Darkroland wrote:
This is true, although with Playstation VR launching this fall (and compatible with current systems) and MS not releasing scorpio till "holiday 2017", it's looking like a LONG road for MS to gain any ground there. As well, every single report so far about MS's "game store" has been tragic, it's a garbage cell phone app clone store at this point (other than their exclusives). They're going to be pushing that rock up the hill for a LONG time before they get the traction.
If the war is about the API, does oculus's api even support any other headsets (other than their own developed GearVR)? As the market expands and more HMD's come online, if their API doesn't support anything but their own HMD, I would think it would be a non-starter, period.
Yes and no.
The Oculus SDK only natively talks to the Oculus drivers. ReVive is the 3rd party created injection driver that translates Oculus SDK calls to OpenVR equivalents. I'm not savvy enough when it comes to hardware/software development to know who typically would write the extra code, here -- the analogy would be Microsoft or the hardware manufacturer with similar arrangements like DirectX and video card drivers -- but I think it'd be the hardware manufacturer as part of their drivers.
The problem currently at issue is that Oculus hasn't opened up their SDK API, so the only way to write those drivers (as in ReVive) is to reverse engineer it, probably exposing yourself to potential litigation in the process. Not an issue for some dude who has no assets, but not a fight Valve wants to pick in court themselves.
Actually, I take that back. I think I read that ReVive actually recodes some of the Oculus SDK binaries, so maybe it's not working the way I'm anticipating.
As for Microsoft's store, well.. Yeah, you're right. Because nobody's had any incentive to publish anything x86 on it until now. If I can sell you software and keep 100% of the purchase price, or sell you software through Microsoft and keep 85% (or whatever arbitrary number it happens to be)... I'm going to just sell you software on my own. The Windows store has had no value to add to my software till now. Now, on the other hand, if I let Microsoft take that cut, I can tell my customers that they can buy my software once and get more utility out of it by installing it on both of their platforms, or by using it to play with their friends that don't share the same platform. Or by building in tournament options and friends-list infrastructure (via Live) that I don't have to build and maintain myself. And so on. That might actually be worth giving Microsoft a cut. Especially if Microsoft tells me I basically have to if I want to publish on X-Box in the first place.
If Microsoft's smart, they'll offer to reduce their cut by a bit (say, I keep 90% instead of 85%) if I refrain from selling my software independently on the PC in addition to on the Microsoft store (so I can get my X-Box access). Now, that's an even better deal if I feel like a lot of my customers were going to take advantage of the added value from the Microsoft store in the first place. So there are ways for Microsoft to push this and make it appealing to developers. And if they do that smartly, we'll see a lot of things taking advantage of Play Anywhere, which will rapidly make the Microsoft store suck a lot less.
Then, once it's more than a content-sparse repository of mobile-games-on-PC, we can talk about the perils of Microsoft building a walled garden on a formerly wide-open platform. Which I'm ambivalent about, because on the one hand, closing up the platform is bad. On the other hand, I don't forsee Windows surviving a full-on assault on open distribution via removing the capability to install outside of the Microsoft store somehow (likely in a future update of Windows), and furthermore on that hand, it's not like Valve hasn't constructed their own little walled garden in the open platform, either -- along with EA, Ubisoft, Gog, and so on.