No.
This is how VR will die, trying to have exclusive games to one or another.
PC is not a place for exclusives, please fuck off with them. The sad part is that VR looks so promising, but this could ruin it.
[QUOTE=Cmx;48179991]No.
This is how VR will die, trying to have exclusive games to one or another.[/QUOTE]
why would they make games for a rival platform?
[QUOTE=Scot;48180182]why would they make games for a rival platform?[/QUOTE]
You dont fully fund anything.
This is like nvidia fully funding games which will not work on amd at all. if anything this will drive people away from purchasing any VR hardware.
This is going to be shit, since I've got my eye on the Vive over the Oculus.
It's PC.
People [B]will[/B] find workarounds.
[QUOTE=Scot;48180182]why would they make games for a rival platform?[/QUOTE]
Considering the standard input for Rift is an 360 controller, I wouldn't think the difference in camera controls would be so great that they couldn't easily support Rift, it's competitors, and a standard keyboard and mouse.
Now, mind, I understand why from a business standpoint they might do this; though I though Oculus has said their goal is to make VR mainstream, which this is counter to.
I could sort of understand Rift exclusivity. Most of VR games made for the Rift are designed with a Xboc one controller in mind since the Rift ships with one. For other headsets though, you can't grantee that the user has a Xbox one controller.
That said I think exclusivity in the long run will be the death of VR. The market is way too small to do exclusive games
The exclusivity is just putting it only in the Oculus Home store, right?
I'm fine with that, if that's the case. I'm sure each platform will have some sort of content showing off the strengths of that platform. It's not saying every platform will be content-locked, or all content will be platform-locked, but it's important to have flagship titles when the market is so divided. This is how we make standards, there has to be some reason to standardize.
Tailored content early in a product's lifespan is a good thing. You have to sell consumers on why your platform should be the dominant one. However, it isn't something that should last past the first content wave of each generation of new hardware.
Consider them tech demos, pushing the platform to its limits.
Oculus is paying for the games, why would they spend money to make them work on a rival product, let alone multiple rival products?
It would be like Nintendo porting one of their games to Xbox or playstation.
Plus, as the article notes, they ARE spending money on games that AREN'T exclusive!
[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;48181000]Oculus is paying for the games, why would they spend money to make them work on a rival product, let alone multiple rival products?
It would be like Nintendo porting one of their games to Xbox or playstation.
Plus, as the article notes, they ARE spending money on games that AREN'T exclusive![/QUOTE]
The problem is if it starts encouraging a whole bunch of exclusivity whoring, to the point where each VR device will just have a small amount of exclusives each when they could've all had a load of games, and people won't be fucked to buy a VR to play 4 games or have to buy all 6 headsets to play them all.
[QUOTE=ISPYUDIE;48181262]The problem is if it starts encouraging a whole bunch of exclusivity whoring, to the point where each VR device will just have a small amount of exclusives each when they could've all had a load of games, and people won't be fucked to buy a VR to play 4 games or have to buy all 6 headsets to play them all.[/QUOTE]
The only 2 (legit) headsets so far are the Vive and Oculus. Valve isn't one for exclusivity from what I remember.
Again, exclusives kind of have a point right now. For instance, the Vive has a larger tracking area that Oculus users won't be able to take advantage of. Should nobody make a game that uses that, then, in the interest of fairness? Or what about Oculus Touch's finger sensors. Should nobody use those because the Vive doesn't have them?
Or what about field of view? Should we cap that to whatever the lowest platform's is? Or tracking sensitivity? Or display resolution? Refresh rates?
Of course not. Exclusives that take advantage of tech only a certain platform has is not a bad thing. That's why that tech is in there in the first place, to be used. There will be platform-agnostic VR games, don't worry about that. But being able to use a platform to its fullest is a good thing, and will no doubt shape what makes it into the next generation of headsets.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48181354]Again, exclusives kind of have a point right now. For instance, the Vive has a larger tracking area that Oculus users won't be able to take advantage of. Should nobody make a game that uses that, then, in the interest of fairness? Or what about Oculus Touch's finger sensors. Should nobody use those because the Vive doesn't have them?
Or what about field of view? Should we cap that to whatever the lowest platform's is? Or tracking sensitivity? Or display resolution? Refresh rates?
Of course not. Exclusives that take advantage of tech only a certain platform has is not a bad thing. That's why that tech is in there in the first place, to be used. There will be platform-agnostic VR games, don't worry about that. But being able to use a platform to its fullest is a good thing, and will no doubt shape what makes it into the next generation of headsets.[/QUOTE]
The correct answer is typically to allow users to run the game at whatever capability their device has, within reason. I mean sure some games could have central mechanics that -require- some device but I doubt it would be financially viable for anybody who isn't being paid to do it.
if anyone thinks this will create some sort of giant PC gaming split between vive and rift and non-vr they're talking out their ass
if anything the effects are likely smaller than you think, unless they go FULL RETARD
[editline]11th July 2015[/editline]
there are a bunch of leap motion only games out there, but that's a bit different.
This is why Valve needs to step it up and start acting as Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo do with their platforms. Fund third party exclusives and do their own VR shit.
Imagine how much better PC gaming would be if Valve handed a deserving company a AAA budget in order to promote Steam as a platform.
[QUOTE=Velocet;48182611]This is why Valve needs to step it up and start acting as Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo do with their platforms. Fund third party exclusives and do their own VR shit.
Imagine how much better PC gaming would be if Valve handed a deserving company a AAA budget in order to promote Steam as a platform.[/QUOTE]
this logic assumes the PS and xbox are basically just publishing platform, and that logics pretty much right
I'm not sure if valve knows that though. I WOULD LOVE to see them hand funding over for another blue shift / opfor, and maybe even more. Valve funded
Exclusives? Really?
Okay, going with the Vive for sure then... earlier release date, better specs, lower price, and isn't run by a bunch of scumbags.
And so we return full circle to what killed VR in the 90's. Nobody wanted to adhere to any form of a standard, resulting in a spinoff of multiple and equally expensive standards which financially prohibited developers from releasing games for more than two or three platforms, further complicated by the existance of both AMD and Nvidia graphics chipsets, both equally as proprietary in how they support various features.
[editline]HOO-HOO[/editline]
[QUOTE=Monkah;48182663]Exclusives? Really?
Okay, going with the Vive for sure then... earlier release date, better specs, lower price, and isn't run by a bunch of scumbags.[/QUOTE]
...plus we get the added negative effect of a community that divides itself, resulting in assorted levels of circlejerking.
Well it's safe to say that VR just fell out of becoming nothing more than niche again for another 10 years. See you all in 2025. Three's a charm, right?
[QUOTE=pentium;48182669]And so we return full circle to what killed VR in the 90's. Nobody wanted to adhere to any form of a standard, resulting in a spinoff of multiple and equally expensive standards which financially prohibited developers from releasing games for more than two or three platforms, further complicated by the existance of both AMD and Nvidia graphics chipsets, both equally as proprietary in how they support various features.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure VR headsets in the 90's failed because they were total fucking shit.
[QUOTE=J!NX;48182728]I'm pretty sure VR headsets in the 90's failed because they were total fucking shit.[/QUOTE]
Relative to the technology of the time, they were on par given how primitive compact color LCD's still were. Just expensive. Very expensive. A VFX1 was considered the "most successful" headset of the time and it was still $700 and did not initially support 3D accelerators.
Back then however a lot of controls could be just mapped to the mouse and keyboard or in the days before Microsoft locked everyone into the Xbox controller, the [url=https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd757116%28v=vs.85%29.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396]Microsoft Joystick API[/url]. Headsets these days are a little more precise than that, but they come at the cost of requiring their own API's to hook into supported games and jazz like DirectInput. There within is where our issue with exclusivity arises. This isn't something that a game studio can spend two days releasing a compatibility patch for and boom, your game supports the headset.
Tracking and video is no longer what holds VR back. We have that down pat and not much is going to change about it now. It's the interface. The point where the feedback of the helmet allows you to interact with whatever game you are playing. Now you are up against egos and money. Lots and lots of money.
[quote]Some of you say that this will drive people away from VR but if no games use VR no one will buy it on account of it being useless.[/quote]
VR is here to stay. It's not going away no matter how much it bombs. Making it useful enough to be commercially successful however has proven to be the hard part. Tech demos can only yield so much. VR needs a real killer app and there is none yet. There's just a lot of games with added compatibility but overall the success of those games came from outside VR and not from VR itself. There is no game yet on the scale of say, Minecraft or Half-Life 2 or even Myst that you could bundle with a VR headset and it will sell like hotcakes and rake in awards year after year and garnish a community that would actively play support and modify it for well over five years to a decade, much like Garry's Mod.
Some of you say that this will drive people away from VR but if no games use VR no one will buy it on account of it being useless. At least with exclusives you have proof of concept which is important for new tech. If your tech can't prove it's usefulness it's going to flop.
[QUOTE=pentium;48182669]And so we return full circle to what killed VR in the 90's. Nobody wanted to adhere to any form of a standard, resulting in a spinoff of multiple and equally expensive standards which financially prohibited developers from releasing games for more than two or three platforms, further complicated by the existance of both AMD and Nvidia graphics chipsets, both equally as proprietary in how they support various features.
[editline]HOO-HOO[/editline]
...plus we get the added negative effect of a community that divides itself, resulting in assorted levels of circlejerking.
Well it's safe to say that VR just fell out of becoming nothing more than niche again for another 10 years. See you all in 2025. Three's a charm, right?[/QUOTE]
All three headsets function identically, though, and it's apparently not difficult to port between them according to the major VR developers. I don't think the general VR games market will be as segregated as you do.
[QUOTE=Monkah;48182663]
Okay, going with the Vive for sure then... lower price[/QUOTE]
ARe you an Wizard??
For anyone that might want to read the actual reasoning behind this (which isn't Oculus-is-evil, but a we-need-a-stable-launch), Palmer Luckey is answering questions on /r/pcmasterrace (arguably the hardest group to convince): [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/3cxitg/discussion_psa_dont_buy_oculus_rift_if_you_dont/[/url]
[QUOTE=Clavus;48184173]For anyone that might want to read the actual reasoning behind this (which isn't Oculus-is-evil, but a we-need-a-stable-launch), Palmer Luckey is answering questions on /r/pcmasterrace (arguably the hardest group to convince): [URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/3cxitg/discussion_psa_dont_buy_oculus_rift_if_you_dont/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Reading some of his responses, he is kind of struggling to say it is a good idea, and dismissed how simple it would be to make it work on all VR. Basically pushing the blame onto the devs. "We will fund you to make it for Oculus, but spend your own money making it work for the Vive etc", also meaning this games will most likely be released with the Oculus, hurting the Vive sales. Sigh.
I can see Valve responding to this in some way. Oculus is lining itself up for having releases of games possibly months before others, in a way, dominating the VR market.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;48185212]Reading some of his responses, he is kind of struggling to say it is a good idea, and dismissed how simple it would be to make it work on all VR. Basically pushing the blame onto the devs. "We will fund you to make it for Oculus, but spend your own money making it work for the Vive etc", also meaning this games will most likely be released with the Oculus, hurting the Vive sales. Sigh.
I can see Valve responding to this in some way. Oculus is lining itself up for having releases of games possibly months before others, in a way, dominating the VR market.[/QUOTE]
It's not pushing blame. It makes sense. And it's NOT simple, this is just yet another issue where a lot of gamers don't understand work in the reality of development. Right now it's innovation before standards. Plenty of time to develop those standards in the future, when there's a VR market to speak of. It's just more important to make the best of the best without being held back by other players on the market that don't have consumer products of their own out there either.
I don't see the problem. According to responses I've seen from Luckey, these were games in development for Oculus' devices long before there was such a thing as a Vive. He even says that these games may come to rival headsets in the future but he doesn't want to make promises. It's less to do with corporate greed than pragmatic distribution of resources. They're gonna focus on making sure the product works fine on their product before they spend any money making sure they work on competitor products.
These are games built from the ground up with the Rift in mind. It may not be so simple, with all the different potential specs, to just take the game wholesale and plonk down on the Vive. To get the same level of quality they possibly would need to sit down and redo major systems and tweak it again. Imagine if you're a tailor, and a 6 foot 150 pound guy comes in. You take his measurements and adjust the suit to fit him perfectly. But the same guy comes in a week later ten pounds heavier. The suit that fit the 150 pound guy won't fit the 160 pound guy, so now you need to start over.
These are games tailor made for the Rift, and Oculus may not have the time to sit down and retailor it to the same level of quality on a competitor product, especially in VRs formative years. It may be that the games just work fine with minimal tweaking, or no tweaking at all. But Oculus' straight up doesn't know so they won't make promises that they don't know they can keep. So for the time being they're going to focus on making the product stellar on their platform. This is smart business. I've seen no evidence to support that there's a contractual clause that says these games can never go on other headsets.
Sensational journalism at its finest.
I think it's pretty obvious that these are going to be very small, gimicky games that are just made to showcase the Rift's capabilities. a company trying to pave its way with a considerably risky product doesn't just up and fund [B]Twenty-four[/B] fully fledged games.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
