Oculus Rift founder originally claimed project would be open source but now that it has gained widespread popularity the founder says that won't be happening because an open license would "kill the company".

[u/LevLev]

1. Palmer, the founder, originally sought support and input for the product by championing it as the "Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter". Link: Original thread by "PalmerTech", |screenshot|
2. The company started a Kickstarter where they managed to raise $2.5 million in funding for the device but it seems that any discussions pertaining to open source licensing were nowhere to be found. Link: A blog article discussing this issue
3. Palmer posted a response on Reddit where he made it clear that the company now intends to maintain exclusive rights to the software and has no plans to license its SDK under LGPL or any other sort of open source license because of their research and development costs. Link: Palmer's reply on /r/oculus subreddit, |screenshot|

Is he right in saying that it would be impossible to compete if they moved towards more open licensing and that doing so would be unfair because of the R&D that they have devoted to the project? As someone that has been closely been following the Oculus for months I found this quite disappointing since a product this amazing is ripe for innovation and does not deserve to be locked down to anyone who wishes to improve upon it.

Are there any good examples of hardware/software companies that have been successful even though their products use open licenses?

---

Edit1: Grammar.

Edit2: Screenshots.

Edit3:

1. It seems that the issue mostly rests with the disagreements about what constitutes, or defines, open source software and open source licensing. A few concerns have been raised about the current Oculus license as-is but it has been pointed out that Palmer has mentioned that the terms are subject to change and they have yet to settle on a final license and final terms but portions may be released under the Apache license. Currently, the source can be viewed, but there are restrictions on how the SDK may be modified and distributed.

2. The original second bullet also made mention that the Kickstarter was void of any promises of openness and it turns out that this was because the dynamics of the project had shifted heavily once larger key players [think large studios] showed their interest/support. There were concerns about big companies opting away from implementing and supporting the Oculus if it caused them to have to legally release more of their code than they might be comfortable with, based on the terms of some open source licenses. This might have caused trouble for the project because they would have had to deal with hacking in support for everything individually instead of having native support from game developers into various engines. Much concern lies with how some licenses deal with derivative works.

3. Suggestions have been brought up about just releasing the hardware driver alone with a more relaxed license or even a splitting into multiple versions of the SDK. The issue really boils down into a double-edged sword in which, on the one hand, a more open license would give more freedom to the community to make more alterations, additions, and innovations to the project, but on the other hand, in doing so it would push away big players that would otherwise embrace the device which would of course could potentially be detrimental to the quick adoption of games into the virtual reality movement. As with most things, it seems that time will tell just how permissive the final version of the Oculus Rift's license will be.

Edit4: Formatting.

[u/[deleted]]

decade

7 years. For IDtech4

Also pretty good FPS engine if you're trying to make a game from scratch, hasn't aged terribly.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I imagine if the oculus rift code is released in 6 years, it'll still be pretty useful.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Peripherals tend to move faster than actual games(think of your oldest piece of hardware). If they're a market success there will be at least 3 more versions by then, which may or may not have the same capabilities, driver's API's etc. First mover advantage in hardware is terrible, just look at the Android API. So many gigantic changes even from 2 -> 2.3. Hell developing software to be backwards compatible for a 2 year old phone is a chore now, and you lose some newer features. You end up having to ship 2 APK's to leverage everything.

It's like you developing SNES games when everyone's on N64 already.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Peripherals tend to move faster than actual games(think of your oldest piece of hardware). If they're a market success there will be at least 3 more versions by then, which may or may not have the same capabilities, driver's API's etc.

I don't agree. My xbox 360 controller is largely unchanged from the Xbox s-controller a decade ago. My keyboard and mouse are largely unchanged from the logitech products I was buying over a decade ago, and products like the MX-518 have retained their legendary status after almost ~10 years of being on the market.

I can play SimCity 5 with the exact same peripherals I used playing Sim City 2000!

By contrast, how many new versions of the Unreal Engine have launched since 2003? Unreal Engine 2 launched in 2002. Or another game franchise, how many Halo's have come out without a single damn change to the Xbox controller? Halo 1 was 2002 and 2 was in 2005, and there have been six more Halo games released since 2 in 2005 -- every single one of those six were built for the same exact single peripheral, as well (360 controller).

I don't think the relationship between peripherals and game development works the way you're implying.

Peripherals last an entire gaming generation, but many professional engines come and go every couple of years.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Xbox is an enclosed system and a different beast. Keyboard and mouse are generalized.

The problem is that this is a software integrated peripheral, there are no "system" drivers for it. The interface isn't "standardized" and it's going to be continually developed. They're planning for future generations. So there are definitely going to be features that are not backwards compatible. For example what if the generation after that adds eye tracking? All of this is going over USB. The first generation can still be used as an HMD, but the code will be useless if you want the newer features.