GearVR submission team no longer giving app feedback

[Zaeran]

Hey guys,

Just an FYI to prospective developers out there, GearVR's submissions team is no longer providing feedback on submitted apps. I've been told this in no uncertain terms by the submission team, and have attached the actual conversation that took place for those that don't believe me.

If you don't have a perfect app on submission, you'll just be rejected with the message "This build isn't passing our QA review, so we wont be able to accept this submission."

If you want to know why, you'll be told "We don't provide feedback on apps."

And don't even bother referencing their own submission guidelines, where it states that "In the event that your app doesn’t pass our initial review, we encourage you to incorporate the feedback of our developer relations team and resubmit your app when you’re ready", because that's "an outdated document".

So anyway, don't bother submitting a GearVR app unless you have a 100% perfect submission.

[CodingJar]

cybereality said:

Basically, submitted apps can be rejected for numerous reasons. In many cases, the overall quality of a submission could be so low that there is not a clear path the fix the game or confidence that adjusting a few things would even raise the bar high enough to be accepted. I realize this is a poor situation for some developers, and it's debatable whether this is the right policy, but it's where we're at today.

In my case, I'm a seasoned developer (worked in AAA for over a decade).  When we began work on our game, we tried roughly 70% of the experiences available on the store so had an eye for what the quality range was like.  I feel we've hit the target fairly satisfactorily and while we're not Eve Gunjack, we are far from a bottom-of-the-barrel product.  Here is what is published about feedback, which is what a developer would read when choosing to develop for Oculus.  Does it seem reasonable that what is published and what is reality is so far off?

The products that have made it to the Oculus store (even recently) vary widely in terms of graphics, length, and technical achievements.  It's impossible to know what the store team is looking for based solely on your guidelines (which are often violated by some of the most successful games which use the controller to turn you!)  It's also impossible to look at the store and judge the quality bar, because it's so varied.  There are games that look amazing but overheat the phone in under ten minutes, and there's games that only last ten minutes.  It's impossible to see how an app would be accepted or rejected without feedback as to why.

If you indeed think too much work needs to be put into areas to offer proper feedback, then tell us the areas.  However, as stated before, the quality bar appears to slide depending on the game -- some appear to be given a free pass.  This is why getting rejected without feedback is extremely frustrating.

[motorsep]

@CodingJar While I understand your frustration, I've witnessed the same kind of deal on Steam. An experienced team made a puzzle game with nice art and it was rejected because Valve didn't feel it was a good fit at the time of submission. Maybe whoever was reviewing the submission got tired on puzzles, or just had mind set over particular genre, etc. Who knows... The fact of the matter was that the game did not fit what platform holder was hoping for. There were plenty of games that were worse or equal to whatever was submitted, and yet it was rejected. I am not defending Oculus or suggesting anything. Just saying it happened on Steam.

My game was accepted on Steam, but rejected by GoG (and that was before Greenlight and the whole mess Steam is in right now). Go figure.

[CodingJar]

@motorsep, from what I understand, Steam made Greenlight in part to address this particular issue where they are no longer the sole gatekeepers.  Oculus has not yet addressed it.

[motorsep]

CodingJar said:

@motorsep, from what I understand, Steam made Greenlight in part to address this particular issue where they are no longer the sole gatekeepers.  Oculus has not yet addressed it.

And I keep saying Greenlight sucks. If you followed the whole drama, at one point Valve wanted to remove it altogether but they were too deep in sh#t with community to pull the plug. So they waived  $100 fee and opened flood gate.

You have to remember that Steam has so many users, so every game brings a sizable chunk of money to Valve. They can't pass on it. Oculus has Facebook behind it and can afford to be picky. In a long run it's a win/win for everyone.

[CodingJar]

You have to remember that Steam has so many users, so every game brings a sizable chunk of money to Valve. They can't pass on it. Oculus has Facebook behind it and can afford to be picky. In a long run it's a win/win for everyone.

Well it certainly isn't a win for small developers with no recourse on rejected submissions.  We had to stop development and put out a release on Cardboard, then focus on Vive (because it's Steam, and they allow all developers access to an open market!)  If Oculus doesn't change their policy it's a quick death for Gear VR when a new suitable headset hits the market.  If they don't change their policy soon, I would be too soured on Oculus to try again on their platforms.  Once bitten twice shy.

[motorsep]

What will kill Steam and other headsets is "open" market. Profits for small indie devs plummeted drastically since ~2011. Before "open" market, small indies thrived on Steam. Nowadays, not so much.

Of course, if a developer works out of garage and it's not his/her primary income, sure, open market matters since you can throw anything at it and get some money out. However, like I keep saying, it's not good for ecosystem in a long run and for those devs who want to make a living out of providing entertainment. Even devs who want to cash out early and quickly find themselves in a predicament quickly.