I'm guessing it's much more safe (business-wise) to deploy for a "standard" platform like Windows and test the waters so to speak, in terms of consumer reception, games developed, etc, and then jump on to other platforms.
Of course, the end result is that you keep strengthening the "standard" platform and thus there's never critical mass for "alternative" platforms (for different values of "standard" and "alternative" depending on product), and so the cycle repeats itself.
But in the end Oculus is there to make money and making new hardware is very hard, let alone a whole new type of hardware.
This, I agree, is unfortunate, but I can't imagine how hard it must be to develop something like this for Linux, with the myriad of 3d drivers, sound drivers, etc. If you end up developing for say, Ubuntu Desktop only, then probably a lot of people would still complain and say "hey, Ubuntu is not the only Linux out there you know!".
Maybe Steam will take advantage of this and develop for Linux as well, thus putting pressure (and opening the market a bit) on competitors to move into this "alternative" market.
Of course, the end result is that you keep strengthening the "standard" platform and thus there's never critical mass for "alternative" platforms (for different values of "standard" and "alternative" depending on product), and so the cycle repeats itself.
But in the end Oculus is there to make money and making new hardware is very hard, let alone a whole new type of hardware.
This, I agree, is unfortunate, but I can't imagine how hard it must be to develop something like this for Linux, with the myriad of 3d drivers, sound drivers, etc. If you end up developing for say, Ubuntu Desktop only, then probably a lot of people would still complain and say "hey, Ubuntu is not the only Linux out there you know!".
Maybe Steam will take advantage of this and develop for Linux as well, thus putting pressure (and opening the market a bit) on competitors to move into this "alternative" market.