
“Oculus removed the headset check from the DRM in Oculus Runtime 1.5” - T-A
https://github.com/LibreVR/Revive/releases/tag/0.6.2
======
throwaway7767
I had to google this to have any idea what it was about. The linked release
notes don't explain any of the background, the entirety of the content
relevant to the headline is this: "I've only just tested this and I'm still in
disbelief, but it looks like Oculus removed the headset check from the DRM in
Oculus Runtime 1.5. As such I've reverted the DRM patch and removed all
binaries from previous releases that contained the patch."

Apparently Oculus was testing for a present oculus headset in its runtime, so
it was difficult for a third-party devs to build shims to connect other VR
hardware to it and enjoy VR games built for oculus.

Mods, I'd suggest changing the URL to something with a better explanation,
like [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-
course...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-course-dumps-
its-vr-headset-checking-drm/) which includes the above quote in addition to
explaining the backstory.

~~~
asddubs
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 change now, and you can write a compatibility
shim without breaking the DRM once more

~~~
misiti3780
forgive me for my ignorance here but what is a DRM function ?

~~~
amelius
An euphemism for a strategically designed defect.

------
e1ven
There's a more in-depth article about this (rather than just the changelog) at
[http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-
course...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-course-dumps-
its-vr-headset-checking-drm/)

The Article quotes Oculus - "We will not use hardware checks as part of DRM on
PC in the future."

------
Wile_E_Quixote
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 essentially a standalone
device that connects to PCs, simply so that many people won't need to buy that
too, saving them $1k-2k.

Creating exclusive games and buying exclusive content licensing/distribution
rights for any gaming platform, especially ones in stiff competition for early
adopters and the lion's share of a new market, is a great business decision.
If Oculus hadn't secured exclusive content, people would have simply bought
whichever hardware worked better, or shipped first. In this case, most people
would have likely bought the Vive. Oculus knew that superior content is the
tie-breaker and can even overshadow slight technological shortcomings, if they
exist.

Oculus should never have reversed their plans to keep the content exclusive.
Now, many people will just buy Vives and use them to play Oculus-subsidized
content. Oculus could have created a great monopoly. Now I suspect they will
have serious difficulty building a sustainable business. Peter Thiel is on
Facebook's board and Marc Andreessen is on both Facebook's and Oculus's board.
I can't imagine either one would support reversing the decision to make
exclusive content.

~~~
mdc2161
A few counter points:

\- hardware exclusives may be a better business model, but consumers (at least
a vocal subset) clearly don't like them

\- Microsoft seems to be moving towards having all Xbox games run on pc so
console exclusives may be on their last legs

\- the vr market is relatively tiny, so splitting it up with exclusives will
make it harder for devs to justify making content

\- game margins are much higher than vr hardware, and do it may be better to
have store exclusives rather than hardware (something steam is doing without
the backlash)

~~~
Wile_E_Quixote
-Early adopters take considerable risk when buying new hardware. If the market ends up crowning a different system king, your options are: Accept that objectively/subjectively superior technology isn’t the only thing driving sales and adoption. Or be a sore loser (which I’m not admonishing; VR tech is expensive) and complain loudly on message boards.

-I doubt that what Microsoft chooses to do with Xbox games in the future is due to regret or guilt about past decisions regarding exclusive content. Halo served them quite well at the height of the console wars.

-If I’m a dev making VR content and I am doing it to make a living, not just to make something cool to show my friends or as a fun project, my dream is that a VR hardware manufacturer pays a premium for exclusive rights. The hardware manufacturers can currently afford to pay more for exclusive content than they can hope to actually earn from the content, simply to drive hardware sales and platform adoption. I suspect it will be rough for developers, especially small teams, that are unable to negotiate exclusive deals. They will need to optimize and maintain their content for multiple platforms. And what can they hope to earn? <50,000 units in the wild, ~$25 per title Without an exclusive deal, it looks a lot like the movie industry. You either make a hit and do well, do really bad an move on, or worse, you do kind of okay, and then feel obligated to maintain the games and support the few that bought your game for the next few years.

-Exclusive content makes sense for many businesses. Doing it flawlessly, without causing potentially debilitating PR backlash is clearly easier said than done.

------
gthtjtkt
They deserved the backlash for implementing it, and I hope the Rift continues
to suffer now that people know Facebook's true intentions. Not to mention how
poorly they treated early supporters after the buyout, e.g. stocking Rifts on
retail shelves before they'd fulfilled orders for all backers, then telling
backers who complained to get a refund and go buy one from a store...

They're only doing the "right" thing because they have no choice. They
couldn't pump enough money into third party development to make up for the ill
will they'd garnered with this exclusivity DRM, especially not with companies
like Valve doing the complete opposite -- giving money to third party devs
with no exclusivity deals whatsoever.

Turns out some developers can't be bought[1]. Who'da thunk it?

1\.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_and_fuck_oculus/d480x6v)
(For the sake of fairness, it was a time-limited exclusivity offer that was
made to the Serious Sam devs, but an exclusivity offer nonetheless.)

~~~
Klathmon
I never got the quest for punishment for actions like this.

They did something bad, the community reacted negatively. If they fix the
problem, rewarding them is going to make sure it sticks around.

Continuing to "punish" them for something they fixed only sends the message
that the fix was pointless and that it would have been better to ignore the
problem like so many other companies (including Facebook themselves) do.

~~~
burke
> Continuing to "punish" them for something they fixed only sends the message
> that the fix was pointless

It also sends a message to other companies that things like this aren't
forgiven easily, whether or not that's the immediate intent.

~~~
dawnerd
As a consumer it's a trust issue. How can I trust that they wont try to sneak
this in some time in the future?

~~~
SteveNuts
> How can I trust that they wont try to sneak this in some time in the future?

They will. They'll just have to do it more slowly than they thought.

------
mtgx
Because there was backlash. But I doubt Facebook changed its original
intentions of locking down the platform. What happens if Oculus Rift takes 80%
of the market? Will it still allow the Vive or other headsets to play nice
with Oculus-exclusive games?

This is Facebook we're talking about here. Why even take the chance?

~~~
jonny_eh
Jeez, you can't even give them some credit for doing the right thing?

~~~
JoshTriplett
Doing the right thing in response to backlash suggests that you would rather
do the wrong thing, but couldn't get away with it. There are several other VR
vendors; this provides at least some motivation to favor another vendor.

~~~
marknutter
So by your logic, nobody can ever legitimately apologize for something or
change their behavior without being disingenuous. Everybody loses, no matter
what they do.

~~~
JoshTriplett
No, not at all. But as another response noted, trust is a lot easier to lose
than to regain.

A clear statement about the matter can help a bit. Active steps to make the
ecosystem less proprietary would help as well.

That would help turn the message from "sorry we got in trouble" to "sorry we
made a mistake, here's what we learned and what we're doing to fix it".

------
sajan80
This is actually big news.

My trust in the Oculus store however remains broken

~~~
marknutter
Why? They fixed the problem. Do you cut people out of your life the first time
they make mistakes?

~~~
tdb7893
As with all things it would depend on what they did. If the mistake was
stabbing a homeless person I certainly would. At the very least losing trust
based off of mistakes seems pretty reasonable to me.

~~~
orbitingpluto
And why is the person making amends? Shouldn't that be taken into
consideration? If they're only saying sorry to take advantage of you again?

------
kartickv
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.

~~~
ericd
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 rights to do this.

Also, Palmer used to go on record saying that they wanted VR to be an open
platform. So there's a bit of betrayal mixed in.

~~~
kartickv
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.

~~~
csallen
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.

------
balls187
In order to support the original intent of LibreVR (allowing any headset to
run occulus content), the only way to bypass the hardware check was to remove
the DRM checking completely.

This had an unintended consequence of potentially allowing abuse.

With Occulus removing that hardware check, LibreVR was able to revert it's
"YANK ALL THE DRM" solution.

------
Vexs
The checks made no sense in the first place, it's a loose-loose on all ends
for occulus. A closed ecosystem basically does not work when it comes to PC
gaming, and with hardware this expensive it's not like you could buy the
valve-sponsored vive and the rift.

------
mashlol
Does this mean any vr headset will work with games from the Oculus store?

~~~
jsheard
You still need a third party wrapper like Revive to translate the games Oculus
API calls to the OpenVR API most other VR headsets use.

This change just means Oculus will no longer deliberately block such wrappers
from working.

~~~
ultramancool
Wow, this must have been a hell of an internal fight. Glad this was the
conclusion though, open platforms are the only way I can see these current
solutions being useful at all. Let's just hope we don't see similar
restrictions cropping up on the other side of the fence.

------
ryanlm
What does this mean?

------
azernik
Different context, but Dan Savage articulates this well. Relevant (and
censored, because he is who he is) paragraph from a long blog post [1] on
Sanders vs. Clinton:

'It's ####ing moronic—it's political malpractice—to attack a politician for
coming around on your issues. There are lots of other issues the queer
community is going to be pressing politicians on, from passing equal rights
bills and trans rights bills to defeating anti-trans bathroom legislation and
RFRAs. If pols who are currently on the wrong side of any of those issues see
no benefit to changing their positions—if they see no political
benefit—they're going to be harder to persuade. Why should they come around on
our issues, why should they switch sides or change their votes, if we're going
to go after them hammer and tongs for the positions they used to hold?
("Please change your mind and support us." "No." "Pretty please?" "OK, I've
changed my mind and I'll vote to support you." "#### YOU FOR NOT ALWAYS
AGREEING WITH ME! I'M NOT VOTING FOR YOU! #### YOU SOME MORE!")'

[1]
[http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2016/02/22/23606058/hi...](http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2016/02/22/23606058/hillary-
clinton-used-to-be-terrible-on-marriage-equality)

~~~
spb
Well, this is missing the point, in both cases. Opponents of neither Hillary
Clinton nor Oculus are opposing them for the sole reason "they used to have
this opinion".

In Oculus's case, this DRM was only the _most_ obscene manifestation of their
exclusivity strategy - the one that would set them up to be, going forward,
between a legal rock and a PR hard place if they kept it in (they'd have to
either leave ReVive's DRM-breaking alone, making their case in court harder if
suing someone breaking DRM with the _intent to steal_ games, or they'd have to
send ReVive a DMCA takedown, and face a fatal PR backlash).

While Oculus has extricated themselves from that strategically untenable
position, they're still pursuing a market-dividing strategy of exclusives
through every other, subtler and less-ambiguously-legal, avenues, like timed
exclusivity deals. THIS is why people are continuing to rail against Oculus.

If Oculus _genuinely changed_ their position on exclusives (ie, they removed
that restriction for every game they'd "supported" with such a deal), the VR
enthusiast community would, reluctantly, welcome them back into the fold.
However, that is _nowhere near_ what Oculus are actually doing here - they're
just adjusting their course so that they'll face _less resistance_ to do the
stuff everybody hates them for.

So as to keep this comment "apolitical" (as if corporate actions are less
consequential than outright political ones), I've posted my response to Savage
in a separate thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11973600](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11973600)

~~~
paavokoya
Exactly. Flip-flopping is not bad. Having malicious intent is bad regardless
of the method or "opinion". Both cases here are bad. Abandoning early backers
for profit is malicious. No one forced Hillary to rally against gay-marriage
in 2004, she did that for political influence. That is malicious. The fact
that she has switched sides now that it's favorable (for even more political
influence) proves it.

------
rosstex
Victory!

