
Valve funding VR projects, exclusivity-free, with pre-paid Steam revenue - Doolwind
https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4odsce/ive_sent_gabe_newell_an_email_asking_for_valves/
======
corysama
The actual source email is shorter than any of the articles in the citation
chain.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4odsce/ive_sent_gabe_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4odsce/ive_sent_gabe_newell_an_email_asking_for_valves/)

If you need context:

Oculus has been offering funds to VR devs in exchange for limited time
exclusivity to the Oculus Store. This wouldn't be such a stink if the news
didn't immediately follow Oculus Store DRM adding checks for the Oculus
headset hardware. So, a game bought through Steam can play on either a Vive or
a Rift depending on support put in by the dev. But, a game bought on the
Oculus Store is blocked from running on a Vive.

IMHO, the conversation about this topic is very muddied between the four
issues of funding, store exclusivity, DRM and hardware blocking. But, AFAICT,
the PC gaming openness advocates are clearly OK with Steam DRM and mostly fine
with funded, temporary store exclusivity. However, the hardware block is a
serious issue. (At least in it's intent. In practice, it was immediately
worked around.)

~~~
sjburt
I think Oculus's attitude is actually fairly sensible for the position they
are in..

First, the success of VR is an existential risk for Oculus. This is not true
for Valve; Valve just doesn't want to be left behind (at least at a business
level, I have no doubt their engineering organization wants to continue to be
the tech leader).

Second, they are very concerned about whether people have good VR experiences,
because the well has been poisoned by people's memories of 90s VR, Cardboard,
concerns about motion sickness, overhype, headsets looking dumb, etc.

Third, they're a fairly small organization, and they already have to support
engagements with GPU vendors, OS, as well, as getting their hardware built and
supported. Having to support other hardware on their platform (especially as
there is a race to the bottom between HTC, Razer, etc) is a huge additional
burden. They do have financial resources from Facebook, but you can't just
throw money at an engineering org, you have to scale carefully.

So to make VR is successful, they have to make sure that people have good
experiences, but they have a small team. Buying exclusives makes perfect sense
for them: it's a way to leverage Facebook's financial resources, and since the
titles are exclusive they can focus on making those titles work as well as
possible on a SW/HW stack that they own.

~~~
cm3
No, they don't have to make them Oculus exclusive to support VR devs and fund
the development of more titles.

VR headsets on the PC are just another device like your keyboard, mouse and
monitor. I haven't heard of an LG-monitor-exclusive game before, so why should
it exist for VR?

It's different on consoles.

Firs there was DRM and now the insistence on exclusivity. For some reason
Oculus seems to have forgotten their promise of an open ecosystem, and I hope
it's not some Facebook influence Palmer is unable to fight against, and if
that's case, I hope Carmack isn't getting pissed. Remember, John is the
driving force behind GPL'ing all the engines/games at id software. It's
reasonable to doubt any future GPL id software release since John left.

Between the Vive providing an arguably better experience (at a hefty price)
and Oculus alienating PC gamers left and right, I have no idea what's going on
in their management department. It looks like the wrong people got control.

~~~
TwoBit
TVs are all nearly the same. Currently VR headsets are not. If you disagree
then I suggest you head on over to the reddit Oculus or Vive forums.

~~~
seanwilson
> TVs are all nearly the same. Currently VR headsets are not. If you disagree
> then I suggest you head on over to the reddit Oculus or Vive forums.

Don't they have both have very similar specs and hardware (ignoring input for
now)? Also, the whole point of drivers/SDKs is to abstract hardware
differences away so software can work on a variety of hardware. It doesn't
strike me that they are so different the drivers/SDKs can't cope with the
differences. Given Revive lets Vive users play Oculus locked down games and
both the Oculus and Vive are supported on Steam it's clear their hardware
differences isn't a huge deal.

------
Kuiper
Gabe Newell's phrasing makes it sound like Valve is basically offering a cash
advance to some developers (similar to trade publishing, where authors get an
advance check which they must then "earn out" before they can receive future
royalty checks).

It's basically an interest-free loan which doesn't need to be paid back if the
project is a failure (i.e. fails to "earn out" its advance). Quite generous,
assuming Valve isn't taking any more than their usual cut of the Steam revenue
as part of the arrangements.

~~~
shinymark
This is how all traditional game financing deals work and isn't anything
unusual. How the recoupment on the advance on royalties is calculated is where
you can usually see if the deal is generous or not. Sometimes the entity
funding (in the old days it would always be a publisher like EA) would try to
set recoupment terms that made it difficult to ever earn a royalty for the
developer taking the advance.

------
curiousgal
So basically, Facebook is buying out devs? Surprising practices...

I remember when I had to decide on a Samsung monitor over an Asus monitor
because Samsung had the exclusives I wanted.

Wait...that didn't happen because that would be insane.

~~~
ajmurmann
I also find the concept of exclusivity for a VR headset very problematic.
People in conversations have been comparing it to console exclusivity.
However, I don't need to connect my console to a $1k PC and now am not only
committed to one platform, but to a combination of two.

I was really excited about VR when Oculus was still a kickstarter project. The
Facebook acquisition killed some of that excitement. However, what really
killed it for me was learning that it wasn't just another PC peripheral, but
that these things have their own stores, etc. Until I can connect a VR headset
and play a game I bought anywhere with it, I will stay away from this. I
understand that some things don't work due to technical limitations like
Vive's room tracking, but that's not the issue here.

~~~
batmansmk
WebVR works, only needs a compatible web browser. Chrome and Firefox.

~~~
cma
Oculus makes you click an "allow outside sources" scare-switch to use it. The
switch has no security purpose like on Android, because if you run an
executable and already get through Microsoft's code signing prompt, you are
already owned regardless of which way you toggled the scare-switch.

It's just to lower adoption of anything outside of the limited Oculus store
environment.

~~~
MikusR
Improper VR causes real nausea and real (often long) headache. They are
curating experience.

~~~
throwaway2048
does anyone actually buy this?

~~~
Natanael_L
If and only if they manage to build a track record of doing exactly that.

------
agar
For those new to VR drama, be aware that VR has become infested with the kind
of dogma, fandom, agenda setting, and selection bias that once was limited to
game consoles. At this point, Oculus could give their headsets away for free
and certain people would complain that Facebook is using unfair business
practices to create a monopoly.

Most of the (fairly reasonable) statements Oculus has made about its practices
are ignored, dismissed, or called outright lies. Actual developers have tried
to explain that Oculus's behavior isn't evil, designed to split the VR
community, etc., but they are called liars, accused of doing damage control,
or are somehow paid off by Oculus.

The reality is that Oculus has 100% funded the development of certain games,
and contributed engineering talent and best practices based on their VR
research. These include Chronos, Edge of Nowhere, The Climb, and others -
titles at major developers that would not have otherwise existed. In return,
those games must be sold through the Oculus store. However, the studio (i.e.,
Insomniac, Crytek, etc.) maintains ownership of the IP. Any future game built
by those studios (including sequels) can be sold anywhere, using the VR
expertise they otherwise wouldn't have.

Oculus also offers development grants to independent developers. An indie that
is starved for cash and may otherwise need to release a game early to recoup
their investment now has the option to spend extra time on the game. In
return, the game must be released first on the Oculus Store; afterwards, it
can be released on Steam or anywhere else.

Many call this "buying exclusivity" \- but thus far, every developer that has
taken advantage of this has admitted that they were farther away from release
than appeared to the public, were running low on cash, and/or needed the
assistance that Oculus could provide.

Also, most people don't seem to realize that Valve's offer of pre-paid
royalties is just another kind of store exclusivity. Developer won't host
their app outside of Steam until the advance is paid off, as those non-Steam
royalties don't count towards the pre-pay.

Accepting the pre-pay also forces them to use the OpenVR SDK, which means they
cannot host the game on the Oculus store.

Valve isn't altruistic. They merely have a more sophisticated strategy and a
technology (the OpenVR SDK that can wrap the Oculus SDK) that allows them to
position themselves as taking the high road while they focus on boxing out a
competing software platform.

~~~
sgarman
So what is this all about:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_and_fuck_oculus/d480x6v?context=3)

Seems like trying to buy exclusivity to me - unless Serious Sam has some
reason to distort the offer.

~~~
agar
But then look at the clarification that he himself linked to[1], from someone
far more in the know of the deal itself (Alen Ladavac, the CTO):

\--

 __I want to clarify some of the inaccuracies about our relationship with
Oculus. Oculus did approach us with an offer to help fund the completion of
Serious Sam VR: The Last Hope in exchange for launching first on the Oculus
Store and keeping it time-limited exclusive. Their offer was to help us
accelerate development of our game, with the expectation that it would
eventually support all PC VR platforms. We looked at the offer and decided it
wasn’t right for our team. At no time did Oculus ask for, or did we discuss
total exclusivity or buyout of support from Vive. We look forward to
supporting Rift and Vive. __

\--

Whether you choose to call that "buying exclusivity" or a genuine "offer to
help fund the completion of Serious Sam VR" to an independent developer
depends entirely on one's bias and preconception.

An established indie like Croteam doesn't need the help and declines. A group
in a more precarious financial position may see a lifeline; a smaller team may
see an opportunity to grow a game in ways they couldn't previously afford.

The dogma that all exclusivity is bad, even if it's for a limited time, may
actually harm developers or lead to weaker releases that sell more poorly
(which in turn hurts the developers).

Look at what the Studio Lead for Giant Cop had to say about it[2]:

 __" We were always planning to release on one platform first,” Hale said. “We
have chosen to make that platform Oculus because we’re a small team and making
a video game is a huge risk. You’re basically fronting money for a product
that isn’t going to pay you anything back for years. For us, it really came
down to the fact that we needed a partner. Having Oculus support us and make
us a part of our marketing process significantly increases our chances of
making Giant Cop a success for the community, and for the people dedicating
their time to build it.” __

Read the entire article. This does not sound like buying exclusivity. It
sounds like trying to help small developers minimize the massive risk
associated with being a VR pioneer.

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_and_fuck_oculus/d490tdc)

[2] [https://uploadvr.com/giant-cop-speaks-oculus-
exclusivity/](https://uploadvr.com/giant-cop-speaks-oculus-exclusivity/)

------
JustUhThought
How can one change the game anymore without selling out to the VCs or Google
or Facebook? It's sad really. To be expected, in a maturing industry, but very
sad.

~~~
sangnoir
Become Valve-like. Still not sold-out, still privately held, and "crushing
it". Not coincidentally, they probably[1] didn't have VC-appointed board
members making "exit" decisions for them.

1\. I have no idea if Valve took any VC funding. I think Gabe Newell was
pretty well-off already from his Microsoft gig.

~~~
usrusr
I'd go so far as to consider Gabe Newell a "founder-VC" all by himself. Their
interests might therefore be a bit better aligned than in many other cases. A
closed-source implementation of BDFL, maybe?

------
pandaman
It's funny people in the comments mention that they did not buy games
exclusive to the monitor manufacturer. It's true but it also reminded me of
the 3D movies wars of 2010. Major CE manufacturers all got exclusive rights to
the parts of a small 3D movie library and made these titles available only
with the HW purchase. E.g. Panasonic had Avatar so to watch Avatar in 3D you
had to buy a Panasonic TV, Samsung had How To Train Your Dragon, Sony had a
bunch of Sony titles and I don't remember if LG had anything. We all know how
this turned out for the home 3D.

~~~
usrusr
Are you implying that 3D would be in a different position now if Sony owners
had the opportunity to sit through Avatar a bit earlier? 3D certainly did not
fail due to lack of hardware adoption. In that metric, 3D has won. It just
turned out to be one of the many, many features that are only important to
check boxes in a product comparison matrix.

~~~
pandaman
Not quite. I am saying that the already small library of 3D titles had been
further fragmented and this had a negative impact on 3D adoption.

------
kendallpark
Two thoughts on this:

1\. I'm still not sold on that VR is the future of gaming. I do agree that
exclusivity will hurt more than it can help. Similar to the way Telsa opened
their patents because the adoption of electric cars by the populace is better
for their business than protecting their IP.

2\. It makes sense that Valve is investing so much in this because it's just
another excuse to not make video games anymore. RIP HL3. ;)

EDIT: oh, the down votes. Heaven forbid there be any sarcasm on HN.

~~~
TillE
> that VR is the future of gaming

It's not _the_ future of gaming. I don't think anyone believes it is. There
are far too many types of games which are fundamentally inappropriate for a VR
headset.

However, it is _a part_ of the future of gaming. Probably a big part,
especially as more interesting control peripherals are developed. It's already
amazing for basically any type of game where a joystick / HOTAS setup is
appropriate.

~~~
kendallpark
I agree that there could be _a_ future for it. I just haven't seen anything
demonstrating it's market viability. So far it feels like VR has been all talk
and development and less so people rushing out to get headsets in mass droves.

~~~
pyrophane
VR right now has a lot of first generation problems. It's expensive as a
peripheral, and until PSVR comes out it is only available to people with
gaming PCs. The resolution is too low, the headsets are kinda awkward, and
most of the content available now barely rises above the level of tech demo.
That and we still don't have a better solution to movement than teleportation.

Still, I think for first person-gaming experiences, VR is the future, and that
for the next generation of gamers who will likely grow up experiencing first-
person gaming in VR first, the idea of anything else will seem pretty silly.

~~~
kendallpark
Maybe I'm just an "old" timer. I could never transition to the Wii or the DS.
My idea of gaming is me, with a controller in my hand, lying upside down on a
couch in an all-out sedentary position. PC gaming is less desirable because it
requires me to sit upright in a chair.

------
dang
Url changed from [http://www.vg247.com/2016/06/17/valve-offers-vr-
developers-f...](http://www.vg247.com/2016/06/17/valve-offers-vr-developers-
funding-to-avoid-platform-exclusive-deals/), which points to
[http://www.pcgamesn.com/valve-vr-funding](http://www.pcgamesn.com/valve-vr-
funding), which points to this. The latter article seems to have the clearest
title so we took that.

