In what possible sense is this an "open platform"? Developers have to "request keys" for @Oculus DRM. @Polygon https://t.co/q8rzqTpIqB
— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) March 28, 2016
… and so am I.
When you develop software, you will always be reliant upon platforms. You use their interfaces to make your hardware do stuff. People who maintain these will almost always do so with certain conditions. In iOS's case, you must have all of your content certified by Apple before it can be installed. In Linux's case, if you make any changes to the platform and distribute them, you need to also release what those changes are.
Sometimes, they are enforced with copyright law. Recently, some platform vendors use chains of trust with strong, mathematical keys. This means that, unless Apple, Microsoft, Oculus, or whoever else made a mistake, members of society can be entirely locked out of creating and installing content.
This has pros and cons.
On the one hand, it can be used to revoke malware authors, scammers, and so forth. These platforms, being more compact, are usually easier to develop for, and might even be portable across deeper platforms, like x86 or ARM.
On the other hand, it can be used to revoke anything else. Imagine that you live in a jurisdiction where the government wants to ban encryption software. Imagine you live in a jurisdiction where the government wants to ban art featuring characters who are LGBT. Imagine you just want to use your hardware in a way that the vendor does not support, such as our attempts to measure UWP application performance.
We need to be extra careful when dealing with good intentions. These are the situations where people will ignore potential abuses because they are blinded by their justifications. This should not be taken lightly, because when you build something, you build it for everyone to use and abuse, intentionally, or even blinded by their own justifications, which often oppose yours.
For art and continued usability, Microsoft, Oculus, and everyone else needs to ensure that their platforms cannot be abused. They are not a government, and they have no legal requirement to grant users free expression, but these choices can have genuine harm. As owners of platforms, you should respect the power that your platform enables society to wield, and implement safeguards so that you can continue to provide it going forward.
Eh? You can make any
Eh? You can make any standalone VR app using Oculus SDK and you can distribute it any way you want. It’s open in that sense. “Requesting keys” is just for activating the game on Oculus’s own storefront. If you have your own storefront, or don’t want to use Oculus’s, then this doesn’t apply at all.
edit:
I’m referring to Tim’s tweet, of course. Not to the contents of the article.
Storefronts like Oculus and
Storefronts like Oculus and Steam represent compromises between users and publishers. Users want the convenience of buying and downloading from a single source. Publishers insist on selling their wares with DRM. If a chosen game is on both Steam and GOG I will choose GOG unless the price difference is substantial. You could make a case that GOG is more open than Oculus because with GOG there is no DRM.
An then Oculus said this to
An then Oculus said this to Polygon
http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/28/11317976/oculus-confirms-devs-free-to-sell-rift-games-on-steam-other-platforms
The issue is moot since
The issue is moot since anyone can make games for Oculus and sell them through any platform without the keys. These keys are only required if selling though the Oculus Store.
I hope the irony of this image is not lost on the author.
https://pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_min_width/news/2016-03-28/9-ethernet2.png
I don’t get the irony of the
I don’t get the irony of the image, I don’t even see what it is depicting
I’m speaking broadly about
I'm speaking broadly about all platforms in general. Plus, these keys are also required for third-party stores to use Oculus' "home screen". I'm not sure how important that is, though, but that's why we should think of the consequences now.
100% agree with Scott!
100% agree with Scott!
Hey thanks! : D
Hey thanks! : D
Laptop OEMs having the
Laptop OEMs having the “option” of Not providing any Windows Secure Boot UEFI/BIOS OFF switch on their OEM laptop SKUs that come factory installed with windows 10. Games hardware with restrictive usage models and the trend towards the closed OS/software ecosystem. these are among other worrying trends towards locking users out from being able to use their own hardware as they want. It’s the key signing authority in the hands of a few vested interests that necessitates the need for open software/firmware solutions for gaming and other uses before computing becomes locked down and users unable to have usage rights to their own PC/Laptop or other hardware.
The computing market is not growing any more so there goes the mad profits that explosive growth brought, so now it’s more towards the OS/Hardware makers trying to restrict and meter for more monetization of the existing hardware that is out there. It’s time to be on guard and more vigilant of the slow insidious processes that have begun to take place in the PC/Laptop/devices markets. The revenues are now going the be attempted to be extracted from any and all forms of closed OS/App/application ecosystems and PC/laptop hardware testers and reviewers need to be checking the firmware options on PC/laptops for the user ability to turn the locking mechanisms off, and informing the readers if the PC/Laptop/other devices have restrictions that can not be disabled. The makers of the OSs on third party OEM PC/Laptop hardware should have no rights to restrict or hinder in any manner the users ability to use User’s/Owner’s the OS of choice, whatever applications the user wants, or whatever external/internal hardware the user wants to install, like external Thunderbolt/other expansion options.
Watch out for those nefarious words “In the name of security” because it mostly means the security of the proprietary OS/hardware maker’s profits more than it means any user security. Just look at windows 10 and the baked in spying, the same goes for Android and other ecosystems that allow apps to gather too much personal information. The Key signing authority in the hands of the few, is one of the biggest threats especially with the firmware on the PC/laptop devices potentially unable to have the user option of loading the users own customized Linux/BSD or other OS/open ecosystem build.