GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

VR Exclusives Are Good, Oculus Exec Says After Valve Boss Says They're Bad

Oculus Head of Content Jason Rubin says funding exclusive games is what's making virtual reality grow.

92 Comments

Valve boss Gabe Newell recently said he doesn't think VR exclusives are "a good idea for customers or developers"--his company worked with HTC to release the Vive headset. Now, Oculus head of content Jason Rubin said in an interview with GamesIndustry.biz that his company's policy on exclusives is good for virtual reality in general.

Rubin says that Oculus wants to kickstart the VR development community, which might feel a little wary of creating games for a small consumer base. He says that Oculus doesn't want to wait a decade for VR development to get where it wants, so it funds games to help get there faster--in exchange, it wants the games to be exclusive to its platform for at least a period of time.

"The average gamer is now aware of $100 million games," Rubin said. "And while we certainly cannot build a $100 million game that takes four years, in the year we've had dev kits, we can try to get closer to that by funding significant leaps beyond the financial certainty that a developer would need to have to do it on their own.

"As a developer looks at a multi-million dollar production in VR right now, they say there's no way that will earn its money back in any reasonable amount of time, so instead I'll go make a non-VR PC game of that scale if I want to because that's a better bet. We don't like that. We don't want it to be $500,000 games this year, million dollar games next year, two million dollar...and take decades or at least a decade to build itself to the point where you can afford bigger games.

"So what Oculus has said is, 'Why don't we throw more money into the ecosystem than is justified by the consumer base,' which will lead to a consumer base that's larger, which will leave that second generation of developers to say, 'Hey, let's go build these games because now the consumers are there, and kickstart that decade long process in a much shorter length of time.' And, to do that, we have put huge amounts of money into the ecosystem, more than any of our competitors."

No Caption Provided

Rubin also made a point to mention that Oculus isn't looking to have control over any intellectual property or make the games exclusive forever.

"So if the first game barely makes its money back, the second game can be profitable because the consumer's there," Rubin said. "That's theirs to do on their own on any platform they want. And in a lot of cases, we're looking at software that's in process, where the developers are running to the end of their logical stream of cash and they come to us and they say, 'I want to put this in your store,' and we say, 'That's awesome. However, we can tell it's kind of unfinished.' And they're like, 'We can't finish it. We don't have the money to finish it.' And we say, 'Well, how about we give you a little extra to finish it and in exchange you bring it out as an exclusive in our store for a limited amount of time, continue to develop for all platforms, and then put it out on all platforms?' The better game gets to all consumers in that case. And those are the deals we're making. And that, to me, makes a lot more sense than just let this thing work itself out over a decade."

Even first-party games, like Crytek's The Climb, could eventually see life on other platforms in sequels. Rubin talked about how Oculus worked alongside Crytek to fully fund and conceptualize its mountain-climbing VR game.

"Having said that, they own The Climb IP," Rubin said. "The Climb 2 can come out on any console, any PC, any anything, anywhere. We don't own that."

Rubin also talked about Oculus's shipping issues and how the company is going to "do it the right way this time" with its hand-tracking Touch controllers. You can read the full interview at GamesIndustry.biz.

With the Rift's issues, the company ended up covering shipping costs on all preorders; however, some users have still not received their headset.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 92 comments about this story
92 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
  • 92 results
  • 1
  • 2
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for deactivated-5ae060efb3bf6
deactivated-5ae060efb3bf6

2147

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Sounds expensive making games for such a small part of the gaming world.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-57d164ef1c809
deactivated-57d164ef1c809

703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Everyone, please perceive this with a less narrow viewpoint: Gabe (on behalf of Steam) said permanent (if not all) VR-headset exclusivity is not good, Oculus is saying a standpoint that all/any exclusivity of any kind is bad is too close-minded of a stance if , that timed exclusivity can be reasonable if it was part of the means of the game existing in the first place (See Bayonetta 2 on Nintendo Wii but if it wasn't only on the Wii but maybe on the Wii only for 6 months to a year)

Oculus Rift camp is saying most of the exclusivity they have had with devs is misconstrued, their deals are more like "We'll help fund your game and don't mind if you make it work with any VR headset afterwards as long as you help us first (return the favor) by having it on our platform first for a while."

That's extremely fair if what they gave to developers was substantial.

Rubin sort of conflates VR-only exclusivity and VR-headset exclusivity, but all he said was Oculus wants to rapidly encourage developers to make VR games-only for the most part & in return the devs have it on their marketplace first (not forever)

2 • 
Avatar image for hystavito
hystavito

4755

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By hystavito

The funny thing is they can say that stuff like oh the next game can be on all platforms, but what they really want is to be THE VR platform that dominates all others, that's whole point of having your own "platform/ecosystem" with exclusives instead of just making peripherals. Oculus/Facebook is not an industry group or non-profit or something trying to foster the growth of a new format/technology, they are an individual competitor in the field trying to win by being early and like any company they want to defeat everyone else in the field as much as possible.

2 • 
Avatar image for battlestreak
BattleStreak

1763

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

**** you Oculus. **** you Facebook.

3 • 
Avatar image for dramaticlookguy
DramaticLookGuy

120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

There’s a lot of skepticism in the VR market to begin with, and if you start with exclusives right out the gate, you’re going to isolate your already small audience and not allow VR as a whole to grow.

2 • 
Avatar image for stage4saiyan
stage4saiyan

711

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I don't wanna see Gabe or Valve drones complain about exclusivity when there are hundreds of games on Steam that support only the Vive.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kabal26
Kabal26

46

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Kabal26

@stage4saiyan: Because that's what the developers chose to support without being paid to support it. Oculus has to buy their exclusivity because clearly they don't have the confidence in the Rift that they once had, back before they got bought by Facebook.

2 • 
Avatar image for Gravity_Slave
Gravity_Slave

1751

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"Mmm VR exclusives are bad mkay...they're just bad."

-Mr. Mackey

2 • 
Avatar image for Zloth2
Zloth2

1780

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

I don't mind a time limited exclusive. If Oculus wants to justify tossing seven figures at a game developer by having exclusive sales for the first six months, I can deal with that. If it's exclusive for years, though, so consumers basically have to play guess-the-company-that-will-get-the-best-games, then it's going to be very bad for VR. Way too many people will stay out until the "Betamax vs. VCR" decision gets made.

3 • 
Avatar image for DarkReign2022
DarkReign2022

366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This has absolutely nothing to do with exclusives being good. All he rambles about is trying to put more money out there because they want a bigger return faster. If anything, this argues against his point because the only way they're going to hit larger market bases is by releasing on as many platforms as possible. If they want to make the VR market to be affordable, they have to be willing to encourage people to buy VR headsets, not JUST Oculus headsets. If somebody sees more games coming out for another headset like the Vive that interests them, they're simply going to purchase that device instead and that just means these games they're tossing money into developing simply won't see as much of a return. In other words, break down the barriers between VR devices or the entire market will suffer.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Runeweaver
Runeweaver

598

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

exclusives arn't good for a VR, they need to reach out for the maximum player base across all the VR systems, if they don't it wont take off, in a few years then exclusives can sell their VR system above others, but until it becomes something that the gaming community as a whole has embraced, exclusives are just gonna put people off because they can't afford all the different VR systems out there, it isnt like owning all the different consoles.

3 • 
Avatar image for jaoman9
jaoman9

254

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Is that why VR is failing worldwide?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for madsnakehhh
madsnakehhh

18377

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

VR is just another gimmicky like FMV, Motion Controllers and 3D...i'll give it 4 years since companies put so much money on this idea, but it will eventually die.

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-57d164ef1c809
deactivated-57d164ef1c809

703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@madsnakehhh: It won't die; besides price, it's definitely a valuable, different experience than what traditional experiences that really have reached being more monopolistic because of the high cost of AAA games that can't innovate easily as VR experiences with more emphasis on gameplay.

Heck, like how it contributed to speed advancements to the World Wide Web, the overwhelming support VR has received from the Porn industry alone will ensure it won't die easily like a Kinect

Upvote • 
Avatar image for brightsunbeam
BrightSunbeam

207

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The OR people should just be happy if game developers will make games for their device at all, forget exclusives because the VR gimmick does not look like it's going to catch on. Nobody wants to pay $800 to strap a screen to their face and call it VR when they can just sit close to tv for same effect.

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-57d164ef1c809
deactivated-57d164ef1c809

703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@brightsunbeam: Might sound eccentric, but the overwhelming support VR has received from the Porn industry alone will ensure it won't die easily. VR provides extremely different experiences worth getting into for most once tried.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Baconstrip78
Baconstrip78

1893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@brightsunbeam: Someone has truly never used VR if they think VR is ANYTHING like sitting close to your monitor....

You are a virgin preaching abstinence. Nobody is going to listen to you because you haven't even tried it.

4 • 
Avatar image for brightsunbeam
BrightSunbeam

207

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Baconstrip78:

Really then what is the difference? Because that is basically what you are doing with this "VR" device.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Zloth2
Zloth2

1780

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@brightsunbeam: You seriously don't know?? OK, instead of having a big TV, have a TV that makes a complete globe around you. EVERYWHERE you look, up, right, down... it's all the game world.

Now make those 3D TVs only make the 3D completely to scale. If that monster is supposed to be 20ft away then it looks like it is 20ft away. If it's supposed look like it's right in your face then it's right in your face.

Now something the TV-globe can't do at all: motion sensitivity. If you lean forward in VR, the point-of-view moves right with you. If you lean out over a ledge (which the Oculus demo actually has you do) then you'll be looking down into a chasm. Oh, and throw in sound that moves as your head moves, too.

Obviously there's no sense of touch or smell but as far as your eyes and ears are concerned, you are IN THE GAME'S WORLD. So much so that, if somebody in the game throws a ball at you, you'll try to duck.

2 • 
Avatar image for brightsunbeam
BrightSunbeam

207

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By BrightSunbeam

@Zloth2:

You are kind of just thowing out sciency sounding talk and exaggerating a bit the only difference is you are moving your head to look around instead of using a controller yeah that is pretty gimmicky and who wants to be doing all that when playing a game anyway?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Baconstrip78
Baconstrip78

1893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@brightsunbeam: Just try it man. Stop talking, get in your car, and drive to Best Buy. They have the Occulus on display. You won't believe how wrong you are.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kabal26
Kabal26

46

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Kabal26

@brightsunbeam: Your comments sound just like a creationist arguing with a scientist, the scientist will decimate them but the creationist will just bury their head in the sand and make excuses.

2 • 
Avatar image for brightsunbeam
BrightSunbeam

207

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By BrightSunbeam

@Kabal26:

When was is proven there was no divine intervention in the creation of mankind or the universe? Must have missed that. Sorry but that is still up for debate.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kabal26
Kabal26

46

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@brightsunbeam: No, not really up for debate. The evidence is here. Some people just choose not to accept it because they believe "scientific theory" isn't accurate. When it's as close to fact as you can get compared to a work of fiction written by humans thousands of years ago.

We know the big bang occurred. We know humans evolved over the course of millions of years. We know dinosaurs didn't live at the same time as man. We know a whole lot of stuff that contradicts the "bible" and the "quran"

We also know the entire reason why religion was even formed was to explain things that couldn't be explained at the time. However, all of those things have since been explained by science over the course of the last several hundred years.

Put bluntly, religion is outdated and archaic and should be tossed aside when it contradicts the facts brought about by empirical evidence that cannot be argued away by the phrase "it's not in the bible/quran " (looking at clowns like Ken Ham for that as well as ISIS)

Religion brings nothing but oppression and ignorance. Accepting and understanding that Science has shown to be the only way to improve our species and achieve greater feats in human understanding. Religion is holding us back as a whole.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for brightsunbeam
BrightSunbeam

207

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By BrightSunbeam

@Kabal26:

We know the big bang occurred.

No we dont that is just a theory and on a side note it was a Catholic preist named Georges Lemaitre who came up with it.

We also know the entire reason why religion was even formed was to explain things that couldn't be explained at the time.

No we dont know that is only your opinion.

Religion brings nothing but oppression and ignorance.

No the only people who think that are the ones who focus on the negative while ignoring all the good contributions religion has made throughout history. Obviously you are too prejudiced to have a rational debate about such things so I wont waste my time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kabal26
Kabal26

46

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@brightsunbeam: Thankfully I can block people like you who hide their heads in the sand and use dismissive arguments. And as for being "too prejudiced" it's hard not to be when you see the result of the ignorance and hatred that certain religions have brought about. The Crusades by Christianity and Jihad-ism by Islam. yeah, I'm totally prejudiced with no valid points.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for streamline
streamline

2258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Baconstrip78: haha, funny analogy. I think of it more like a virgin preaching masturbation.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5c1c32e0b8cc8
deactivated-5c1c32e0b8cc8

1258

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

As I've said before, if I'm gonna pay nearly a thousand dollars for a VR device, I would seriously hope that there would be PLENTY of exclusives I'm order to make that investment worthwhile. I'm not going to pay that much money for it to be a gimmicky last minute developer toss in feature like Kinect was in most games.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Spartan_418
Spartan_418

4694

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@jayskoon93: In this case "exclusives" means games being limited to Rift and kept off of Vive and PSVR.

It doesn't refer to games only being playable in VR vs non-VR.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for syntaxkt
SyntaxKT

462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Come on. You don't even read rhe article to understand that Jason literally got hired to do exclusive oculus deals with developers. Oculus absolutely deserves the bad reputation with headlines like these.

2 • 
Avatar image for imajinn
imajinn

1060

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By imajinn

That made the decision on which to go with if I ever decide to. This guy should of shut his mouth piece because if people see things how I see them, he made the whole brand look like a complete clown carnival. If and when I purchase, it will be HTC Vive.

Learn to humble yourself Rubin because a lot of us remember Way Of The Warrior. Lol.

5 • 
Avatar image for DragonessAthena
DragonessAthena

244

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

He's right. He thinks they're super good for his profits, while everyone else knows they're bad. Then a year from now when he's bankrupt, he'll finally realize he was wrong.

3 • 
Avatar image for moonco
Moonco

3848

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Moonco  Moderator

Jason Rubin is a ego-maniac prick. The things that spewed out of his mouth like calling the Dreamcast a 'turd' during his days at Naughty Dog will never be forgotten. May Lord Gabe crush his soul!

4 • 
Avatar image for kaminobenimizu
KamiNoBeniMizu

1831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Oh, that type of "exclusive". I thought it was more like "It would be a bad idea to create games that can only be played in VR".

You know, like how StarCraft can only be played (properly) on PC thanks to keyboard+mouse. I am pretty sure VR has the potential to have its own unique games as well. Like some games only works on touch screens sometimes (or works way better on touch screens compared to gamepads or other means).

Actually, why are they not focusing on games that only VR can have? Because The Climb just looks like a First-Person mountain climbing simulator... Sounds do-able for gamepads and keyboards. Now, they are just limiting the audience for something trivial. I am pretty sure it won't be a "Must have!", just a good game, but not enough to make people want VR that much.

Most games coming out for VR are games that can be played perfectly fine on gamepads or keyboards/mouse. They should treat it more like motion controls or the Wiimote (yes, I am aware the Wiimote has motion control, but they are still different in more than 1 way). Create wacky stuff.

NOTE:I said, most games. Not all games. Difference, folks!

Because if they merely release things that can be done on other devices, it won't make people want VR at all (except the curious ones). It'll just sound like "Hey! Now you can play games in VR even though it brings next to nothing new except a different way to see the world you play in!".

I WANT to play in a different way, not just see the world I play in, in a different way.

Wiimote and motion control made games we thought impossible (or made a few "unique" things in traditional games), touch screens did the same (especially smartphones and tablets with their multiple input screens). Now, they better not slack off on VR. It has potential, but those creating for it better use their imagination.

Right now, they just look like they stamp a VR mode on games that weren't necessarily created for VR. I think it's called "Shoe horning"? Not sure if that is the right term, my english ain't perf.

Wait... Why is my comment about my thoughs on VR and its potential when the article was just about exclusives...? Good grief I am a pro at off-topic-ing...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Spartan_418
Spartan_418

4694

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By Spartan_418

@kaminobenimizu: Sure, The Climb's gameplay would work in a standard game on a TV or monitor, but the whole point of the game is to experience the sense of scale and vertigo of rock climbing, which is only possible through VR.

Similarly, ADR1FT is only worthwhile in VR, because of the added immersive quality, while it's a bit mediocre and forgettable as a standard non-VR game.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for kaminobenimizu
KamiNoBeniMizu

1831

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Spartan_418: Oh. Indeed, makes sense. ADR1FT? I've heard this name a few times, but never searched it (so I didn't really know it was VR). Umm... Thanks for the info Spartty!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Baconstrip78
Baconstrip78

1893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Baconstrip78

@Spartan_418: Heck, any cockpit or driving game is pretty much horseshit after playing the same type of game in VR. I will never go back to playing something like a Forza or Gran Turismo without goggles....ever.

2 • 
Avatar image for youareme7
youareme7

28

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The PC gaming community is the most vehemently against exclusives group there is and Oculost is going to tout that it's a good thing? Holy shit talk about not knowing your audience, damn shame really they seemed like they had such a bright future until they spun into this BS. Good riddance to anti-consumer shit

7 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-57d164ef1c809
deactivated-57d164ef1c809

703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@youareme7: You didn't seem to read the article; he's saying people are misconstruing what deals they have with developers, doing more what Nintendo did with Platinum but with more freedom for developers: "We'll help fund your game and don't mind if you ship it to other platforms as long as you help us first by having it on our platform first for a while"

Very practical and fair compared to other kinds of exclusive deals (esp. on consoles).

Upvote • 
Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

59168

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

DaVillain  Moderator

Honestly I didn't see this stuff coming from OculusBook and I was sooo ready to buy Oculus Rift next but nope, I'm not stupid to support a fraud for locking VR exclusive games. We aren't consoles. We enjoy are openness.

So with that, HTC Vive is for me next year.

7 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-57d164ef1c809
deactivated-57d164ef1c809

703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@davillain-: They're not locking in the way consoles do besides maybe what Microsoft does: "We'll help fund your game and don't mind if you ship it to other platforms as long as you help us first by having it on our platform first for a while"

I consider returning my Oculus that shipped last week shipping mid-way to my house until they clarified such things.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for almatha
almatha

151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By almatha

well since i have an Oculus Rift anyways i really dont care. there only bad for people who dont have a oculus rift lol to be honest. Vive has some "exclusives" at the moment and no one is flipping out. so does Playstation VR.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sargentpsgamer
sargentpsgamer

1191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I think it's stupid. Make your own games then. They have partners in id Software, work with them.

If you want game to make money back with a small userbase, then simply adapt games that are already made for something else. Take a popular PC game and make it VR, that way it has two sources of income. Simply paying for exclusive rights won't expand anything. Look how far it got Xbox, it can't even keep pace now. Especially now that Sony is doing it right back.

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-57d164ef1c809
deactivated-57d164ef1c809

703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@sargentpsgamer: That logic fails; it worked really well for Xbox for a while and therefore it worked; furthermore Sony is doing it, validating it's a good strategy depending on context & execution.

Also, Oculus is definitely helping devs towards overall VR game library progress if they're willing to help developers this way.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sargentpsgamer
sargentpsgamer

1191

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lozandier: Sony didn't start doing it until PS4 released. Xbox started slipping mid last generation when PS3 started to surpass it. Why? Because that had actual exclusives worth having.

Xbox has the same 3 games come out in a cycle every year. Now that their timed third party crap is over they have less and less to offer. If they would have taken that money and dumped into their own studios we could have 4 or 5 new franchises by now.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bdrtfm
BDRTFM

6737

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By BDRTFM

Not sure I'd want Rubin running my company. "let's spend $100 million on a game that we know 100% will lose money and maybe some day over the rainbow, people will buy more VR sets because we made that $100 million game and we can make money off the next game." Or you're dead wrong and just blew $100 million on the roll of the dice.

2 • 
Avatar image for joshrmeyer
JoshRMeyer

12789

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Both are essentially just monitors used to display an image (ok much more complicated than that). They both run on PC. I can understand if psvr games are exclusive.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for leeko_link
leeko_link

881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Newell: VR exclusive games, they bad

Rubin: VR exclusive games, they good

Newell: No, they bad

Rubin: No, they good

It's like children arguing lol...

5 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-57d164ef1c809
deactivated-57d164ef1c809

703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@leeko_link: They not talking about *VR-headset* exclusives in the same way you're trying to make it sound.

Rubin sort of conflates VR-only exclusivity and VR-headset exclusivity, but all he said was Oculus wants to rapidly encourage developers to make VR games-only for the most part & in return the devs have it on their marketplace first (not forever): "We'll help fund your game and don't mind if you ship it to other platforms as long as you help us first by having it on our platform first for a while"

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Kabal26
Kabal26

46

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@leeko_link: Except Newell has been in the business for far longer, I'd tend to believe him over the newcomer Rubin.

Upvote • 
  • 92 results
  • 1
  • 2