“Oculus removed the headset check from the DRM in Oculus Runtime 1.5” • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by amelius » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:43 AM UTC

misiti3780 wrote: post #19

asddubs wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to expand on this a little bit; There were two functions, one that checked whether the occulus headset was connected, and one DRM function. Occulus consolidated those functions into one, in what many assumed to be a move to be able to justify taking down projects like these under the guise of "they break our DRM", which did end up being a talking point against the projects later on. Apparently they reversed this chan…

forgive me for my ignorance here but what is a DRM function ?

An euphemism for a strategically designed defect.

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

#152

Post by kartickv » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 12:04 PM UTC

ericd wrote: post #142

kartickv wrote: post #137

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.

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 rig…

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.

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

#153

Post by appleflaxen » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 1:23 PM UTC

misiti3780 wrote: post #19

asddubs wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to expand on this a little bit; There were two functions, one that checked whether the occulus headset was connected, and one DRM function. Occulus consolidated those functions into one, in what many assumed to be a move to be able to justify taking down projects like these under the guise of "they break our DRM", which did end up being a talking point against the projects later on. Apparently they reversed this chan…

forgive me for my ignorance here but what is a DRM function ?

"digital rights management"

which usually means "copy protection" introduced with the goal of protecting the vendor, but which almost always degrades the value to the consumer (sometimes catastrophically, if support by the vendor ends; the nest debacle is probably the most recent example)

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

#154

Post by sergiosgc » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 1:40 PM UTC

Wile_E_Quixote wrote: post #62

Content has almost always sold hardware in the video game industry. Look at all of the exclusive content for Nintendo consoles. Or how many people bought XBox's for the sole purpose of playing Halo. Sure, most VR hardware options may technically be peripherals for PCs, but at a cost of several hundred dollars or more, it isn't in the same category as PC mouses or joysticks. The way I see it, VR hardware is essentiall…

The PC gaming market is different from the console market. PC gamers spend a lot more on their hardware, and in return ask for platform openness and very long backwards compatibility.

Dividing the market would definitely cause prospective consumers to wait for market stabilization. It is a risk bigger than the risk posed by competitors.

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

#155

Post by sergiosgc » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 1:57 PM UTC

serge2k wrote: post #55

nilkn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people have batted many eyes about that. Those people typically are big fans of PC gaming, which happens to be the audience that Oculus is targeting. So Oculus is targeting the demographic amongst gamers which is the most opposed to exclusives. By the way, Valve is supplying quite a bit of funding to VR developers as well but is somehow managing to do it without requiring exclusivity. At the very least, Oculus c…

> but is somehow managing to do it without requiring exclusivity. At the very least, Oculus could require store exclusivity but not hardware exclusivity. Their massive share of teh PC gaming market via steam gives them more freedom.

Their massive share is the result of many years of operating fairly, while navigating the dangerous waters of drm. Valve built a lot of trust, and they are capitalizing on it.

That is, they behaved like they this even when they were not kings of the market, so the reasoning behind this is more akin to company culture than it is to market strategy.

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

#156

Post by sergiosgc » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 2:01 PM UTC

kartickv wrote: post #152

ericd wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rig…

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.

It makes so much sense that Valve is doing it. Valve loans funds to developers and gets paid back in future Steam sales.

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

#157

Post by csallen » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 4:12 PM UTC

kartickv wrote: post #152

ericd wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rig…

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.

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.

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

#158

Post by toast0 » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

faide wrote: post #56

pavanky wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because rift is not a freaking console. It is just a new way to display a game that is running on a PC.

It's hardly a peripheral though. VR games are incompatible with traditional displays, and the development requirements are quite a bit more strict (low latency, high framerate). It's quite a stretch to say that VR is "just a new way to display a game," in my opinion.

Vr games work fine with traditional displays, I've seen plenty of screenshots on my traditional display. It isn't pleasant or immersive that WA, of course.

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

#159

Post by mklim » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #158

faide wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hardly a peripheral though. VR games are incompatible with traditional displays, and the development requirements are quite a bit more strict (low latency, high framerate). It's quite a stretch to say that VR is "just a new way to display a game," in my opinion.

Vr games work fine with traditional displays, I've seen plenty of screenshots on my traditional display. It isn't pleasant or immersive that WA, of course.

Some games purposely designed for both or originally designed for monitors and then ported to VR might be able to, but the vast majority of them are going to rely on the headset's position in real life to move the player character in the game. If it's developed for the Vive or Touch it'll also rely on motion controllers to interact with the game world. You could look at the game on the monitor, but you'd have no way to move or actually do anything in the game.

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

#160

Post by vonklaus » Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 8:07 PM 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).

> Dude, they were not legally obligated to do this.

I did realize that. The court of public opinion is not a real entity. It was a plot-device, analogy to point out why I believe they made the correct decision which was a selfish appraisal of their leverage.

I encourage their selfishness, because they should be self-interested, but I will not champion them for it. I am not a gamer, but as a technophile I have heard many people on reddit, HN and various other places commenting about how they are doing a poor job.

This isn't the worlds biggest social network where they can kill messenger and force users to download their apps. This is a nascent technology that has not decided on a platform or set of platforms. They need the community to embrace them both as developers and as consumers. They also need potential customers to embrace the technology. This was a smart capitulation, but a back-pedal after they got a market reality check.