OS X + Linux "on hold"

[mindabuse]

From the Oculus Blog post https://www.oculus.com/blog/powering-the-rift/

Our development for OS X and Linux has been paused in order to focus on delivering a high quality consumer-level VR experience at launch across hardware, software, and content on Windows. We want to get back to development for OS X and Linux but we don’t have a timeline.

This might be the ideal spot to dump some thoughts which might come off a little rant-y.

Oculus, you may want to consider renaming the SDK "Oculus Windows SDK 0.6.0.0" so people have a clearer understanding.

I get it. Oculus needs to pare down to focus on "the majority".

The DK2 was announced as supporting OS X and Linux —  and people developing on those platforms waited for the SDK to catch up (weeks or months after their kits were paid for and arrived).

Today, SDK v0.6.0 is released and with no prior warning OS X and Linux are put on indefinite hold.

I bought a DK2 and can no longer develop because my platform has been deprecated. Windows and Galaxy mobile phones appear to be all they're interested in supporting. If the consumer product ships in 2016, how long will it take for the bugs to be ironed out to a point where they devote resources to non-Windows platforms?

I understand that I am in the minority, but it's still a shitty series of events. I had hopes to continue adding VR support to open source projects — especially when the SDK smoothed out. But not under these circumstances which lock me out. I bought something with the intention of developing on a non-Windows platform and am stuck in time (March 26, 2015) with an out-of-date, eventually unsupported runtime + SDK — with its own issues that I don't care to debug or work around (ghosting/smearing, lack of "direct-to-rift", etc.). And then when the consumer unit ships, I am still left out in the cold until who-knows-when?

The bottom line is this: Oculus is targeting a specific spec for current-generation hardware - and only one operating system - which could hinder a vast catalog of open source projects that can benefit from integrating multi-platform VR. Someone doesn't think OS X or Linux users have the current generation of hardware to enjoy some "ideal" current generations games? You've just doomed them from experiencing older titles that could be revived (no pun intended) with VR support that run perfectly fine on hardware that doesn't meet your specifications.

I feel like Oculus is trying to turn their product in to a platform a bit prematurely. What is the rift? A display and an input tracking device. There's no GPU or CPU. Still feels a bit over-reaching to me (even though Oculus also happens to have a content team).

Unfortunate.

[EarlGrey]

Mac computers simply don't have the raw GPU power to run VR.
Linux is a schizophrenic platform to develop for, with a tiny desktop userbase and lots of driver issues, why bother?

[Baka_Rakuda]

Quite honestly Oculus' behaviour here is disgusting. I have never seen such a regressive behaviour from any other hardware/software product I use for development.

I paid $425 to use DK2 as a development tool - specifically because it supported OS X - and now out of the blue with no previous warning they drop support for all platforms other than Windows, after releasing a new SDK with many features and API changes? Are you kidding me?

Sooner or later middleware like UE4 will updated to use the latest 0.6.0 SDK, at which point development on non-Windows systems will be completely fucked no doubt.

Is this the kind of support $2,000,000,000 buys? Wasn't a major reason that Oculus let Facebook buy them instead of a company like Apple or Microsoft, so that Oculus could bring VR to the world, instead of just for those platforms holders singular purposes?

As Palmer Luckey says, actions speak louder than words, and we read you loud and clear. Non-Windows developers money is worthless, you are ready to drop support for non-Windows platforms for a development tool at any time for dubious reasons with no solid commitment to EVER support them again, VR on PCs should be limited to only one platform holder. Got it.

If VR will take off it's obvious after today that Oculus is not the company to make that happen.

[darkcrayon]

"EarlGrey" wrote:
Mac computers simply don't have the raw GPU power to run VR.
Linux is a schizophrenic platform to develop for, with a tiny desktop userbase and lots of driver issues, why bother?

Ehh, then how does the Galaxy Gear do it? 😉 Yes, it's close to impossible to get a GTX 970 class GPU on a currently sold Mac, but the vast majority of Macs sold (laptops, iMacs) are similar to the majority of PCs sold(laptops) so they're really in a similar boat GPU wise. I guess the question that goes with that is will there even be any kind of "low end" VR experience market for the non-gaming PC public.

[mindabuse]

"EarlGrey" wrote:
Mac computers simply don't have the raw GPU power to run VR.
Linux is a schizophrenic platform to develop for, with a tiny desktop userbase and lots of driver issue

That's pretty funny.

The last VR project I worked on could consistently push 120 FPS on a ~2 year old Mac laptop. I just tested it again with stereo rendering and distortion at 2160x1200 (hint: consumer specs). Hardly an issue for DK2 @ 75 Hz or the forthcoming consumer product @ 90 Hz. This is with an Intel Iris chipset, which you commonly hear "can't do VR". It might not run the latest games at the highest settings, but it can run older stuff pretty great.

I have a platform and software that *does* do VR, but Oculus has now decided it's not for me.

And on top of that, people are repeating the same false information.

Unfortunate.

[snappahead]

"darkcrayon" wrote:

"EarlGrey" wrote:
Mac computers simply don't have the raw GPU power to run VR.
Linux is a schizophrenic platform to develop for, with a tiny desktop userbase and lots of driver issues, why bother?

Ehh, then how does the Galaxy Gear do it? 😉 Yes, it's close to impossible to get a GTX 970 class GPU on a currently sold Mac, but the vast majority of Macs sold (laptops, iMacs) are similar to the majority of PCs sold(laptops) so they're really in a similar boat GPU wise. I guess the question that goes with that is will there even be any kind of "low end" VR experience market for the non-gaming PC public.

By running stripped down, low detail experiences.

I don't understand your argument here. Oculus doesn't officially support or recommend any laptop, so why does that comparison matter?

Gear and Morpheus will be the lower end VR options for now.

[darkcrayon]

"Snappahead" wrote:

"darkcrayon" wrote:

"EarlGrey" wrote:
Mac computers simply don't have the raw GPU power to run VR.
Linux is a schizophrenic platform to develop for, with a tiny desktop userbase and lots of driver issues, why bother?

Ehh, then how does the Galaxy Gear do it? 😉 Yes, it's close to impossible to get a GTX 970 class GPU on a currently sold Mac, but the vast majority of Macs sold (laptops, iMacs) are similar to the majority of PCs sold(laptops) so they're really in a similar boat GPU wise. I guess the question that goes with that is will there even be any kind of "low end" VR experience market for the non-gaming PC public.

By running stripped down, low detail experiences.

I don't understand your argument here. Oculus doesn't officially support or recommend any laptop, so why does that comparison matter?

Gear and Morpheus will be the lower end VR options for now.

What don't you understand? I was replying to "Mac computers simply don't have the raw GPU power to run VR."

Which clearly isn't true. A "stripped down, low detail experience" is still VR, as is in the Gear as you said. I know it's Oculus' choice, I think what you're reading are people disappointed with the choice based on their own experiences with VR on Macs or VR on devices with much less horsepower like the Gear. As for laptops, there is that quote from their chief architect that says they are working to identify certain laptops that might support the Rift so I wouldn't say they're writing them off completely.

[mindabuse]

"Snappahead" wrote:
By running stripped down, low detail experiences.

I don't understand your argument here. Oculus doesn't officially support or recommend any laptop, so why does that comparison matter?

Gear and Morpheus will be the lower end VR options for now.

This is the point some people are completely missing -

If mobile devices are allowed have low-detail experiences, why can't laptops or other "lower-spec" devices?

I can't understand the logic. These mobile phones *overheat* when running VR for too long — and that's acceptable?

Do you think a laptop in the past couple years - maybe even few-to-several years - would have the same problem driving the same content that mobile VR content can?

But besides the content / specifications, etc.... If people WANTED to develop "stripped down, low detail experiences" (hint: older titles, open source projects, etc), they've just been shuttered by the steep requirements that Oculus has handed down.

[snappahead]

I can't speak for Oculus, so I don't know the answers to all this. Mobile is a low level platform so low level experiences are necessary. Maybe they don't feel that low level experiences are good for PC VR as a new medium. That's just me speculating. I don't know what they're opinion is here.

[lmaceleighton]

I believe what's going on, is that even though "We", as Developers may in reality, be responsible for bringing VR experiences to the masses and such. It is Oculus who will bear 'nearly all' of the responsibility for years to come though. When some dudes Oculus "ready" or "certified" etc. game doesn't work, the first thing they blame is Oculus(Unless you know better). Yes Sir, you CAN run VR applications on lower-end hardware AND run it well in 'some' cases, BUT Oculus HAS to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and say that "This" is what qualifies a as a "Good" VR experience, and "This" other don't. It is on Oculus's shoulders to handle that stuff, just as much as they handle making the hardware to do it.
I think getting VR for Linus and OSX will come though, and it might be a bit smoother after they have the hindsight of doing things in Windows, rather than having to do the same thing in 3 different ways, All while feeling around in the dark for the 'right way' to do it in the first place? But realistically having a smaller user base means you take a bit of a backseat, but you get to watch everyone else failures and succeeded upon them.

The future of VR is going to hit everywhere, it will just take time. Having money is awesome, but you can't just throw money at the VR problem to make it go away, but us all working together even through the tough parts is what is going to make this happen. I think we should be more positive, if that wasn't utterly apparent by my attitude 😉

~B