• Facebook is working on an "all-new PC gaming platform" with Unity
    15 replies, posted
[url]http://www.pcgamer.com/facebook-is-working-on-an-all-new-pc-gaming-platform-with-unity[/url]
-Snip missread-
Hey PCGamer, did you forget to add something about no mans sky onto this title.
they're probably going to try something with oculus, maybe even locking oculus users into using the new facebook platform.
I don't get it, is it just adding an easy way to add unity games to facebook that run using the unity web player? Well, okay then. I'm not going to be using facebook for games, but I guess it's nice for facebook users that they'll get some potentially higher quality games.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;50926874]they're probably going to try something with oculus, maybe even locking oculus users into using the new facebook platform.[/QUOTE] facebook's involvement doesn't mean the end of the world to anything with Oculus; nothing about the device is locked (they even allow SteamVR to function on their headset; Valve hasn't yet allowed the Oculus SDK to run on the Vive) it's just baseless hysteria
[QUOTE=bitches;50927058]facebook's involvement doesn't mean the end of the world to anything with Oculus; nothing about the device is locked (they even allow SteamVR to function on their headset; Valve hasn't yet allowed the Oculus SDK to run on the Vive) it's just baseless hysteria[/QUOTE] Would you like to wager a bet on that?
[QUOTE=pentium;50927095]Would you like to wager a bet on that?[/QUOTE] Considering people are already purchasing it and there aren't any reports of huge obtrusive Facebook ads, I'm not sure what you're basing that condescending attitude on.
[QUOTE=bitches;50927058]facebook's involvement doesn't mean the end of the world to anything with Oculus; nothing about the device is locked (they even allow SteamVR to function on their headset; Valve hasn't yet allowed the Oculus SDK to run on the Vive) it's just baseless hysteria[/QUOTE] Whaaaat. Valve is the one who allows other headsets to be compatible with OpenVR, not Oculus. The whole point of OpenVR (aka SteamVR) is to be open and allow others to add support for their hardware. The Oculus SDK is closed, and actually actively combats compatibility with other headsets. There is a project called Revive that reverse engineers the Oculus SDK to make it compatible with the Vive. Oculus has fought tooth and nail to break Revive time and time again in SDK updates. On top of that, Oculus has been paying developers to make Rift exclusives. Conversely, Valve has been funding developers to make their games compatible with OpenVR/SteamVR (and therefore compatible with all headsets). Not only that, but you don't even have to distribute your game on Steam to utilize OpenVR or SteamVR. So, Oculus is actually already a massive shitbird.
[QUOTE=Downsider;50927296]Whaaaat. Valve is the one who allows other headsets to be compatible with OpenVR, not Oculus. The whole point of OpenVR (aka SteamVR) is to be open and allow others to add support for their hardware. The Oculus SDK is closed, and actually actively combats compatibility with other headsets. There is a project called Revive that reverse engineers the Oculus SDK to make it compatible with the Vive. Oculus has fought tooth and nail to break Revive time and time again in SDK updates. On top of that, Oculus has been paying developers to make Rift exclusives. Conversely, Valve has been funding developers to make their games compatible with OpenVR/SteamVR (and therefore compatible with all headsets). Not only that, but you don't even have to distribute your game on Steam to utilize OpenVR or SteamVR. So, Oculus is actually already a massive shitbird.[/QUOTE] Do you actually have any evidence that this is all due to the merger with Facebook? Because arguing which headset is better is all and good, but the entire topic at hand is whether Facebook will ruin the Rift not whether Lucky Palmer has a history of bad decisions for the company.
[QUOTE=Downsider;50927296]Whaaaat. Valve is the one who allows other headsets to be compatible with OpenVR, not Oculus. The whole point of OpenVR (aka SteamVR) is to be open and allow others to add support for their hardware. The Oculus SDK is closed, and actually actively combats compatibility with other headsets. There is a project called Revive that reverse engineers the Oculus SDK to make it compatible with the Vive. Oculus has fought tooth and nail to break Revive time and time again in SDK updates. On top of that, Oculus has been paying developers to make Rift exclusives. Conversely, Valve has been funding developers to make their games compatible with OpenVR/SteamVR (and therefore compatible with all headsets). Not only that, but you don't even have to distribute your game on Steam to utilize OpenVR or SteamVR. So, Oculus is actually already a massive shitbird.[/QUOTE] OpenVR is not a tool for making software specifically support the Vive. If that were the case, it wouldn't also be something used with Rift headsets. Oculus does allow OpenVR to run on the Rift. Oculus's SDK is [I]not allowed[/I] by Valve to be implemented on the Vive, because the Oculus SDK has features that require direct hardware access (something Valve does not want to allow). Oculus [I]removed[/I] the hardware-check from its SDK (the thing that broke ReVive). Your news is pretty outdated. Oculus paid many developers the funds they needed to polish their games, in exchange for developmental preference in supporting the Rift first, and then later the Vive. In other cases, Oculus funded [I]entire games[/I] (such as Edge of Nowhere, a higher quality title than any indie VR game by far; an actual lengthy experience rather than a ten-minute tech demo). Those games wouldn't exist without Oculus, and naturally run on Oculus's own SDK (which as aforementioned is not allowed to officially run on the Vive). Valve is not granting money to anyone. Valve has kickstarted some small-scale games with the promise to withhold Steam profits until their own investment has been fully repaid. It's easy to see why a developer with a dream would take up Oculus's offer before Valve's, considering that they get both more money and they get to [I]keep[/I] that money. It's a lot more financially sound for a team to work full-time on their game with the knowledge that they'll get to make money both while developing and immediately after release (rather than get a payday advance). They both expect something in return. More games for VR means more VR sales, and a brighter future for VR where you don't just have a big pile of indie content. Both companies are investing in VR, but it is clearly Oculus that is taking the biggest financial risk in funding developers when compared against Valve. So what's with the huge hate-boner? [editline]22nd August 2016[/editline] but no, level-headed arguments don't matter, clearly oculus is a "massive shitbird" and facebook is the devil
[QUOTE=bitches;50927459]OpenVR is not a tool for making software specifically support the Vive. If that were the case, it wouldn't also be something used with Rift headsets.[/QUOTE] I never said it was. Valve is driving an open standard to support ANY headset, and unify the community. Oculus is driving a closed standard. Valve = good, Oculus = bad. It's really, really clear cut in this specific example. [QUOTE=bitches;50927459]Oculus does allow OpenVR to run on the Rift. Oculus's SDK is [I]not allowed[/I] by Valve to be implemented on the Vive, because the Oculus SDK has features that require direct hardware access (something Valve does not want to allow).[/QUOTE] Um, no. OpenVR's license permits Oculus to add support for their headset to OpenVR. The design of OpenVR promotes it. OpenVR literally exists as it does right now to support VR across any HMD. Oculus's license [I]does not[/I] permit Valve to create a compatibility layer/bindings for the Oculus SDK to run on the Vive. It has nothing to do with anything technical. Do you really think Valve is sitting there scratching their heads, wondering why ReVive works? ReVive is proof in it of itself that there's nothing technical stopping it. [QUOTE=bitches;50927459]Oculus [I]removed[/I] the hardware-check from its SDK (the thing that broke ReVive). Your news is pretty outdated.[/QUOTE] The only reason they removed it was because of public outcry. They added it two weeks after ReVive came out, and people bitched enough, plus the ReVive developer worked around it anyway, so they removed it. [QUOTE=bitches;50927459]Oculus paid many developers the funds they needed to polish their games, in exchange for developmental preference in supporting the Rift first, and then later the Vive. In other cases, Oculus funded [I]entire games[/I] (such as Edge of Nowhere, a higher quality title than any indie VR game by far; an actual lengthy experience rather than a ten-minute tech demo). Those games wouldn't exist without Oculus, and naturally run on Oculus's own SDK (which as aforementioned is not allowed to officially run on the Vive). Valve is not granting money to anyone. Valve has kickstarted some small-scale games with the promise to withhold Steam profits until their own investment has been fully repaid.[/QUOTE] Well, no. Exclusivity is shit for users. It fragments the community. [URL="http://i.imgur.com/v6DNdZm.jpg"]Valve is also funding developers, with no strings attached.[/URL] They've done that with Hover Junkers and Budget Cuts, among others. Hell, they've given out over 10,000 Vive Pre's to random developers, myself included. [QUOTE=bitches;50927459]It's easy to see why a developer with a dream would take up Oculus's offer before Valve's, considering that they get both more money and they get to [I]keep[/I] that money. It's a lot more financially sound for a team to work full-time on their game with the knowledge that they'll get to make money both while developing and immediately after release (rather than get a payday advance). They both expect something in return.[/QUOTE] Umm yeah, but Valve is also funding them by guaranteeing them revenue up front. Without the exclusivity agreement that fragments the community. [QUOTE=bitches;50927459]More games for VR means more VR sales, and a brighter future for VR where you don't just have a big pile of indie content. Both companies are investing in VR, but it is clearly Oculus that is taking the biggest financial risk in funding developers when compared against Valve.[/QUOTE] Yup, Oculus is taking the bigger financial risk. They're also fragmenting the community, while Valve is trying to unify it. If Oculus made their platform open, funded developers without exclusivity agreements (Hell, force the Oculus store for all I care. Just let users of other HMD's use the Oculus Store) I would have no problem with them. But instead, they're trying to fragment the community and losing hard. [QUOTE=bitches;50927459]but no, level-headed arguments don't matter, clearly oculus is a "massive shitbird" and facebook is the devil[/QUOTE] :speechless:
[QUOTE=Downsider;50927603]I never said it was. Valve is driving an open standard to support ANY headset, and unify the community. Oculus is driving a closed standard. Valve = good, Oculus = bad. It's really, really clear cut in this specific example. Um, no. OpenVR's license permits Oculus to add support for their headset to OpenVR. The design of OpenVR promotes it. OpenVR literally exists as it does right now to support VR across any HMD. Oculus's license [I]does not[/I] permit Valve to create a compatibility layer/bindings for the Oculus SDK to run on the Vive. It has nothing to do with anything technical. Do you really think Valve is sitting there scratching their heads, wondering why ReVive works? ReVive is proof in it of itself that there's nothing technical stopping it. The only reason they removed it was because of public outcry. They added it two weeks after ReVive came out, and people bitched enough, plus the ReVive developer worked around it anyway, so they removed it. Well, no. Exclusivity is shit for users. It fragments the community. [URL="http://i.imgur.com/v6DNdZm.jpg"]Valve is also funding developers, with no strings attached.[/URL] They've done that with Hover Junkers and Budget Cuts, among others. Hell, they've given out over 10,000 Vive Pre's to random developers, myself included. Umm yeah, but Valve is also funding them by guaranteeing them revenue up front. Without the exclusivity agreement that fragments the community. Yup, Oculus is taking the bigger financial risk. They're also fragmenting the community, while Valve is trying to unify it. If Oculus made their platform open, funded developers without exclusivity agreements (Hell, force the Oculus store for all I care. Just let users of other HMD's use the Oculus Store) I would have no problem with them. But instead, they're trying to fragment the community and losing hard. :speechless:[/QUOTE] It was quite obvious that ReVive would work around the restriction very quickly. Do you think Oculus didn't know that? Do you think they didn't want the extra game sales? Hardware restrictions limiting games to headsets that allow their SDK (contractually, not functionally) are to prevent trash headsets like the many Rift/Vive imitators on Amazon and Ebay from "supporting" their games and giving them a bad name. Preventing [I]those[/I] from functioning easily with their games doesn't prevent Revive from quickly evading these issues. It isn't a conspiracy against Valve. But of course there's thousands of people who hate facebook so much that anything they do spawns new theories about how Oculus is somehow trying to ruin VR, so they had to lift this restriction (making no difference to ReVive) for the sake of PR. This is an example of public outcry [I]hurting[/I] the VR community. The email from Gabe Newell that you posted is the very one where he explains that Valve gives developers funds as a Steam payday advance. Valve does not give out grants. There are strings attached. You are wrong, and didn't properly respond to my points in light of this.
[QUOTE=bitches;50927640]It was quite obvious that ReVive would work around the restriction very quickly. Do you think Oculus didn't know that? Do you think they didn't want the extra game sales? Hardware restrictions limiting games to headsets that allow their SDK (contractually, not functionally) are to prevent trash headsets like the many Rift/Vive imitators on Amazon and Ebay from "supporting" their games and giving them a bad name. Preventing [I]those[/I] from functioning easily with their games doesn't prevent Revive from quickly evading these issues. It isn't a conspiracy against Valve. But of course there's thousands of people who hate facebook so much that anything they do spawns new theories about how Oculus is somehow trying to ruin VR, so they had to lift this restriction (making no difference to ReVive) for the sake of PR. This is an example of public outcry [I]hurting[/I] the VR community.[/quote] Yeah, because the singular person who made ReVive is a prodigy and a Chinese company couldn't do the same thing. Of course they could.. This isn't a Facebook hate brigade, it's a hate brigade against consumer-hurting business practices. We're even getting AAA games on the Vive like Doom and Fallout 4 as well, and nobody's paying them to do it. I couldn't care less if Facebook was involved or not. [QUOTE=bitches;50927640]The email from Gabe Newell that you posted is the very one where he explains that Valve gives developers funds as a Steam payday advance. Valve does not give out grants. There are strings attached. You are wrong, and didn't properly respond to my points in light of this.[/QUOTE] Dude, there are no strings, you make the game and you get paid for it even if nobody buys your shitty game. That's literally best case scenario for any game developer, besides being handed cash up front like Oculus is doing. That's great for the developer, but it's fucking over consumers.
[QUOTE=bitches;50927640]It was quite obvious that ReVive would work around the restriction very quickly. Do you think Oculus didn't know that? Do you think they didn't want the extra game sales? Hardware restrictions limiting games to headsets that allow their SDK (contractually, not functionally) are to prevent trash headsets like the many Rift/Vive imitators on Amazon and Ebay from "supporting" their games and giving them a bad name. Preventing [I]those[/I] from functioning easily with their games doesn't prevent Revive from quickly evading these issues. It isn't a conspiracy against Valve. But of course there's thousands of people who hate facebook so much that anything they do spawns new theories about how Oculus is somehow trying to ruin VR, so they had to lift this restriction (making no difference to ReVive) for the sake of PR. This is an example of public outcry [I]hurting[/I] the VR community. The email from Gabe Newell that you posted is the very one where he explains that Valve gives developers funds as a Steam payday advance. Valve does not give out grants. There are strings attached. You are wrong, and didn't properly respond to my points in light of this.[/QUOTE] "DID YOU THINK OCULUS DIDN'T KNOW THAT?! HYURP!" First you deny oculus did anything, then you try to deny OpenVR's purpose being to support all HMDs, now you're trying to justify the hardware lock? You're saying that the Vive is a trash headset. The fact they did ANY of this should prove how shitty Oculus is to anyone else. [editline]22nd August 2016[/editline] Preventing it from "easily functioning?" Someone had to write an ENTIRE WRAPPER to make it to work, that is NOT easily functioning. They were actively combating it and if you can actually say they weren't then holy shit.
[QUOTE=Downsider;50927720]Yeah, because the singular person who made ReVive is a prodigy and a Chinese company couldn't do the same thing. Of course they could.. This isn't a Facebook hate brigade, it's a hate brigade against consumer-hurting business practices. We're even getting AAA games on the Vive like Doom and Fallout 4 as well, and nobody's paying them to do it. I couldn't care less if Facebook was involved or not. Dude, there are no strings, you make the game and you get paid for it even if nobody buys your shitty game. That's literally best case scenario for any game developer, besides being handed cash up front like Oculus is doing. That's great for the developer, but it's fucking over consumers.[/QUOTE] Not getting paid Steam revenue until Valve's investment is repaid is a string, even if you say it isn't. I'm still right in my comparisons of why a developer would choose Oculus's offer, what that means for having more games available, and that both companies expect something in return for their investment (one way or another). Just claiming it isn't so doesn't make you right. Doom and Fallout are not new games made for VR. They're official mods that tack the concept of VR into it. Games not made for VR from the start don't hold a candle to those that are.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.