Roku Developer Program

[TheEndless]

"destruk" wrote:
Alternately what you could do is change it to 'recommended lanyard' and a disclaimer that you're not liable for end users killing people with thrown remote controls across the room - or some such.
The Nintendo Wii series have a display showing what the accessories are and what possible damage can be caused by misuse prior to loading a game.

Or the developer could just remove the lanyard requirement from the channel submission.

[EnTerr]

"TheEndless" wrote:
Or the developer could just remove the lanyard requirement from the channel submission.

Last i checked those flags got hidden from dev.console (curiously, one of them was the mythical creature "BTR no lanyard"). I believe this flag is a burden placed on the app reviewers, that they should enforce the "lanyard required" to CYA the Co, if there is anything resembling vigorous motion, e.g. (non-code-)golfing or ninja slicing.

(Warning - highly-speculative POV follows) I think the Co. have cornered themselves in this one in three steps:

1. someone said "why do we include these lanyards, nobody uses them - let's save 5 cents per player by not including them" - and so they did


2. a few months down the road after no-lanyard players went to market, a "brilliant" legal mind at the Co. decided having no lanyard is a liability and measures should be taken to protect the Co. It's possible there was a case someone spilled a glass throwing the remote and then asked Roku Co to pay the dry cleaning bill. Or it could be that the number of lawyers @ the HQ has reached critical mass, after which the generation of legal memos is a self-sustained chain reaction that requires no external stimuli no more. Regardless - while nobody may have used the lanyard, it had a good "i told you so!" protective potential.


3. top brass decreed to limit "dangerous" games only to lanyard remote. Then project management happened.
   [spoiler=Project Swing:3ll4hxw2][/spoiler:3ll4hxw2]

[EnTerr]

"RokuShawnS" wrote:
As far as I'm aware, no. I don't think the remote can communicate to the Roku in that manner. I'll forward that request over to TPTB, though. Hopefully, it's possible in some manner.

Actually... on third thought, aren't all the no-laynard game remotes of the "voice search" persuasion?

At first i thought, there is no way to distinguish them programmatically (if inner board is the same, can't guess the external shell). But this morning it downed on me it's only 2015 Roku 3 that came with a lanyard-less game remote (the one with motion sensors and A/B buttons) - and Roku 4 now.

If so, then lanyard-full and lanyard-less remotes necessarily differ from each other in innards (not only plastic mold), since the former don't have a microphone component and the latter do! Which necessitates different firmware versions between them - and since Roku player provisions them, it has to (and does) distinguish between them (see System / Remote) already!

So yeah, good news as possibility is concerned! Moreover the filtering can be improved to check the remote used right at app start - and that way work on a 4230 model with lanyard-y remote from 4200. Or conversely, decline on a 4200 player when user is wielding a 4230 voice remote ATM.

[destruk]

I think determining whether a game should be available based on a lanyard is a bad idea to begin with - since someone could easily remove the lanyard from their remote. Why would you truly want to limit your audience that way?

[BradC]

even if it has a lanyard, doesn't mean someone put it around their wrist.


nintendo is still in business, and a brazillion videos on youtube show lots of remotes wiimotes flying into TVs and other things.

[Komag]

It's a 100% a legal liability defense issue. Same reason McDonald's coffee now says "Caution, Hot" and tons of other asinine examples.

[EnTerr]

I think is related to the legal concept of duty of care. The presence of lanyard in the box as well as instructions to attach it might be argued to cover the due diligence on the side of RokuCo. In the absence of it, things may be considered too murky by some legal minds.

The new AppleTV remote has motion sensors but no lanyard; we'll see what's Apple's take on swinging and chop-choppy games...

[TheEndless]

"EnTerr" wrote:
chop-choppy games...

Is that the official genre? 😛

[EnTerr]

"TheEndless" wrote:

"EnTerr" wrote:
chop-choppy games...

Is that the official genre? 😛

8-) Heh, i don't know an official term... we can also try "ninja salad" or "guitar windmill". Maybe there is no name since that way of control is not as popular - e.g. Nintento have pivoted from Wii motion-sensing to Wii U gamepad with touch screen. In the new ATV, Apple seem to be hedging their bets - added motion sensor in the remote (4 years after Roku!) but also a touch pad. As a concept, motion-sensing sounds great - but turns tricky when you try using it.

[beq]

"EnTerr" wrote:
I think is related to the legal concept of duty of care. The presence of lanyard in the box as well as instructions to attach it might be argued to cover the due diligence on the side of RokuCo. In the absence of it, things may be considered too murky by some legal minds.

The new AppleTV remote has motion sensors but no lanyard; we'll see what's Apple's take on swinging and chop-choppy games...

Thanks for brining up this thread. It doesn't make sense to me why Roku would remove the lanyard on their later motion remotes (which has the same motion sensing as the previous gaming remotes), but then have a lanyard requirement flag for game devs. But I think you said this flag has been deprecated?

Good point about the new Apple TV motion remote...