Nintendo is a company that is primarily focused on games, it hasn't really worked out that great for us developers.
To be fair, they did have their roots in the instant ramen business, taxi services, sex hotels and playing cards before getting into the game business. Maybe the moral of the story is that they dropped everything to focus on the one business that was the most profitable, despite the ceo at the time admitting they hate video games.
If this acquisition was just about Facebook diversifying that's one thing, but I have a strong feeling that there's a lot more logic behind it than that.
Facebook is a social media platform and Oculus is a virtual reality headset. Based on Zuckerberg's post and various other posts from Oculus on their blog it appears that there is intent to have the hardware be used to further social interaction (more than just games), and I'd imagine that would fit hand in hand with Facebook's own agenda in the world of social media.
I think this connection is why people are apprehensive. People saw a huge amount of potential for Oculus as a startup and open platform, and they imagined a piece of hardware that worked independently of things like Facebook accounts and systems run and logged by Facebook and games promoted and run through Facebook. People really don't like Facebook, many don't trust Facebook, and it's not clear what control Facebook will exert over Oculus as more than just hardware but as a platform.
We don't know what Facebook's involvement really means at this point, but Facebook isn't just any company.
To be fair, they did have their roots in the instant ramen business, taxi services, sex hotels and playing cards before getting into the game business. Maybe the moral of the story is that they dropped everything to focus on the one business that was the most profitable, despite the ceo at the time admitting they hate video games.
If Microsoft & Sony did that, the impact on our industry would be pretty devastating!
so all the people who backed the kickstarter oculus...do they get facebook shares or something? if they dont get anything for thier money and now the product they backed has been sold off before it has been released publicly surely they are due some compensation?
This seems like a really sad development, I really cant imagine facebook driving this tech forward in a fun and exciting way.
so all the people who backed the kickstarter oculus...do they get facebook shares or something? if they dont get anything for thier money and now the product they backed has been sold off before it has been released publicly surely they are due some compensation?
This seems like a really sad development, I really cant imagine facebook driving this tech forward in a fun and exciting way.
Haha... Of course they won't get Facebook shares, that's ridiculous.
They donated a bit of money to get the original Oculus dev kit didn't they? They aren't entitled to anything more than that.
I think this connection is why people are apprehensive. People saw a huge amount of potential for Oculus as a startup and open platform, and they imagined a piece of hardware that worked independently of things like Facebook accounts and systems run and logged by Facebook and games promoted and run through Facebook. People really don't like Facebook, many don't trust Facebook, and it's not clear what control Facebook will exert over Oculus as more than just hardware but as a platform.
We don't know what Facebook's involvement really means at this point, but Facebook isn't just any company.
This is part of the problem. Facebook isn't and has never been a hardware vendor - their neutrality with regards to the product is not guaranteed and I wouldn't expect it either. I'm already apprehensive about their intentions, as historically they haven't been particularly consumer friendly. They've also demonstrated time and time again that they're really just riding on the unexpected success and subsequent social monopoly of Facebook; most of their ventures outside of the core platform have not fared well.
Haha... Of course they won't get Facebook shares, that's ridiculous.
They donated a bit of money to get the original Oculus dev kit didn't they? They aren't entitled to anything more than that.
I know it would never happen but I dont think its completely rediculous expecting some compensation, they donated to a company because they believed in its vision and goals, they didnt just purchase a product.
Yeah, interesting matter. Obviously bakers are donators and not shareholders. Limits of Kickstarter. I would feel a bit cheated if i was one of them tho.
The most pertinent part (to me) of Notch's blog post was omitted:
I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.
I can see where he's coming from and I'm hearing a lot of similar sentiment. I wonder what projects like EVE Valkyrie are going to be doing, because I'm pretty sure they won't want to side with Facebook
Brendan Iribe, a co-founder and the chief executive of Oculus VR, said Facebook would be able to use the technology to allow avatars representing its members to interact with one another perhaps by socializing at online parties.
If you can see somebody else, and your brain believes theyre right in front of you, you get goosebumps, he said. You start to realize how big this could be.
The problem I see here is that neither Oculus or Facebook know how to actually achieve that (regardless of how deep their pockets are). The ones who can build such worlds are creative developers like Mojang, since they are more than "idea men" - they actually create interactive environments and make them work within manageable technical creative constraints. Yet they are precisely the ones being alienated by the news of this acquisition.
Also, the excitement about the Rift was not coming from the hardware alone - it also came from seeing things like the UDK demos or Hawken running convincingly on the device. The fact that none of this was mentioned in the press reports is quite worrying. And there is definitely a big shift in direction happening, since the press reports have zero mention of "gaming" in them at all.
I suppose things would have been very different had MZ been funding the 2 billions out of his own pocket instead of doing it through Facebook and FB stocks.
I wonder if this is a roundabout way for Microsoft to get this tech for the xbox. Remember, MS owns some of facebook.
I could see Gates and co looking at the landscape and the ps4 vr and wanting to get onboard without having to risk their own stock. If nothing else, they could "borrow" the engineers and tech from facebook for the xbone version.
Personally not pleased. Do not want to have to use facebook to login. This is hardware that does still need software to run. I already have g+ sifting through my online ordeals, limited they may be. I dont want to have to join yet another social site for the benefit of advertisers just because I want a hardware device.
Also for all tbis is NOT Facebooks first venture into hardware. Does no one remember the Facebook smart phone?
I know it would never happen but I dont think its completely rediculous expecting some compensation, they donated to a company because they believed in its vision and goals, they didnt just purchase a product.
.....and now that company/product they belived in has way more resources to further develop its vision and goals? if they paid for a dev kit, its not like they suddenly wont be getting what the paid for. and if they donated to help, well its called a donation not an investment, so they are not entitled to anything. when you are using kickstarter, there is a decent chance you will not get anything in return, you are simply saying you belive in the idea with a donation. This current trend of whiny entitlement culture burns my ass.
the cry baby reaction is rediculous. people just assuming because facebook is a this big company that its going to make it shit. Arsh and jaque choi hit it on the head, this is a good thing. take an interesting product that has vast applications besides gaming and give it the capitol to be fleshed out. People need to stop being so reactive/closed minded.
Almost every startup company starts with the goal of getting big investors or eventually being bought out, thats business 101.
I know it would never happen but I dont think its completely rediculous expecting some compensation, they donated to a company because they believed in its vision and goals, they didnt just purchase a product.
No, they donated for a version of a companies product to get released. Which it did. The agreement with the backers ends there.
people just assuming because facebook is a this big company that its going to make it shit. Arsh and jaque choi hit it on the head, this is a good thing.
facebook is still a publicly traded company that puts profits before innovation that's largely focused on the casual market. So for a startup that has had innovative ideas on VR gaming, which really excited people, it's logical to assume that facebook's involvement could muddy the waters.
Facebook has no business owning OR, I'd be happier if MS owned it wholly (derp derp I know MS owns part of FB, was just an example). Both are bad but one is not as bad.
I feel like your post, Frell, is one giant cycling shit storm of contradiction. C'mon man.
FWIW: MS owns a part of Facebook. So, run with that.
I don't see much contradiction?
I know they own part, I said wholly. MS will only be able to use OR within the terms of an agreement with Facebook, right? Or am I misunderstanding? Facebook still has their hand in the deal
Either way this isn't the end of VR so it isn't a big issue. If anything itll jump start development of more VR hardware to compete with OR, which will make FB very careful of any changes since they wont be the only choice.
to me its mostly people reacting because there is a possibility that there might be a focus on casual games instead of hardcore gaming. etc this is just an idea people are jumping to with no evidence or basis in reality. Since FB bought out whatsapp....has anything changed? did the company suddenly start making something completley different?
People have to realize just because they are "core/hardcore" gamers, if something doesnt fit your own personal tastes or ideas it doesnt mean its wrong or shit. from a business perspective it would make sense to go for a way more general audience like the education sector. The gamer market is still a fraction of the casual/mobile market where they have a much broader audience. Most businesses run on the principal of getting their product into the hands of as many people as possible.
That said I have not seen or read anything where they say they are stopping focusing on games? people are just assuming and spouting reactionary opinions/making themselves sound like they are 10 years old and think their ability to run a lemonade stand instantly gives them the knowledge and experience on how to run a business.
if anything people who belive in occulus, should be happy its going to have the funding to compete with sonys VR tech, instead of just getting steamrolled by a company with much larger resources and thats going to put out similar hardware.
Pixel, I think it has nothign to do with the idea that there will be some casual VR games, that just sounds like a cofirmation bias to me.
From what I have seen, here and on other forums is a general distrust of Facebook as a whole. In fact I cant recall ever seeing someone say "i love facebook" as the sentiment is usually going the opposite direction.
Its a matter of trust for many, and the dissapointment that a startup that was built up by community funding became part of something giant that is generally disliked.
I'm a little confused as to the level of Facebook-related rancor in the response to this news. While Facebook may be a publicly traded company, there are very few mega-companies that aren't. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are all publicly traded. So is Amazon and Google. Most technology companies eventually end up being publicly traded.
While Facebook might not be made up of altruistic saints, I don't understand why it would be a disaster for them to purchase Oculus VR. Facebook has been very good about keeping their social network platform free-to-use, and they've always been very open about making their software platform and tools open and accessible for developers. The fact that they've never established any major hardware platforms in the past has kept them away from trying to tie their service down to a single physical product.
I'm just a little confused as to the vitriol over this purchase. Is there a particular offense that Facebook has committed? Or are people just annoyed with how this one service has re-shaped the social landscape? I'm also puzzled as to why anyone would associate Facebook as being casual-only when it comes to development. Facebook provides a software platform, they don't dictate what manner of games use that platform. It's up to the developers what manner of games they make.
yea...no one likes facebook, thats why people spend half their lives attached to it. If you really have a problem with facebook, its pretty simple to delete your account. or dont buy occulus, like justin said, there is the sony VR comnig as well. The best is people whining about facebook buying occulus direclty on their facebook status. ahhhh the idiocracy.
The best is people whining about facebook buying occulus direclty on their facebook status. ahhhh the idiocracy.
I've seen this thrown around a bit as the catch-phrase comedy line of the day but think about how much sense that makes. People complain about Facebook on Facebook ALL THE TIME. Why it this situation suddenly special?
I mean ... I don't get where that's the wrong thing to do. Where else should they talk about it, MySpace?
yea...no one likes facebook, thats why people spend half their lives attached to it. If you really have a problem with facebook, its pretty simple to delete your account. or dont buy occulus, like justin said, there is the sony VR comnig as well. The best is people whining about facebook buying occulus direclty on their facebook status. ahhhh the idiocracy.
You are quite extreme in your interpretations arnt you? Liking something and feeling the need to use something are two completely different things. You dont have to be a fan of a service to feel the need to use it. A great example, one I am sure we all feel, is the use of autodesk products. Using or feeling the need to use such products does not entirely make someone a fan of the corporation behind it.
I would have hoped that would be obvious.
If you wish to classify everyone who is critical of this acquisition as whiners, then I suppose that would make you a whiner who whines about percieved whiners. Idiocracy? How about hypocrisy.
yea...no one likes facebook, thats why people spend half their lives attached to it. If you really have a problem with facebook, its pretty simple to delete your account. or dont buy occulus, like justin said, there is the sony VR comnig as well. The best is people whining about facebook buying occulus direclty on their facebook status. ahhhh the idiocracy.
A lot of people use Facebook because they don't want to lose connections with acquaintances and there is extreme inertia preventing the adoption of some other service.
Facebook has a history and reputation. From its beginnings and Zuckerberg's own thoughts and comments to some of the unsavory practices in generating ad money, to the unreliability of services and api, to the immense amount of personal data they have and how people may not want to further integrate other parts of their life into that database; there's reason to be critical of Facebook.
From my understanding the Sony VR is for the PS4, which makes it a different beast entirely for a developer and for the market.
I heard some numbers being thrown around that Facebook only had 400Mil in cash on hand. The rest of the compensation was to the tune of 1.6 billion in Facebook shares. (No creditable sources to back this up yet tho)
err.. make that 1.54 billion. Facebook shares dropped +3.5% , early this morning
Yeah, you kinda have to be on Facebook. For instance, none of my friends send emails anymore, just facebook invitations. I don't say it's not useful. But now, you don't know what Facebook does with the data you give for free, (except a lot of money from it).
Like, did you know that when you start to type something (rant about your boss?), but don't publish it, Facebook keeps a copy of it ? Interesting uh.
Now i'm pretty sure every move you'll make will be tracked, so companies could adapt their marketing strategy with a very short feedback. People could be fine with it. Obviously they already are with Facebook, sharing all their life on it. But I don't really like to be tracked, even more when it's not explicit. And i can complain on Facebook about Facebook, and its EULA changing all the time, and confidenciality options beeing suddenly reseted, without beeing schizophrenic.
there's a pattern in all these aquisitions where they say things like "it's not going to change us at all". two years down the line things might look a little different - and usually do.
also: he has presumably just been made very rich. he might also have no choice but to defend it to honour his contract or he might actually believe what he says. lastly he might not have had much of a say in the sale of the company (probably owned by VC's with a majority stake after those several rounds of funding post kickstarter?).
anyway, facebook is not regarded as a trustworthy company with high standards for morals and ethics. and those people you want to see leading the charge for VR (not walled-garden microsoft- or sony-style)?
about the only good thing i can see for now is that the oculus is still only a monitor with a motion tracker attached. no way for facebook to do what they seem to do best - for now.
also they actually seem to have money and could pursue things at a scale that sony and MS would likley not bother with.
i'm considering putting in a preorder now for the DK2. after all the aquisition will not have stained it so far, it'll still be open for the forseeable future and it has no competition as of yet. we can port to other solutions later down the road if and when they become available.
I had the same reaction skimming through that ... "Yep, that's everything he's supposed to say about this". That's the same script that everyone who gets bought out says.
I guess we can now look forward to a bunch of Disney Channel marvel bullshit. hooray!
This is probably good for Disney, and slightly bad for Marvel and fans of Marvel, since Marvel is likely to get watered down a bit (not that Marvel was exactly cutting edge these days, but still).
Mickey Mouse vs The Hulk
This is very bad IMO... I can see it becoming like DC in the 50s and 60s. Remember the Batman show? Modern Spiderman version?
Oh god, the Universal Rides of Marvel Heroes.. Going to move to Disneyland? Are we going to have a "Marvel Town" in Disneyworld? :P
Gotta point out that none of that happened, and Marvel is better now than it ever has been.
They even somehow brought Miracle Man back to print!
Funny enough, Justin Meisse even mentioned in that same post something that is VERY relevant to this current topic:
What people fail to realize is WE the developers, and content makers have the power NOT facebook or Oculus. If they start to do fishy things such as trying to put a Facebook UI or ads inside the rift WE the developers can refuse to make anything for the platform and in the end they will fail. In the end we have the final say in how this platform is used , not face book.
You are quite extreme in your interpretations arnt you? Liking something and feeling the need to use something are two completely different things. You dont have to be a fan of a service to feel the need to use it. A great example, one I am sure we all feel, is the use of autodesk products. Using or feeling the need to use such products does not entirely make someone a fan of the corporation behind it.
I would have hoped that would be obvious.
If you wish to classify everyone who is critical of this acquisition as whiners, then I suppose that would make you a whiner who whines about percieved whiners. Idiocracy? How about hypocrisy.
There's a big difference between having a facebook account so that you can only accept party invites and write e-mails (the essential things that you can't do without), and actively using it to repeatedly post that you hate it, while dropping ridiculous posts about what you ate for lunch that day (actively using all the features that you don't need).
That's like somebody complaining that the world is running out of energy, while leaving every one of his electrical devices on all the time.
Gotta point out that none of that happened, and Marvel is better now than it ever has been.
They even somehow brought Miracle Man back to print!
Funny enough, Justin Meisse even mentioned in that same post something that is VERY relevant to this current topic:
I cant speak for the rest since non of my current titles are marvel, but the Disney Channel did in fact do Marvel. Ultimate Spiderman, Avengers Assemble, Hulk and S.M.A.S.H. All watered down and sifted without the strife Marvel characters go through to a large degree.
No, they donated for a version of a companies product to get released. Which it did. The agreement with the backers ends there.
Yeah I know that officially that is the line to take but you have to admit people do get sentimental about the things they back. They often back it with the hope that the company they are supporting will succeed in creating a wonderful product, oculus hasnt even publicly released a product yet and already they have been devoured by a giant corporation. That hardly seems the outcome that backers were hoping for. Personally I dont care much and didnt back Oculus but I can totally understand people who did getting upset about it and I dont think they are just being whiny for the sake of it. Hopefully something good does come of this.
In the end we have the final say in how this platform is used , not face book.
On that same note, it is we the developers job to dictate what manner of games/simulations/what have you are produced for a VR headset like the Rift. This is as true for VR headsets as it is for Facebook itself.
I think part of the reason why there is "beef" between the game development community and Facebook is because of what happened to Zynga. Zynga made their start with a game that leveraged Facebook in a specific way to drive adoption and exposure. But after a while Facebook decided to alter its policies and close off the loophole that Zynga was using to promote their software. Because of a change that Facebook made to their software platform, Zynga was left out in the cold, and their business suffered because of it.
You could easily lay the blame for that situation on Facebook. But you could also argue that Zynga dug their own grave. The fact that so much of their product hinged on a single feature was a design decision that Zynga was responsible for. The fact that they scaled their business up prematurely was also their call.
Every horror story I hear about Facebook is usually the fault of the user, not of Facebook itself. The public has been far too used to treating the internet as an anonymity playground. Anyone familiar with the back-end workings of IT could have explained long ago that such assumptions are, and always have been, a mistake. If you put anything, ANYTHING, on-line, you are on the grid.
it realyl seems people are confused about kickstarter. Its donating to an idea/company/product that you would like to see become a final finished project. its not investing expecting some profit should the idea do well. people are complaining about their money going to facebook, which doesnt make sense, especially if what others have said about them nearly running out of cashflow to be true.
I would argue it went into A) the development of the initial runs of OR devkits and taking the laughable idea of VR game tech (virtual boy anyone?) and making it more mainstream so companies could actually see it as a viable technology to look into. without the original excitement about the product you wouldnt see companies like sony coming out with their own versions of it.
*fixes side parted hair, tightens suspenders, and pushes up lensless glasses* "yea, occulus used to be cool before they went all mainstream and sold out" *drives away on fixie bike *
I contributed to the OUYA kickstarter. Many people would consider that a waste, because the OUYA isn't dominating the market. But I don't. I knew from the beginning that I was giving my money away for free, and might never see anything for it at all. I did it not because I wanted a product, or because I wanted to see the OUYA succeed. I did it because I wanted the idea of an open video game console to take off.
At the end of the day, the OUYA was produced. I see it on store shelves when I go shopping. Many claim that it is a failure, doomed to play second-fiddle to "real" consoles. As far as I'm concerned, its kickstarter is an example of success. Mission accomplished.
The same holds true for Oculus. If all you wanted was to fund an "indie" VR solution, you were barking up the wrong tree. If your intention was to convince the market that affordable VR was now a viable option, mission accomplished. This Facebook acquisition makes a consumer-friendly and reasonably priced VR solution more likely, not less likely. Numerous other companies are coming out of the woodwork in a rush to promote their own VR experiments, and they are being taken much more seriously thanks to the trail that Oculus blazed.
Replies
To be fair, they did have their roots in the instant ramen business, taxi services, sex hotels and playing cards before getting into the game business. Maybe the moral of the story is that they dropped everything to focus on the one business that was the most profitable, despite the ceo at the time admitting they hate video games.
Facebook is a social media platform and Oculus is a virtual reality headset. Based on Zuckerberg's post and various other posts from Oculus on their blog it appears that there is intent to have the hardware be used to further social interaction (more than just games), and I'd imagine that would fit hand in hand with Facebook's own agenda in the world of social media.
I think this connection is why people are apprehensive. People saw a huge amount of potential for Oculus as a startup and open platform, and they imagined a piece of hardware that worked independently of things like Facebook accounts and systems run and logged by Facebook and games promoted and run through Facebook. People really don't like Facebook, many don't trust Facebook, and it's not clear what control Facebook will exert over Oculus as more than just hardware but as a platform.
We don't know what Facebook's involvement really means at this point, but Facebook isn't just any company.
If Microsoft & Sony did that, the impact on our industry would be pretty devastating!
This seems like a really sad development, I really cant imagine facebook driving this tech forward in a fun and exciting way.
Haha... Of course they won't get Facebook shares, that's ridiculous.
They donated a bit of money to get the original Oculus dev kit didn't they? They aren't entitled to anything more than that.
This is part of the problem. Facebook isn't and has never been a hardware vendor - their neutrality with regards to the product is not guaranteed and I wouldn't expect it either. I'm already apprehensive about their intentions, as historically they haven't been particularly consumer friendly. They've also demonstrated time and time again that they're really just riding on the unexpected success and subsequent social monopoly of Facebook; most of their ventures outside of the core platform have not fared well.
I know it would never happen but I dont think its completely rediculous expecting some compensation, they donated to a company because they believed in its vision and goals, they didnt just purchase a product.
http://www.arcticstartup.com/2014/03/26/minecraft-creator-drops-potential-oculus-rift-game-after-facebook-aquisition
I can see where he's coming from and I'm hearing a lot of similar sentiment. I wonder what projects like EVE Valkyrie are going to be doing, because I'm pretty sure they won't want to side with Facebook
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/technology/facebook-to-buy-oculus-vr-maker-of-virtual-reality-headset.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=4
The problem I see here is that neither Oculus or Facebook know how to actually achieve that (regardless of how deep their pockets are). The ones who can build such worlds are creative developers like Mojang, since they are more than "idea men" - they actually create interactive environments and make them work within manageable technical creative constraints. Yet they are precisely the ones being alienated by the news of this acquisition.
Also, the excitement about the Rift was not coming from the hardware alone - it also came from seeing things like the UDK demos or Hawken running convincingly on the device. The fact that none of this was mentioned in the press reports is quite worrying. And there is definitely a big shift in direction happening, since the press reports have zero mention of "gaming" in them at all.
I suppose things would have been very different had MZ been funding the 2 billions out of his own pocket instead of doing it through Facebook and FB stocks.
I could see Gates and co looking at the landscape and the ps4 vr and wanting to get onboard without having to risk their own stock. If nothing else, they could "borrow" the engineers and tech from facebook for the xbone version.
Personally not pleased. Do not want to have to use facebook to login. This is hardware that does still need software to run. I already have g+ sifting through my online ordeals, limited they may be. I dont want to have to join yet another social site for the benefit of advertisers just because I want a hardware device.
Also for all tbis is NOT Facebooks first venture into hardware. Does no one remember the Facebook smart phone?
Nope.
Which tells you how good they were at launching it.
.....and now that company/product they belived in has way more resources to further develop its vision and goals? if they paid for a dev kit, its not like they suddenly wont be getting what the paid for. and if they donated to help, well its called a donation not an investment, so they are not entitled to anything. when you are using kickstarter, there is a decent chance you will not get anything in return, you are simply saying you belive in the idea with a donation. This current trend of whiny entitlement culture burns my ass.
the cry baby reaction is rediculous. people just assuming because facebook is a this big company that its going to make it shit. Arsh and jaque choi hit it on the head, this is a good thing. take an interesting product that has vast applications besides gaming and give it the capitol to be fleshed out. People need to stop being so reactive/closed minded.
Almost every startup company starts with the goal of getting big investors or eventually being bought out, thats business 101.
No, they donated for a version of a companies product to get released. Which it did. The agreement with the backers ends there.
see this:
Facebook has no business owning OR, I'd be happier if MS owned it wholly (derp derp I know MS owns part of FB, was just an example). Both are bad but one is not as bad.
FWIW: MS owns a part of Facebook. So, run with that.
I know they own part, I said wholly. MS will only be able to use OR within the terms of an agreement with Facebook, right? Or am I misunderstanding? Facebook still has their hand in the deal
Either way this isn't the end of VR so it isn't a big issue. If anything itll jump start development of more VR hardware to compete with OR, which will make FB very careful of any changes since they wont be the only choice.
People have to realize just because they are "core/hardcore" gamers, if something doesnt fit your own personal tastes or ideas it doesnt mean its wrong or shit. from a business perspective it would make sense to go for a way more general audience like the education sector. The gamer market is still a fraction of the casual/mobile market where they have a much broader audience. Most businesses run on the principal of getting their product into the hands of as many people as possible.
That said I have not seen or read anything where they say they are stopping focusing on games? people are just assuming and spouting reactionary opinions/making themselves sound like they are 10 years old and think their ability to run a lemonade stand instantly gives them the knowledge and experience on how to run a business.
if anything people who belive in occulus, should be happy its going to have the funding to compete with sonys VR tech, instead of just getting steamrolled by a company with much larger resources and thats going to put out similar hardware.
From what I have seen, here and on other forums is a general distrust of Facebook as a whole. In fact I cant recall ever seeing someone say "i love facebook" as the sentiment is usually going the opposite direction.
Its a matter of trust for many, and the dissapointment that a startup that was built up by community funding became part of something giant that is generally disliked.
http://www.reddit.com/user/palmerluckey
Just thought you might find this interesting.
While Facebook might not be made up of altruistic saints, I don't understand why it would be a disaster for them to purchase Oculus VR. Facebook has been very good about keeping their social network platform free-to-use, and they've always been very open about making their software platform and tools open and accessible for developers. The fact that they've never established any major hardware platforms in the past has kept them away from trying to tie their service down to a single physical product.
I'm just a little confused as to the vitriol over this purchase. Is there a particular offense that Facebook has committed? Or are people just annoyed with how this one service has re-shaped the social landscape? I'm also puzzled as to why anyone would associate Facebook as being casual-only when it comes to development. Facebook provides a software platform, they don't dictate what manner of games use that platform. It's up to the developers what manner of games they make.
I mean ... I don't get where that's the wrong thing to do. Where else should they talk about it, MySpace?
You are quite extreme in your interpretations arnt you? Liking something and feeling the need to use something are two completely different things. You dont have to be a fan of a service to feel the need to use it. A great example, one I am sure we all feel, is the use of autodesk products. Using or feeling the need to use such products does not entirely make someone a fan of the corporation behind it.
I would have hoped that would be obvious.
If you wish to classify everyone who is critical of this acquisition as whiners, then I suppose that would make you a whiner who whines about percieved whiners. Idiocracy? How about hypocrisy.
A lot of people use Facebook because they don't want to lose connections with acquaintances and there is extreme inertia preventing the adoption of some other service.
Facebook has a history and reputation. From its beginnings and Zuckerberg's own thoughts and comments to some of the unsavory practices in generating ad money, to the unreliability of services and api, to the immense amount of personal data they have and how people may not want to further integrate other parts of their life into that database; there's reason to be critical of Facebook.
From my understanding the Sony VR is for the PS4, which makes it a different beast entirely for a developer and for the market.
err.. make that 1.54 billion. Facebook shares dropped +3.5% , early this morning
http://kotaku.com/oculus-kickstarter-backers-are-demanding-refunds-1552041702
Like, did you know that when you start to type something (rant about your boss?), but don't publish it, Facebook keeps a copy of it ? Interesting uh.
Now i'm pretty sure every move you'll make will be tracked, so companies could adapt their marketing strategy with a very short feedback. People could be fine with it. Obviously they already are with Facebook, sharing all their life on it. But I don't really like to be tracked, even more when it's not explicit. And i can complain on Facebook about Facebook, and its EULA changing all the time, and confidenciality options beeing suddenly reseted, without beeing schizophrenic.
Right facebook is "good" for OR, because of money.
No way in heck will I touch a headset with facebooks logo or UI. Ads have no place on the rift.
what's so interesting about it?
there's a pattern in all these aquisitions where they say things like "it's not going to change us at all". two years down the line things might look a little different - and usually do.
also: he has presumably just been made very rich. he might also have no choice but to defend it to honour his contract or he might actually believe what he says. lastly he might not have had much of a say in the sale of the company (probably owned by VC's with a majority stake after those several rounds of funding post kickstarter?).
anyway, facebook is not regarded as a trustworthy company with high standards for morals and ethics. and those people you want to see leading the charge for VR (not walled-garden microsoft- or sony-style)?
about the only good thing i can see for now is that the oculus is still only a monitor with a motion tracker attached. no way for facebook to do what they seem to do best - for now.
also they actually seem to have money and could pursue things at a scale that sony and MS would likley not bother with.
i'm considering putting in a preorder now for the DK2. after all the aquisition will not have stained it so far, it'll still be open for the forseeable future and it has no competition as of yet. we can port to other solutions later down the road if and when they become available.
I posted that to illustrate the short memory of internet rage, nobody seems to recall when Sony was considered evil incarnate.
Disney bought out Marvel 5 years ago.
But let me cherry pick a few of the comments from the polycount thread:
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65372
Gotta point out that none of that happened, and Marvel is better now than it ever has been.
They even somehow brought Miracle Man back to print!
Funny enough, Justin Meisse even mentioned in that same post something that is VERY relevant to this current topic:
TBH though you're not alone. Seems to be many assumptions on here that not only is everyone on FB, but its neccesary to be.
There's a big difference between having a facebook account so that you can only accept party invites and write e-mails (the essential things that you can't do without), and actively using it to repeatedly post that you hate it, while dropping ridiculous posts about what you ate for lunch that day (actively using all the features that you don't need).
That's like somebody complaining that the world is running out of energy, while leaving every one of his electrical devices on all the time.
I cant speak for the rest since non of my current titles are marvel, but the Disney Channel did in fact do Marvel. Ultimate Spiderman, Avengers Assemble, Hulk and S.M.A.S.H. All watered down and sifted without the strife Marvel characters go through to a large degree.
Yeah I know that officially that is the line to take but you have to admit people do get sentimental about the things they back. They often back it with the hope that the company they are supporting will succeed in creating a wonderful product, oculus hasnt even publicly released a product yet and already they have been devoured by a giant corporation. That hardly seems the outcome that backers were hoping for. Personally I dont care much and didnt back Oculus but I can totally understand people who did getting upset about it and I dont think they are just being whiny for the sake of it. Hopefully something good does come of this.
On that same note, it is we the developers job to dictate what manner of games/simulations/what have you are produced for a VR headset like the Rift. This is as true for VR headsets as it is for Facebook itself.
I think part of the reason why there is "beef" between the game development community and Facebook is because of what happened to Zynga. Zynga made their start with a game that leveraged Facebook in a specific way to drive adoption and exposure. But after a while Facebook decided to alter its policies and close off the loophole that Zynga was using to promote their software. Because of a change that Facebook made to their software platform, Zynga was left out in the cold, and their business suffered because of it.
You could easily lay the blame for that situation on Facebook. But you could also argue that Zynga dug their own grave. The fact that so much of their product hinged on a single feature was a design decision that Zynga was responsible for. The fact that they scaled their business up prematurely was also their call.
Every horror story I hear about Facebook is usually the fault of the user, not of Facebook itself. The public has been far too used to treating the internet as an anonymity playground. Anyone familiar with the back-end workings of IT could have explained long ago that such assumptions are, and always have been, a mistake. If you put anything, ANYTHING, on-line, you are on the grid.
I would argue it went into A) the development of the initial runs of OR devkits and
*fixes side parted hair, tightens suspenders, and pushes up lensless glasses* "yea, occulus used to be cool before they went all mainstream and sold out" *drives away on fixie bike *
At the end of the day, the OUYA was produced. I see it on store shelves when I go shopping. Many claim that it is a failure, doomed to play second-fiddle to "real" consoles. As far as I'm concerned, its kickstarter is an example of success. Mission accomplished.
The same holds true for Oculus. If all you wanted was to fund an "indie" VR solution, you were barking up the wrong tree. If your intention was to convince the market that affordable VR was now a viable option, mission accomplished. This Facebook acquisition makes a consumer-friendly and reasonably priced VR solution more likely, not less likely. Numerous other companies are coming out of the woodwork in a rush to promote their own VR experiments, and they are being taken much more seriously thanks to the trail that Oculus blazed.