“Oculus removed the headset check from the DRM in Oculus Runtime 1.5”

Post by azernik » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 1:30 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #130

azernik wrote: post #86

Different 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…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11971984 and marked it off-topic.

Post by towelrod » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 2:29 AM UTC

corysama wrote: post #128

nilkn wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, eithe…

Everything 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.

Post by ethbro » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 2:56 AM UTC

rincebrain wrote: post #94

zeta0134 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that bugs me about the whole thing is, the headset check does nothing for the fundamental implementation of the exclusivity deal. If I buy it through the Oculus store, then Oculus still gets their cut. After that, it really doesn't matter which headset I play the game on. The deal was still a success. I gave them money, and even did it on the storefront they sold the game on. What's the big deal? I still th…

The entire reason for the exclusivity is to drive sales of their hardware. If they need to sell 500 units of hardware or 5000 games to break even on a given investment, and selling that hardware also increases the odds that you'll purchase other exclusives from their store once you've sunk the cost, there's plenty of motivation to do it, even if you don't end up buying most of the exclusive games. (Note that I am not…

Post by kartickv » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 3:03 AM UTC

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 3:09 AM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #78

vonklaus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. This was a loss in the court of public opinion. If I sue my landlord and win, I do not give him/her credit for paying me the damages assessed by the court. In fact, in the above analogy, I would in fact take a debit...

Dude, they were not legally obligated to do this. In fact, they could have easily ignored the vocal minority and focused on the larger consumer base. But they went out of their way to change their decision based on the feedback from the vocal minority which both shows great self-awareness and guts (since we all know the vocal minority is not always right, especially in terms of the bottom line).