[jn1234]

The by far most interesting comment from the thread is this one (It's by Alan Yates who works on Vive/SteamVR) https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4osav8/lighthouse_tra....

>Of course. We want AR/VR/MR to be ubiquitous. Over the past four years or so I've seen many companies big and small bring their demos to show and tell. They all have bits and pieces of the larger puzzle. Good eye tracking, interesting haptic techniques, next generation display technologies. But most of them are narrowly focused on their thing, and struggle alone to make a successful product. Partially this was just because the market didn't exist but also many of them were/are just trying to boil the ocean. The minimum viable product is now a pretty high bar and that can stifle innovation. We can offer a running start, the traditionally "hard" parts of HMD technology, the things other than GPUs that kept VR niche for so long. In return we ask that your device leveraging our technology works with our platform. And mostly that is it. We won't ask that it only works on our platform, we won't stop you from targeting other industries. This gives both you and your users freedom of choice and security that isn't dependant on either party's future decisions. It is a pretty good deal really. Our platform has a rapidly growing collection of great content for your end-users so your product won't be an orphan and you don't need to convince anyone to author for it. Day one people can fire up Tilt Brush and have their minds blown by your awesome new hardware.

If Valve games are "locked" to SteamVR and won't play on Oculus, then nobody is going to buy an Oculus. Does Facebook really think that people are going to choose Lucky's Tale over Portal 3 or Half-Life 3? Facebook is going to have to capitulate and focus on their hardware advantage.

[nilkn]

It's the opposite. I think you might have misunderstood the quote. SteamVR fully supports the Rift. It even supports the unreleased Touch controllers which likely won't be out until the end of the year. And Valve has made no indication that they're going to change this. In fact, they've suggested that they're very serious about always supporting all HMDs.

[elementalest]

Yeah, there was no mention of locking out other HMD:

> In return we ask that your device leveraging our technology works with our platform. And mostly that is it. We won't ask that it only works on our platform, we won't stop you from targeting other industries. This gives both you and your users freedom of choice and security that isn't dependant on either party's future decisions.

As long as the HMD supports the steamVR platform requirements, it can play steam/valve games.

[hobs]

Because VR is just another way to sell games. They want you to know you can play your steam games on everything and that is their primary priority, and since things like games from steam can run on your Oculus (or whatever) they can sell you on a thousand experiences instead of one original sale.

[jn1234]

Until Facebook decides that it wants a cut of all the sales on Oculus and locks down the platform, hence Valve's concern. There's only one App store on iOS vs Android.

Valve's main bargaining chip would be not allowing their games to run on Oculus. The recent push back on Oculus exclusives and Valve willing to float cash to developers means they are well aware of their situation.

[elementalest]

If Valve lock out the rift from their games, it just reinforces the exclusivity, lockouts and polarisation. Means less sales through steam, less profit for valve. If they lock out the rift, will they lock out all the other HMD that will surface in the next couple years? That will likely stunt the VR industry given how central the steam platform is to games distribution. Thats not what valve want. Valve want it to grow rapidly and sell as many games on their platform as they can. That means supporting as many HMD's as possible. Which entices developers to use the steamVR platform as it will reach the largest audience, which entices HMD makers to support steamVR... etc.

So I really don't see how Valve is too concerned about this. If facebook locks down the rift so that it can only play rift games, more fool them. Many people just wont buy a rift.

Even if the Vive fails in the long run, there will likely be many other HMD's that will work with steamVR. Valve can still make a nice profit from all the VR games sold on steam.

[jn1234]

To go back to the mobile analogy, I don't think Google chose to not compete on iOS vs the App Store. It's a large possibility that Facebook would be willing to lock down Oculus for more profits and Facebook has shown it wants to play hardball. I don't think developers would be able to ignore the Oculus demographic and they would be forced list their games on the Rift store.

[Retric]

That would kill new Oculus sales. Sure if Facebook gained a monopoly they would do all kinds of shady things, but there is little evidence that's going to happen.

[Retric]

Embrace extend extinguish. Valve is not going to block the rift but they will make it's users second class citizens, until VR hardware goes the way of monitors and sound cards. Facebook adds little to this as they don't know gaming and don't have a history of keep multiple businesses going at the same time. So really it's the same company that originally developed the hardware with access to more capital and the risk of being shut down.

In the end VR is going to be on a tiny fraction of computers for a long time. There will be waves of improvements and a few hype cycles (3D TV anyone?)

PS: Sure this time it's different, and next time it will also be different, and the time after that...

[jameshart]

I think valve would argue that if the Rift delivers a second class experience of the SteamVR platform that that is nobody's fault but Oculus's.

[TrevorJ]

Valve doesn't seem interested in a monopoly, after all a lot of the Rift tech started AT Valve.

[conceit]

> There's only one App store on iOS vs Android.

maybe I misunderstand but Adroid is targeted by many app shops.

[alcari]

But Valve hasn't locked out the Oculus. Plug one into a computer with Steam and it'll pop up a prompt to setup SteamVR just the same as plugging in a Vive. It even includes a link to Oculus-specific instructions: you need to set it up with the Oculus app and change a setting there to enable the Oculus device for use outside the Oculus store.

(Source: anecdotal experience from plugging a Rift into a computer that didn't have a real GPU; no idea if there are any other issues.)

[jn1234]

True right now they are compatible, however it seems like that Facebook and Valve are on a collision course over what they think the ecosystem should be (and who is going to be the "winner").

[dimino]

Sounds to me more like the Apple Vs. Google "ecosystems".

Sure, Google has a Play store and a competing OS, but it's not like you can't find Chrome in the iOS store.

[dreeko_]

its interesting that you picked chrome as an example, with it being a wrapper around Apple's webkit on the iOS platform

[ewzimm]

Chrome has had more than one JavaScript engine. They're all still Chrome to the user, and that's all that really matters. If they decide to rewrite the UI in Lisp and use Servo, it will still be Chrome in the ways that count, just like nobody cares if a game has DirectX and OpenGL versions.

Different HMDs are arguably more similar than different GPUs, and they manage to support the same software, but in the early days there were plenty of Glide-only games. That didn't work out so well. Most people will probably just use tools that optimize for any popular HMD with little enough effort that only contracts will make exclusives make sense.

[rictic]

There's a lot of features that Chrome on Android supports but that can't be added to Chrome on iOS because of Apple's policies. Important features, like fully offline-capable webapps.

[wccrawford]

Yes, because it shows Google's dedication to not leaving people out. Apple doesn't allow Google to use the real chrome rendering engine, and instead requires that every webview be webkit-based. Google would absolutely use their own if they were allowed.

[beloch]

Exclusivity is a two-edged sword. What will happen to Steam if Valve locks others out of their market, but then one of those others produces the magic ingredient that makes VR really work well for the vast majority of people? For example, what if magic leap's multiple virtual focus planes turns out to be simply that good.

This paragraph indicates that Valve seems to appreciate that no one company has really put together the whole package yet. If they know that, then perhaps they will be smart enough to open Steam's VR to the open market, even if that means supporting competitors like Oculus.

At this stage, VR could still implode again like it did in the nineties. The smart move is to do what it takes to ensure there is a VR market a few years from now, not hamstring yourself worrying about who gets the biggest slice.

[lewisl9029]

> At this stage, VR could still implode again like it did in the nineties. The smart move is to do what it takes to ensure there is a VR market a few years from now, not hamstring yourself worrying about who gets the biggest slice.

Definitely. And this is exactly why Oculus's emphasis on exclusivity has been so disappointing and short-sighted. Fragmenting the already small market consisting of people who believe in VR and are willing to invest in a VR platform at this early stage seems like it might have devastating long-term effects.

[JonathonW]

The VR market right now feels kind of like the 3D accelerator market in the '90s, before Direct3D really came into its own, hardware manufacturers were still half-assing OpenGL support, and lots of games were programmed against vendor-proprietary APIs like Glide.

Would be nice if people had actually learned from that and rallied around a standard API/middleware for VR to start with, rather than trying to "console-ize" VR with hardware-specific exclusives. Maybe Valve/SteamVR will end up being that middleware?

[jmgrosen]

That middleware exists: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/openvr

It supports both the Vive and the Rift, though I believe the Rift implementation is just a wrapper around Oculus' own SDK.

[optforfon]

Since people are still figuring out what makes good VR and good paradigms for programming with VR, I think it'd be likely that any design by committee API would be a disaster

[macspoofing]

It wouldn't be the final word on VR API for all eternity. It's a starting point for the spec, which will change as the industry grows.

[ericflo]

It doesn't matter much in practice - most people just use Unity or Unreal, which make it easy to target any major VR system. To the credit of these game engines, it's just not that hard to be compatible these days. That's why Oculus has started to use exclusivity contracts to gain an edge.

[tychuz]

>Portal 3 or Half-Life 3?

Aren't you overly optimistic. :)

[conceit]

That's probably why they have John Carmack on board. Half Life was a mod to his Quake 2. They had a friendly, cooperative relation so far, so I wouldn't worry.

[ben174]

Amazing to hear someone who works for Valve actually mention "Half-Life 3".

[bobbles]

That paragraph wasn't part of the quote, it ends the sentence before "If Valve..."

[refulgentis]

He didn't, that section is from the OP.

[publicfig]

I don't see where anyone working for Valve mentioned Half-Life 3.

[douche]

My god, I need to know what the hell the G-Man was really up to, and for Gordon to smash a few more head-crabs with his trusty crowbar.