Only Select Developers Can Publish Google Daydream Apps Until 2017

http://www.roadtovr.com/daydream-access-program-publish-vr-apps-google-play-store-2017-dap/

by prostoalex • 10 years ago

61 58 10 years ago

This confused me until I remembered that Google is recycling the term Daydream. Search for Android Daydream and you'll find a few results for the old lockscreen API (after all the VR hype).

Can we get a VR added in parentheses to disambiguate the title?

elaus• 10 years ago

This reuse of "Daydream" has been bugging me for month whenever I read about the VR project. Seems like not many people ever took notice of (lockscreen) Daydream or otherwise Google wouldn't just recycle the name.

MBlume• 10 years ago

My guess: badly done VR makes you nauseous. Humans remember under what circumstances they've become nauseous. Google does not want their platform associated in people's minds with nausea, so they're curating.

1_listerine_pls• 10 years ago

They did the same with google glass, nausea wasn't the reason.

ktta• 10 years ago

Curating is the reason.

When a new platform is released (and Daydream is as exciting as a platform can get, till widespread AR atleast) you want the initial experience to be the best possible to increase standards.

_ZeD_• 10 years ago

My 2c guess: porn.

markatkinson3• 10 years ago

Ha. There is already enough VR porn that out there.

ungzd• 10 years ago

Google is against this greatest sin to save humanity from Fiery Gehenna using DRM.

apatters• 10 years ago

I encourage developers to wait for a more open platform before jumping on the VR bandwagon.

We don't need Google to curate VR apps for us. The PC did just fine with anyone being able to develop and distribute whatever kind of app they wanted, in fact it created far more business opportunity for developers than mobile ever did. We screwed up when it came to mobile by letting Google and Apple get away with their land grabs. Now we're paying them until the end of time for the privilege of being able to market our own software.

We don't need Google owning and taxing this space as well.

gman83• 10 years ago

What? The PC didn't do fine with distributing software at all, at least not before Steam came along. On Linux the situation was ok with package managers like apt, but on Windows it was terrible. You basically couldn't buy any games online, you'd have to install from DVD, and every game basically had to implement an inbuilt update/patching system.

Google Play/Steam/iOS App Store may be a tax, but let's not pretend something similar isn't necessary.

oblio2• 10 years ago

For a long time we needed DVDs not just because online installs were not available, but because broadband internet wasn't widely available. It was hardly a nice experience to have to wait 12-24 hours to download a game. Steam was a little ahead of the curve, true.

And regarding updates, the OS makers could just create an official update library that everyone can use. App Stores are just an OS maker powerplay, a cash grab.

TheOtherHobbes• 10 years ago

software != games distribution != online distribution

The big PC developer boom happened in the mid-90s, facilitated by Windows 95 and Visual Basic. Anyone who knew a little about coding could put together a product and ship it on CD or floppy disk.

The current fad for app stores has pluses and minuses, but there's no particular advantage for developers in Google limiting access to VR - especially not if that horrendous screen at the top of the article is a good indication of what Google has in mind.

Developers always benefit when marketplaces are open and initial cost of access is low - in money, if not necessarily in time.

So do platforms. It's by far the best way to get a lot of creative software for a relatively small outlay.

kybernetyk4• 10 years ago

I don't know. I had my little shareware programs up for download in 1998.

Software thrived on the PC since its original inception. I remember swapping shareware diskettes with my friends back when we had no reasonable access to the internet.

Hell, even DOOM was released as shareware.

A lack of infrastructure is not the same as a bunch of gatekeepers you have to pay for the possibility to distribute your software. Today distributing mobile apps would be highly trivial as every smartphone is connected to the internet. But there are artificial limitations put in place by platform "owners" so they can "curate" the software.

Call me dumb but from a freedom perspective I would prefer the 1998 situation to what we have now with mobile.

serge2k• 10 years ago

You basically couldn't buy any games online, you'd have to install from DVD, and every game basically had to implement an inbuilt update/patching system.

And it worked fine.

amelius• 10 years ago

There's one thing worse than the government regulating a market: a company regulating it :)

mastax• 10 years ago

I agree in general, but there is a danger here as poorly made VR apps can make people physically ill. Not "I feel uncomfortable" ill but "I can't do anything for the next 8 hours" ill.

dovdov• 10 years ago

But.. open.. and.. Apple's walled garden.. and..

twblalock• 10 years ago

Google would have better products if it had the focus and control of Apple. Google's products have suffered in the past from a short attention span and early abandonment, not to mention fragmentation. I'm glad Google is taking a page from Apple's playbook and paying more attention to quality control.

andybak• 10 years ago

Everyone else will be allowed to publish apps “early next year.”

Assuming this happens, aren't you overstating your point?

detaro• 10 years ago

What do restrictions for apps on the Play store have to do with walled garden vs open? If the block you from loading VR apps from outside the store, that would be a walled garden. The stores itself IMHO are very similar already.

rjknight• 10 years ago

Why are they curating by choosing which developers to allow, rather than by choosing which apps to allow, similar to the iOS App Store?

rspeer• 10 years ago

I think because it's so hard to do VR well that they'd have to reject almost all the apps.

They'd have a choice between a terrible first impression for users, or a terrible first impression for developers.

markatkinson3• 10 years ago

I suppose it isn't as clear cut as that. If you check the application form you do actually submit links to content related to your app. So I imagine it is a combined, developer/app review.

markatkinson3• 10 years ago

Me and a partner have been developing a game for the release of Daydream this year on Unreal. We are hobbyists who decided to take a stab at doing something more professional. My concern is that just because we lack a track record of game development we will get rejected from DAP.

Now there is a mad rush to get a website up, and content on the internet for the curators. I must be honest I didn't see this one coming!

Anyway, we are excited to get our content out there and have put in a lot of time and research into understanding what makes a good game. From consistent and strong game thematic, to many many hours of play-ability testing. Will definitely post a link to HN once we have our content up.

_pmf_• 10 years ago

Google sure is consistent in guaranteeing that their innovation projects are dead at arrival.

msabalau• 10 years ago

To be fair, this is slightly less lame than Glass, where even the published developers were prohibited from making money by either charging for the app or advertising.

Shorel• 10 years ago

Google is trying to test the 'VIP club' effect that worked so well for gmail and facebook in the past.

However, they are not the only kids in the block this time.

Rezo• 10 years ago

I can understand them wanting to curate at the start, first impressions are critical and shovelware (quickly ported existing Android games and apps) could poison the well.

I'm personally highly interested in developing for Daydream and VR in general, I believe Google's trying to make VR affordable for the masses. Waiting a few months isn't a big deal, if it will help establish a quality bar for what is a good mobile VR app.

arpit• 10 years ago

Honestly, I do think this is a good thing. The problem I have with VR isn't just the number of apps but the quality and differences in experiences (I am not much of a gamer and the stores are 90% games. Would love to see more 'apps').

DayDream could be a lot of people's first introduction to VR and so having a smaller library of high quality content for a few months before opening the floodgates may not be a bad idea.

Only Select Developers Can Publish Google Daydream Apps Until 2017

Related Stories