotten their promise of an open ecosystem, and I hope it's not some Facebook influence Palmer is unable to fight against, and if that's case, I hope Carmack isn't getting pissed. Remember, John is the driving force behind GPL'ing all the engines/games at id software. It's reasonable to doubt any future GPL id software release since John left.
Between the Vive providing an arguably better experience (at a hefty price) and Oculus alienating PC gamers left and right, I have no idea what's going on in their management department. It looks like the wrong people got control.
I'm exclusively a PC gamer and I'd even argue that this is false. Exclusives are bad for the industry and bad for gamers in general. It doesn't matter which platform you can afford/desire.
Even PSVR might be coming to PC. Many Xbox games are coming to PC. The industry seems to be turning its back on exclusivity. What does Facebook do? "Naaaa, we can make exclusivity work."
When industry leaders are aborting a strategy, it isn't a good strategy. What Facebook is doing makes sense only 5 years ago.
I'm with you, so let me expand on what I meant: On consoles it's different because some studious exclusively develop for Playstation or Xbox, meaning they don't even have the tech to just compile a PC or Xbox version if they wanted to. Now, this is a the result of being Playstation exclusive for years, but I'm sure they get paid enough to not worry about losing out on the other markets.
I totally agree that for gamers it's a loss. Most skip games on that other platform, but some grudgingly buy an Xbox or Playstation just for one game.
Another very stupid tactic is making PC gamers wait like Rockstar does with GTA. This is especially bad given the history of the GTA games and them being PC first back in the day.
> TVs are all nearly the same. Currently VR headsets are not. If you disagree then I suggest you head on over to the reddit Oculus or Vive forums.
Don't they have both have very similar specs and hardware (ignoring input for now)? Also, the whole point of drivers/SDKs is to abstract hardware differences away so software can work on a variety of hardware. It doesn't strike me that they are so different the drivers/SDKs can't cope with the differences. Given Revive lets Vive users play Oculus locked down games and both the Oculus and Vive are supported on Steam it's clear their hardware differences isn't a huge deal.
Thanks for finding that. Wikipedia says Valve had 330 as of 2013, so Valve most likely slightly outnumbers them. Hardly David vs. Goliath in headcount/organization size though. Though of course you have to be aware HTC is the production scale out.
It's laughable how outclassed Oculus is by Valve. If Valve were to release Half-Life 3 as an exclusive on Vive, Oculus as a gaming headset would be toast.
Valve has some of the most valuable franchises (Dota 2, Team Fortress, Portal etc) around and are under-utilizing them, not to mention they operate the largest PC gaming distribution platform.
By now Oculus VR is clearly larger organization than Valve and likely only small portion of Valve works on anything VR-related. So I just not sure you can call them "small" anymore.
How much of the Vive is Valve and how much is HTC? Valve was very lucky to find a hardware partner content with not trying to establish their own content delivery platform.
It's sad but predictable to see your comment downvoted for offering an interesting perspective. Especially considering most responses are sarcastic "yeah Facebook is small", ignoring your explanation. I'd have thought most here acknowledge your point that you can't arbitrarily add people/cash to a team.
In general I don't like exclusivity, but I don't downvote for a well-intended, thoughtful contribution. I do think you ignore the more obvious motivation of them wanting a larger cut of the price.
That seems very unlikely to me. Nobody is going to put on a VR headset to kill time at work, which is what Facebook is. (There was an article posted here recently that says most videos posted on Facebook have subtitles instead of sound, because people won't even put headphones on while using Facebook.)
The idea isn't that people will put on a VR headset to kill time at work- their goal is for people to be wearing a VR headset at work in the first place.
just you wait... if pitched properly, with higher resolution (so gen2 at least) and office apps developed with VR in mind it can bring added effectiveness (although probably impossible to wear 8 hours daily).
Yeah facilities managers will love it. They won't even have to buy cubicles anymore, because with VR we won't notice we're packed cheek-by-jowl at long tables.
I'll wait (we all will - there's no alternative) but I'm confident that the future isn't every/most employees sitting at their desk wearing stupid glasses/headgear and getting headaches and eyestrain and feeling sick when they can just look a their monitors like a normal person.
As a programmer, the idea of a VR headset with infinite space for my windows is very appealing. Mix this with gesture based input devices and a pinch of voice control and you have something awesome.
I meant more like an infinite sized monitor. But I understand your point. That said, there's something appealing to me about the idea of just moving my head to see the info I want vs. switching windows. I already do this with 2 27" monitors and having even more 'space' to put visible items and just look around sounds great. But I like new and shiny things.
hmm, i'm a programmer, and i think even with current-gen vive this could potentially be really cool. wouldn't be surprised at all if this is the future.
I just wonder why, with his stance, he doesn't apply just one string: a sort of "non-exclusivity clause" where the devs agree not to sign any game exclusivity contract.
Gabe Newell's phrasing makes it sound like Valve is basically offering a cash advance to some developers (similar to trade publishing, where authors get an advance check which they must then "earn out" before they can receive future royalty checks).
It's basically an interest-free loan which doesn't need to be paid back if the project is a failure (i.e. fails to "earn out" its advance). Quite generous, assuming Valve isn't taking any more than their usual cut of the Steam revenue as part of the arrangements.
This is how all traditional game financing deals work and isn't anything unusual. How the recoupment on the advance on royalties is calculated is where you can usually see if the deal is generous or not. Sometimes the entity funding (in the old days it would always be a publisher like EA) would try to set recoupment terms that made it difficult to ever earn a royalty for the developer taking the advance.
As much money as Valve and HTC have put into the Vive it makes sense. The more VR games and content available = more Vive's sold. You have to spend money to make money.
I also find the concept of exclusivity for a VR headset very problematic. People in conversations have been comparing it to console exclusivity. However, I don't need to connect my console to a $1k PC and now am not only committed to one platform, but to a combination of two.
I was really excited about VR when Oculus was still a kickstarter project. The Facebook acquisition killed some of that excitement. However, what really killed it for me was learning that it wasn't just another PC peripheral, but that these things have their own stores, etc. Until I can connect a VR headset and play a game I bought anywhere with it, I will stay away from this. I understand that some things don't work due to technical limitations like Vive's room tracking, but that's not the issue here.
Eh, I think comparing it to consoles is sufficient for now. The VR hardware is pretty significantly different. Something programmed for the vive controllers is going to be designed a lot differently than something programmed for the Occulus. (not sure how that changes when the Occulus hand controllers come out).
There's a lot of experimentation happening right now, and it's probably going to be a while until we know the minimum subset of hardware that's required to make an immersive game.
Oculus makes you click an "allow outside sources" scare-switch to use it. The switch has no security purpose like on Android, because if you run an executable and already get through Microsoft's code signing prompt, you are already owned regardless of which way you toggled the scare-switch.
It's just to lower adoption of anything outside of the limited Oculus store environment.
Facebook is funding game development through its Oculus publishing arm to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Part of those publishing contracts include a clause to keep Oculus published titles exclusive to their store for some duration of time.
To speak to your example, no monitor manufacturer is funding the development of games to play exclusively on their monitors as monitors are largely a commodity at this point.
The real infuriating thing as a Vive owner myself is that Facebook paid off a bunch of Vive compatible games and made them retract the compatibility. Completely scummy.
There was a massive drama incident about it on /r/vive about this as well.
Kingspray was releasing in a couple weeks for Vive and has been "mysteriously" delayed until around the supposed timeframe of the Touch launch. Giant Cop was even already pre-sold on Humble store with Vive support and then the support was pulled back and it became an Oculus timed-exclusive.
nope - stuff you mention has different architecture (so you have to program for specific CPUs), different hardware (memory constraints, overall performance to get and maintain adequate FPS) and so on.
this has same base PC, just displayed differently. It is another layer of complexity compared to displaying it on LCD screen, but not THAT big. games can be relatively easily developed to work well for both platforms, and many will be. this is about content locking and competition between companies.
except IT DOES happen because Asus monitors support G-Sync, Samsung one dont. Yes it is insane, thank Nvidia for pushing proprietary crap and anti consumer features (gameworks working similar to intel compilers)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How can one change the game anymore without selling out to the VCs or Google or Facebook? It's sad really. To be expected, in a maturing industry, but very sad.
Become Valve-like. Still not sold-out, still privately held, and "crushing it". Not coincidentally, they probably[1] didn't have VC-appointed board members making "exit" decisions for them.
1. I have no idea if Valve took any VC funding. I think Gabe Newell was pretty well-off already from his Microsoft gig.
I'd go so far as to consider Gabe Newell a "founder-VC" all by himself. Their interests might therefore be a bit better aligned than in many other cases. A closed-source implementation of BDFL, maybe?
It's funny people in the comments mention that they did not buy games exclusive to the monitor manufacturer. It's true but it also reminded me of the 3D movies wars of 2010. Major CE manufacturers all got exclusive rights to the parts of a small 3D movie library and made these titles available only with the HW purchase. E.g. Panasonic had Avatar so to watch Avatar in 3D you had to buy a Panasonic TV, Samsung had How To Train Your Dragon, Sony had a bunch of Sony titles and I don't remember if LG had anything. We all know how this turned out for the home 3D.
Are you implying that 3D would be in a different position now if Sony owners had the opportunity to sit through Avatar a bit earlier? 3D certainly did not fail due to lack of hardware adoption. In that metric, 3D has won. It just turned out to be one of the many, many features that are only important to check boxes in a product comparison matrix.
1. I'm still not sold on that VR is the future of gaming. I do agree that exclusivity will hurt more than it can help. Similar to the way Telsa opened their patents because the adoption of electric cars by the populace is better for their business than protecting their IP.
2. It makes sense that Valve is investing so much in this because it's just another excuse to not make video games anymore. RIP HL3. ;)
EDIT: oh, the down votes. Heaven forbid there be any sarcasm on HN.
It's not the future of gaming. I don't think anyone believes it is. There are far too many types of games which are fundamentally inappropriate for a VR headset.
However, it is a part of the future of gaming. Probably a big part, especially as more interesting control peripherals are developed. It's already amazing for basically any type of game where a joystick / HOTAS setup is appropriate.
I agree that there could be a future for it. I just haven't seen anything demonstrating it's market viability. So far it feels like VR has been all talk and development and less so people rushing out to get headsets in mass droves.
VR right now has a lot of first generation problems. It's expensive as a peripheral, and until PSVR comes out it is only available to people with gaming PCs. The resolution is too low, the headsets are kinda awkward, and most of the content available now barely rises above the level of tech demo. That and we still don't have a better solution to movement than teleportation.
Still, I think for first person-gaming experiences, VR is the future, and that for the next generation of gamers who will likely grow up experiencing first-person gaming in VR first, the idea of anything else will seem pretty silly.
Maybe I'm just an "old" timer. I could never transition to the Wii or the DS. My idea of gaming is me, with a controller in my hand, lying upside down on a couch in an all-out sedentary position. PC gaming is less desirable because it requires me to sit upright in a chair.
HN culture explicitly does not appreciate sarcasm, jokes, memes or references. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to delay the flood of noise that eventually dominates vote-based discussion groups like Digg and Reddit.
After having a swordfight with a skeleton warrior in VR, moving around the room, dodging, swinging, parrying...it may not be the future but it's part of the future and I want it badly.
Being able to merge exercise and escapist fantasy is a big win for me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4odsce/ive_sent_gabe_...
If you need context:
Oculus has been offering funds to VR devs in exchange for limited time exclusivity to the Oculus Store. This wouldn't be such a stink if the news didn't immediately follow Oculus Store DRM adding checks for the Oculus headset hardware. So, a game bought through Steam can play on either a Vive or a Rift depending on support put in by the dev. But, a game bought on the Oculus Store is blocked from running on a Vive.
IMHO, the conversation about this topic is very muddied between the four issues of funding, store exclusivity, DRM and hardware blocking. But, AFAICT, the PC gaming openness advocates are clearly OK with Steam DRM and mostly fine with funded, temporary store exclusivity. However, the hardware block is a serious issue. (At least in it's intent. In practice, it was immediately worked around.)