Support NeoGAF

[Zaptruder]

Looks like Oculus has decided to absorb the cost of shipping for all preorders that have gone through up to today due to the shipping debacle.

Which is a very reasonable apology for the situation.

Aussies get a nice $130 (or so) USD discount, which works out to be $170-$200 USD depending on conversion rate at time of charge.

As a kickstarter backer (who didn't pay a cent for his incoming CV1), I'm pretty happy with this move.

 

[Zaptruder]

Ok, let me preface this by saying that it's not good argumentative style, and that me posting it is not to be taken as a "gotcha" even though that might well have been the intention.

But I just saw this montage and it very succinctly encapsulates the disconnect I sometimes feel between kickstarter-era Oculus and present-day Oculus.

Palmer was and still is right, and of course he knows it.

But he's also responsible for screwing the pooch by not compromising on the controller design.

The touch probably will be the better set of motion controls once it lands... but getting them to that point cost Oculus big in terms of this impression and launch misstep.

It wouldn't have been so bad, except that they had competition that dropped their motion control equipped headset around the same time as their game controller based launched... and the contrast between the two is just too night and day.

Now this shipping debacle happens... and poor Oculus effectively launches after their competition with an inferior control scheme and resultingly lacklustre launch lineup.

 

[Man]

Here's a nice summary post on reddit/games detailing this weeks Oculus affairs so far:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4cxx9j/people_are_not_happy_with_how_oculus_has_handled/

 

[mrchampipi]

Here's a nice summary post on reddit/games detailing this weeks Oculus affairs so far:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4cxx9j/people_are_not_happy_with_how_oculus_has_handled/

I"d add that one to the list: poor communication with small devs (was obvious since DK2)

 

[Compsiox]

Getting there: Dragon Front

Ah not the card aspect of pokemon. I meant capturing and raising wild creatures and battling against others. That games looks pretty cool tho.

 

[KratosEnergyDrink]

As for now, I will say with all conviction that VR is not fad. This is the beginning of a new age. And not only is VR not going anywhere, it is going to be quite interesting to watch it consume all forms of media over the next few decades.

Once it clicks, there is no going back my friends.

VR will stay, for a niche market. Most normal games will not work in VR because 90% people would get nausea playing CoD (or any shooter) or Madden/FIFA in VR. There are special guidelines that VR games must follow to avoid nausea.

Besides of that, VR games are most immersive played with a headset alone. If you must turn your head and move your body to "play" the game. Once you add a gamepad and sit on the couch it is just looking a bit left or right and the headset gets uncomfortable fast. In my experience most people who tried VR are excited at first but get bored fast. There was seldom a "I want this at home too" reaction like it was with the Wii in 2006. And most people has enough of VR after 20 minutes, and half of them felt a bit nausea, even I choose the VR games carefully.

 

[Krejlooc]

VR will stay, for a niche market. Most normal games will not work in VR because 90% people would get nausea playing CoD (or any shooter) or Madden/FIFA in VR. There are special guidelines that VR games must follow to avoid nausea.

Besides of that, VR games are most immersive played with a headset alone. If you must turn your head and move your body to "play" the game. Once you add a gamepad and sit on the couch it is just looking a bit left or right and the headset gets uncomfortable fast. In my experience most people who tried VR are excited at first but get bored fast. There was seldom a "I want this at home too" reaction like it was with the Wii in 2006. And most people has enough of VR after 20 minutes, and half of them felt a bit nausea, even I choose the VR games carefully.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1201636

 

[KingSnake]

Reading through the news, is the new launch for Rift on 12th of April?

 

[Krejlooc]

Reading through the news, is the new launch for Rift on 12th of April?

new shipping updates on the 12th.

 

[Wallach]

Reading through the news, is the new launch for Rift on 12th of April?

Sounds like they just sorted out whatever the issue was and things should be going up to speed a bit sooner than that. I was already an April estimate order and I got the same e-mail saying my order would be updated by the 12th.

 

[artsi]

The reason I switched from Rift to Vive is not because I think Valve is a "better" company, they want money as much as Facebook and haven't been the most pro-consumer during time.
To me they're both in the same class of being too big to not really care.

But they (with HTC) managed to put out a better product, that can be used by people with eyeglasses without discomfort, and not completely fuck up with the delivery of it (except with payment issues).

All love to Palmer personally, I can see him not having a say to many things anymore, and I hope that CV2 will be what he has always dreamed of.

 

[KingSnake]

new shipping updates on the 12th.

Ah, OK, so the launch is even beyond that. That's quite a lot of time to clarify the issues. It really seems that they rushed for getting a March "release date", but not really prepared for it.

 

[Raticus79]

Ah not the card aspect of pokemon. I meant capturing and raising wild creatures and battling against others. That games looks pretty cool tho.

Hmm, come to think of it, Pokemon Snap style games would be great for VR. Slow paced on-rails sightseeing, a little wiggle room to look closer by leaning in the cart (or a bit more with room scale)... show a little preview on a handheld camera with tracked controllers... yup, that's a solid VR game.

 

[Cartman86]

Hmm, come to think of it, Pokemon Snap style games would be great for VR. Slow paced on-rails sightseeing, a little wiggle room to look closer by leaning in the cart (or a bit more with room scale)... show a little preview on a handheld camera with tracked controllers... yup, that's a solid VR game.

Maybe upgrade to a video camera which might make more sense with the wand style controllers or even better make it a selfie game where your goal is to take great selfies with every animal. Like a selfie quokka.

 

[Wollan]

PC Gamer has gone very in-depth reviewing the Oculus Rift and the totality of its experience: http://www.pcgamer.com/oculus-rift-review/

 

[Durante]

I believe that Valve more or less told HTC what exactly Oculus is doing and gave them ways to beat Oculus by presenting them some ideas that Oculus wasn't using.

First of all, that's entirely speculation.

What is not speculation and confirmed by statements from people at both companies is that many of the major improvements going from DK1 to DK2 are improvements based on research originally conducted at Valve (e.g. strobing display technology), and the same is true for some of the improvements going from DK2 to CV1 (e.g. separate adjustable displays).

And the primary advantage of Vive -- room scale Lighthouse tracking -- is a fantastic engineering achievement accomplished entirely at Valve.

Sure, a reason Valve joined the hardware game is likely down to wanting to keep some control of software distribution. But that's well within their right, and I don't think anyone can or should belittle their contribution to the current state of consumer VR. The quality of the Vive is a testament to that long-term research and dedication.

Edit: as someone just pointed out to me, another relevant detail in this discussion is that it was in fact the Valve VR demo room which convinced Zuckerberg to buy Oculus. Here's a related comment by one of the people who designed Lighthouse.

 

[Nzyme32]

Interesting details. Both companies definitely have done some unsavory things. To be honest? I'm not really sure who to support anymore...

The big rumour was that Oculus stopped communicating with Valve which was part of the move to do their own thing. What we do sort of know though is that Alan Yates from Valve mentioned on Reddit that he believes Facebook mandated Oculus to poach the members that were responsible for the VR room demo which Zukerberg saw prior to purchasing Oculus. According to Yates, they failed. Despite people like Abrash leaving, the majority of the VR team responsible remains at Valve (or so he says)

 

[Zaptruder]

The big rumour was that Oculus stopped communicating with Valve which was part of the move to do their own thing. What we do sort of know though is that Alan Yates from Valve mentioned on Reddit that he believes Facebook mandated Oculus to poach the members that were responsible for the VR room demo which Zukerberg saw prior to purchasing Oculus. According to Yates, they failed. Despite people like Abrash leaving, the majority of the VR team responsible remains at Valve (or so he says)

That's good to hear. Can't blame Abrash either. Chance to work with his old buddy Carmack again on pulling off the thing that they've dreamt about and worked towards for the better part of a couple decades.

The fruit of Abrash's labour will really only start appearing in subsequent generations. The fruit's of Carmack's labour have already been borne out and have accelerated the inevitable direction in which VR will be going (towards mobile VR/AR - at least in the long term 5 to 10+ years out).

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Galvanic vesibular stimulation. It's very much in the research phase, and no guarantee it'll ever work well enough for the VR use case.

Samsung had a working headset that people said good things about. I think we're much closer than I thought just a couple of months ago.

This sounds sooooo cool!

 

[Digby]

Well now I have money down on all 3 goddamnit.

I'm really torn between Oculus and Vive. I don't think it makes sense to have both outside of software exclusives. What is making people go one way or another? Room scale? Is there a chance in hell oculus will ever support other headsets on their store?

I have about a week according to that new email from oculus to sort this out.

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

I find it crazy to buy more than one headset.

 

[mrklaw]

had £100 in GAME credit, so I used it to buy Steam credit. Just bought Adr1ft, Virtual Desktop, the Ethan Carter VR DLC, Blazerush, and Apollo 11 for £50. Will save the rest for the games that don't release until next week - have my eye on Space Pirate Trainer and Cloudlands minigolf at least.

Then for free: Jaunt, Fantastic Contraption, Tilt Brush, Job Simulator, Valve's The Lab

Pretty good opening lineup

 

[AwesomeMeat]

Well now I have money down on all 3 goddamnit.

I'm really torn between Oculus and Vive. I don't think it makes sense to have both outside of software exclusives. What is making people go one way or another? Room scale? Is there a chance in hell oculus will ever support other headsets on their store?

I have about a week according to that new email from oculus to sort this out.

Yes there is a chance in hell they will support other headsets, it is in fact in their best interest since they are trying to sell software (especially store exclusive software). I just don't know if Valve/HTC are going to allow the Vive to work OFF of OpenVR.

That seems to be the issue atm.

 

[Durante]

Yes there is a chance in hell they will support other headsets, it is in fact in their best interest since they are trying to sell software (especially store exclusive software). I just don't know if Valve/HTC are going to allow the Vive to work OFF of OpenVR.

Why would that be required or desirable? Oculus could simply allow games on their store to use OpenVR just like Valve allows games on their store to use the Oculus API.

 

[Soi-Fong]

had £100 in GAME credit, so I used it to buy Steam credit. Just bought Adr1ft, Virtual Desktop, the Ethan Carter VR DLC, Blazerush, and Apollo 11 for £50. Will save the rest for the games that don't release until next week - have my eye on Space Pirate Trainer and Cloudlands minigolf at least.

Then for free: Jaunt, Fantastic Contraption, Tilt Brush, Job Simulator.

Pretty good opening lineup

It's strikes me that some of the Vive demos we have in the development repository isn't being released to the public. Some of them are freaking awesome even if experimental.

 

[AwesomeMeat]

Why would that be required or desirable? Oculus could simply allow games on their store to use OpenVR just like Valve allows games on their store to use the Oculus API.

I'm not saying it is desirable but for better or worse that does seem to be the hang up.

EDIT: I'm not pointing fingers either way. The best of both worlds would be that Oculus allows the Vive to run in Oculus Home, the same way Valve allows the Rift to run on Steam.

 

[mhayze]

What about the wireless dongle that goes along with those controllers?

Given the large number of completely proprietary components custom fabricated for this thing, vs. an off the shelf component (relatively speaking) that is sold in large numbers, I say it seems unlikely that the XBO controller or dongle are the component shortage. Custom aspect ratio OLED panels? Low cost high quality fresnel lenses? That I would get.

I still feel like there's more to come in this Microsoft / Oculus tie up, that we will be hearing about at E3.

 

[FlyinJ]

Interesting perspective from a developer who tried to publish on the Oculus store and Steam:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4d07zn/the_difference_in_class_from_an_indie_developer/

I'm getting flashbacks of the XBox Live Arcade days.

 

[plagiarize]

Why would that be required or desirable? Oculus could simply allow games on their store to use OpenVR just like Valve allows games on their store to use the Oculus API.

It seems like a silly hang up to me, on both ends.

Oculus for wanting Valve to use their API, and Valve refusing to do it. Both seem silly to me. I see no reason both shouldn't back down.

If Valve sold a graphics card would they insist it only worked with one API? Tying hardware to a single API is as dumb as refusing to support multiple APIs in your store.

IMO.

 

[Durante]

It seems like a silly hang up to me, on both ends.

Oculus for wanting Valve to use their API, and Valve refusing to do it. Both seem silly to me. I see no reason both shouldn't back down.

If Valve sold a graphics card would they insist it only worked with one API? Tying hardware to a single API is as dumb as refusing to support multiple APIs in your store.

IMO.

Valve isn't tying hardware to a single API, there's nothing about the Vive which disallows using it with any API.
Oculus is very explicitly tying their API to a single piece of hardware. It's part of the EULA.

Valve isn't tying their store to a single API.
Oculus is tying their store to a single API.

I'm sorry, but this is clearly not a situation in which both parties are equal in their approach.

 

[Felix Lighter]

The politics of VR sucks. Obviously all involved want to insure they benefit from the real money maker, software sales. Valve is at a huge advantage there but these stupid restrictions are just hurting their early adopters.

 

[FlyinJ]

It seems like a silly hang up to me, on both ends.

Oculus for wanting Valve to use their API, and Valve refusing to do it. Both seem silly to me. I see no reason both shouldn't back down.

If Valve sold a graphics card would they insist it only worked with one API? Tying hardware to a single API is as dumb as refusing to support multiple APIs in your store.

IMO.

Wait, am I confused or-

With OpenVR, you can use it on any hardware, but Oculus' API can only be used on the Rift, right?

And the reason for that is the Oculus API requires you to use the Oculus store, whereas there is no such restriction if you use OpenVR?

 

[plagiarize]

Valve isn't tying hardware to a single API, there's nothing about the Vive which disallows using it with any API.
Oculus is very explicitly tying their API to a single piece of hardware. It's part of the EULA.

Valve isn't tying their store to a single API.
Oculus is tying their store to a single API.

I'm sorry, but this is clearly not a situation in which both parties are equal in their approach.

So Oculus are lying when they say they need HTC/Valve to agree to letting them support the Vive in their API? Why wouldn't they just add support for the Vive then? Clearly the two sides need to agree on something that right now is a sticking point. If the Vive worked exactly the same as the Rift does when using Oculus home, what exactly as a consumer do you lose out on?

Wait, am I confused or-

With OpenVR, you can use it on any hardware, but Oculus' API can only be used on the Rift, right?

And the reason for that is the Oculus API requires you to use the Oculus store, whereas there is no such restriction if you use OpenVR?

I have steam installed. You have steam installed. Valve don't need to do anything anymore to get PC gamers to install steam. In the past, they did it with exclusive content. But now they don't need to worry about that because they've got an install base. So they won't let Oculus put their storefront in front of Vive owners. They want it all to be done through Steam. There is a clear benefit there to Valve, and they can look totally pro consumer at the same time.

Again, I think both are looking out for their own interests here, and not looking out for consumers. And I wish both would drop their hang ups.

 

[cheezcake]

So Oculus are lying when they say they need HTC/Valve to agree to letting them support the Vive in their API?

Not really, but that's also not the crux of the issue. Here's what their SDK ToS says:

In order to maximize your enjoyment, safety, and overall experience through our Services, the Runtime may only be used with Oculus approved hardware devices and with software developed using the Oculus Rift Software Development Kit, as specified in the Oculus Rift Software Development Kit license agreement.

Notice that Oculus is the enacting party. A more open approach would be to simply build the SDK and a hardware agnostic interface so various manufacturers could themselves implement support for the Oculus SDK on their headset at will. But here you're simply not allowed to do that without Oculus' say so.

Why wouldn't they just add support for the Vive then? Clearly the two sides need to agree on something that right now is a sticking point. If the Vive worked exactly the same as the Rift does when using Oculus home, what exactly as a consumer do you lose out on?

There could be many reasons, just none of which are pro-consumer.

I have steam installed. You have steam installed. Valve don't need to do anything anymore to get PC gamers to install steam. In the past, they did it with exclusive content. But now they don't need to worry about that because they've got an install base. So they won't let Oculus put their storefront in front of Vive owners. They want it all to be done through Steam. There is a clear benefit there to Valve, and they can look totally pro consumer at the same time.

Again, I think both are looking out for their own interests here, and not looking out for consumers. And I wish both would drop their hang ups.

I can get behind this line of reasoning. But Gabe N certainly seemed to say very concretely that this isn't what they're trying to do. At least his response is more concrete than anything I've heard from Oculus' side in regards to the issue.

vs Palmer Luckey

can we please get the straight dope on HTC Vive support in the Oculus Store?

We want to natively support all hardware through the Oculus SDK, including optimizations like asynchronous timewarp. That is the only way we can ensure an always-functional, high performance, high quality experience across our entire software stack, including Home, our own content, and all third party content. We can't do that for any headset without cooperation from the manufacturer. We already support the first two high-quality VR headsets to hit the market (Gear VR and Rift), that list will continue to expand as time goes on.

Exactly what is happening, who is at fault, what is Oculus doing to bring HTC Vive support to the Oculus Store and who is stopping this from happening?

I am not going to point fingers in the middle of our own launch. Hopefully things work out in the long run, I am trying my best. It is pretty obvious what would benefit Oculus and our unparalleled VR content investment - heck, the Oculus Store did not even launch with our own hardware, people have been using it with Gear VR for a long time now!

Myself and most people here would surely love to buy ALL their games on the Oculus Store only, but the current situation makes that unlikely.

You are right on both counts, unfortunately. Lots of losers, only one clear winner.

 

[FlyinJ]

So Oculus are lying when they say they need HTC/Valve to agree to letting them support the Vive in their API? Why wouldn't they just add support for the Vive then? Clearly the two sides need to agree on something that right now is a sticking point. If the Vive worked exactly the same as the Rift does when using Oculus home, what exactly as a consumer do you lose out on?



I have steam installed. You have steam installed. Valve don't need to do anything anymore to get PC gamers to install steam. In the past, they did it with exclusive content. But now they don't need to worry about that because they've got an install base. So they won't let Oculus put their storefront in front of Vive owners. They want it all to be done through Steam. There is a clear benefit there to Valve, and they can look totally pro consumer at the same time.

Again, I think both are looking out for their own interests here, and not looking out for consumers. And I wish both would drop their hang ups.

Oh, I wasn't aware that Valve was refusing to let their headsets use the Oculus API to prevent people from using the Oculus store.

I thought that Oculus wouldn't allow Vive hardware to run the API so that only Oculus hardware could use "Oculus exclusive" games.

 

[plagiarize]

Not really, but that's also not the crux of the issue. Here's what their SDK ToS says:

Notice that Oculus is the enacting party. A more open approach would be to simply build the SDK and a hardware agnostic interface so various manufacturers could themselves implement support for the Oculus SDK on their headset at will. But here you're simply not allowed to do that without Oculus' say so.

I understand this. But I also believe that Vive is one of the headsets that Oculus are open to working with because it meets their 'standards'. Somewhere in that negotiation is something both sides are refusing to concede on, so we're at a stalemate. I want it gone. I don't see any reason to believe that either side is fighting for the consumer on this issue.

There could be many reasons, just none of which are pro-consumer.

I believe both sides aren't looking out for the consumer here. Luckily for Valve, their corporate interests better line up with what the consumer wants. Consumers want to be able to play all their games through Steam. Valve aren't into that because it's what consumer's want. They're into that because it makes them money.

Oculus aren't preventing their headset working through OpenVR and they aren't preventing people from buying the majority of their games through Steam should they want. They totally could have done that. The fact there is a toggle you can enable to allow this, even if it defaults to off, shows that they could have outright prevented it.

And yet they didn't.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Video: First Space RTS game confirmed. Velocity Angels.

Action legit goes from 0--> 100, real quick.

 

[habithipster]

I'm really torn between Oculus and Vive. I don't think it makes sense to have both outside of software exclusives. What is making people go one way or another? Room scale?

Room scale, tracked controllers, larger FOV, brighter displays, forward facing camera, more interesting looking content (in my opinion), privacy.

 

[FlyinJ]

Video: First Space RTS game confirmed. Velocity Angels.

Action legit goes from 0--> 100, real quick.

Kind of strange that they are not using any headtracking at all in that video...

 

[Exuro]

So Oculus are lying when they say they need HTC/Valve to agree to letting them support the Vive in their API? Why wouldn't they just add support for the Vive then? Clearly the two sides need to agree on something that right now is a sticking point. If the Vive worked exactly the same as the Rift does when using Oculus home, what exactly as a consumer do you lose out on?.

Well it sounds like to me they was to specifically support Vive hardware, meaning bypassing steamvr/openvr so they don't have to use their software or support the multiples of headsets that will use steamvr/openvr. Valve is able to support Rift through the Oculus sdk, so even though you are using rift on steam you're still using oculus home from what I've heard and can bring it up via home button(meaning steam overlay is relegated to the back button). I think Oculus just doesn't want to deal with any external software from Valve that they can't control while Valve is okay with doing it. Makes me wonder if this is the reason PCars has segregated multiplayer on Oculus Home. It'll be interesting to see in the future if any Oculus Home titles have steamworks requirements and vice versa for steam and 'Oculusworks'(no idea what it's called).

 

[plagiarize]

Look, here's another way of looking at this.

Both Oculus and Valve can agree on Oculus software being sold on Steam.

They both can't agree on Vive software being sold on Oculus Home.

I don't see how that makes one a sinner and one a saint.

Valve clearly have a vested interest in preventing sales on the Oculus store. Oculus clearly have an interest in Vive owners buying their software from them. Neither of these positions are held because of what is good for the consumer.

I can *buy* loads of games that *require* Steam from anywhere. But I still have to install Valve's storefront if I want to play them. This doesn't remotely bother me, but it makes the distinctions between what Oculus are doing and what Valve are doing pretty miniscule from my perspective. Clearly Valve wants to get their store on as many machines as possible and they do this via making content themselves that only works on steam, and by making it desirable for other developers to make content that only works on steam.

Letting those developers sell their keys anywhere... still has a benefit to Valve. There's nothing insidious about that, but it's clearly a business model.

 

[Durante]

Oh, I wasn't aware that Valve was refusing to let their headsets use the Oculus API to prevent people from using the Oculus store.

As far as I can determine, this is completely based on speculation and unsupported by any verifiable information, that's probably why you weren't aware.

On the other hand,
(1) OpenVR supporting Oculus devices is a fact, and
(2) other HMDs being prevented from implementing Oculus SDK support by legal means specifically enacted by Oculus for that purpose is also an easily verified fact.

Given that, I just don't see why I should feel particularly compelled to take up a banner for Oculus' side in this argument, or consider both companies' approaches equal.

Oculus aren't preventing their headset working through OpenVR and they aren't preventing people from buying the majority of their games through Steam should they want. They totally could have done that.

If they wanted to commit suicide in the court of public opinion to an even larger extent than they already have, sure.

 

[Haint]

I was really hoping Oculus' hang up was a manufacturing or component defect that would explain the lens rays issue, its so bad.

 

[plagiarize]

As far as I can determine, this is completely based on speculation and unsupported by any verifiable information, that's probably why you weren't aware.

On the other hand,
(1) OpenVR supporting Oculus devices is a fact, and
(2) other HMDs being prevented from implementing Oculus SDK support by legal means specifically enacted by Oculus for that purpose is also an easily verified fact.

Given that, I just don't see why I should feel particularly compelled to take up a banner for Oculus' side in this argument, or consider both companies' approaches equal.

We know for a fact that Oculus and Valve have had discussions about supporting the Vive in Oculus Home. Yes, Oculus don't want to support every headset out there, but they seem open to the Vive under certain conditions that Valve are opposed to. I'm not saying their SDK is as open as OpenVR here, because I know it's not. We don't know what those conditions are, of course, but it's very clear to see that Valve have a corporate interest in supporting their store over another.

If they wanted to commit suicide in the court of public opinion to an even larger extent than they already have, sure.

I understand why they haven't done it. Trust me. I'm not saying Valve are in the wrong and Oculus aren't, I'm just saying both are doing it for corporate reasons and both should put that shit aside.

 

[Exuro]

Valve clearly have a vested interest in preventing sales on the Oculus store.

I don't really get this. If the game has steamworks, how is it different than how it is now for the multiples of storefronts that sell steamkeys?

 

[plagiarize]

I don't really get this. If the game has steamworks, how is it different than how it is now for the multiples of storefronts that sell steamkeys?

The key thing there is 'if the game has steamworks'.

Valve will let other people sell their software so long as it means that you install their storefront. It's hardly altruistic. I think Oculus should sell games that have steamworks. I think they should sell games that are OpenVR.

Heck, I'd love if I could let my steam VR games launch directly from Oculus home.

Valve want you to install their store, for obvious reasons. Oculus would rather you didn't, for obvious reasons. Neither are pro consumer.

Consumers want to be able to buy all the VR games. Valve could do something to let that happen (let the Vive work with Home in the way Oculus want). Oculus could do something to let that happen (release their games on Steam). Both aren't for corporate reasons.

Consumers could get what they want if either side backed down. No? I wish both would, and we would see all the games in both of the stores.

 

[FlyinJ]

I was really hoping Oculus' hang up was a manufacturing or component defect that would explain the lens rays issue, its so bad.

By "lens rays issue", you mean the ghosting of bright objects in a high-contrast environment?

If so, the Vive has lens rays issues as well. I thought I read that Oculus' HMD didn't have these issues due to them using a better/different type of lens?

 

[Durante]

I thought I read that Oculus' HMD didn't have these issues due to them using a better/different type of lens?

This is pretty much conclusively disproven at this point. They make different trade-offs, and neither is objectively superior in the types of artifacts it causes. If anything, some people who have analyzed them all have noted a slight preference for the Vive optics over the CV1 optics.

What is clear is that the Vive offers a larger FoV, both horizontally and especially vertically, and that is has the advantage of configurable eye relief distance (which was also available in Rift DK2 but not in CV1)

I'm not saying their SDK is as open as OpenVR here, because I know it's not.

Then I'm not seeing why you are seemingly trying to portray a situation in which both companies are equally "at fault". One champions an open API, one an API which is legally locked down.

I don't trust any for-profit company farther than I can throw them, that's why I judge them by their present and past verifiable actions. And those paint a clear picture.

 

[Exuro]

Consumers want to be able to buy all the VR games. Valve could do something to let that happen (let the Vive work with Home in the way Oculus want). Oculus could do something to let that happen (release their games on Steam). Both aren't for corporate reasons.

Well it's not as cut and dry as we'd want unfortunately. For all we know Oculus want full control of the hardware of the Vive, something they don't give to Valve currently. Seeing games like PCars remove steamworks multiplayer makes me think that's the case. I also personally don't have an issue with store exclusives.

I do hope some sort of compromise happens in the future so the only thing we need to worry about is store exclusive games rather than hardware/api exclusives. Best option would be an opensource api for everything(hmd, networking, ect) but that's not going to happen.

 

[Monger]

Look, here's another way of looking at this.

Both Oculus and Valve can agree on Oculus software being sold on Steam.

They both can't agree on Vive software being sold on Oculus Home.

I don't see how that makes one a sinner and one a saint.

Valve clearly have a vested interest in preventing sales on the Oculus store. Oculus clearly have an interest in Vive owners buying their software from them. Neither of these positions are held because of what is good for the consumer.

I can *buy* loads of games that *require* Steam from anywhere. But I still have to install Valve's storefront if I want to play them. This doesn't remotely bother me, but it makes the distinctions between what Oculus are doing and what Valve are doing pretty miniscule from my perspective. Clearly Valve wants to get their store on as many machines as possible and they do this via making content themselves that only works on steam, and by making it desirable for other developers to make content that only works on steam.

Letting those developers sell their keys anywhere... still has a benefit to Valve. There's nothing insidious about that, but it's clearly a business model.

Which oculus funded titles are available on steam?