Drop "the".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Facebook denies claim it will rebrand Oculus
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
Drop "the".
it's a legit issue that Oculus is now Facebook.
Facebook and gamers are not a combo (see: the Internet right now).
say what you will about what Facebook's actual plans are for the device - this acquisition has already massively tainted the Oculus brand among the ostensible early-adopters.
sure: wait and see is a good idea, but there has already been damage done here.
Facebook and gamers are not a combo (see: the Internet right now).
say what you will about what Facebook's actual plans are for the device - this acquisition has already massively tainted the Oculus brand among the ostensible early-adopters.
sure: wait and see is a good idea, but there has already been damage done here.
This. Also facebook has some good engineers on its team and they are pretty active in the open source community (https://github.com/facebook), so it can be a boon to the rift dev tools.
MaschinenZimmer
Banned
It doesn't matter what he says, if Zuckerberg wants to call it the Facefuck and only support Blackberrys then all he can do is to either agree it or to leave. His words have no weight now and the fact that our cute fb overlord already said otherwise should tell you more than enough.
no. the name *definitely* matters. "facebook place" guarantees failure for this thing
Yes it has - it pulled all Twitter integration because Facebook didn't want to support a competitor, started censoring hashtags and attempted the biggest copyright landgrab in history that had to be undone as it was creating a genuine risk of collapsing the entire service.
I don't mean names don't matter, I mean the name changing isn't indicative of Facebook exerting undue influence over Oculus.no. the name *definitely* matters. "facebook place" guarantees failure for this thing
The first I'll give you was a legitimate change. The second - which is largely for the sake of culling adult content, which was always against Instagram ToS anyway - was an inevitable change as Instagram grew larger. The third was a total misunderstanding and actually-positive change that was misinterpreted and blown out of proportion.
curious to see so many conflating the acquisition of oculus with instagram. two different companies - why should Facebook treat one like the other?
they are different. they have different goals. they will be treated differently, according to how Facebook sees them as part of their business.
they are different. they have different goals. they will be treated differently, according to how Facebook sees them as part of their business.
flyinpiranha
Member
Fixed that for you.
it definitely needs a "cool" name. i really think that gamers are going to be the first folk willing to shell out a few hundred bucks for something like this, so putting any kind of obvious facebook branding on it is complete suicide for your early adopters.
i wouldn't be surprised to see "oculus" stay. if they move to a more mass-market virtual-tours and sporting events product later they can sub-brand it or something if they think "oculus" it too alienating (i'm not sure it is, actually... it's a decent name overall).
And that's why I'm only post #66. :lol
I see what you did there.
Black Door
Banned
All of this overreaction is like when Disney bought Marvel and the rights to Star Wars, and lots of wingnuts were claiming that they were going to bury the IPs or Wolverine was going to stop killing people or Mickey Mouse was going to join X-Force or something
It's not really like that at all.
In your scenario Disney is not like Facebook, a company that has next to no knowledge in hardware. On the contrary, Disney is basically built on the ideas of shoving their IPs in everyone's faces. They had the money and the in house knowledge of the product. Facebook does not.
No one's saying that there aren't extremely talented people at Facebook.
It will be called the "Social Rift".
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Unless each Rift has a built in heads up display for Facebook notifications that cannot be turned off, I'm not immediately worried. I'm just hoping the social angle Facebook will obviously influence future development aligns with gaming.
You do know that Nintendo started as a playing card company right?
I fail to see the relevance. Nintendo is still making playing cards if Pokemon is anything to go by
.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
I think this is a pretty good matchup after having considered it.
Can't wait for VR.
Can't wait for VR.
+more slime
I fail to see the relevance. Nintendo is still making playing cards if Pokemon is anything to go by
There was a moment in time when Nintendo branched out into consumer electronics and everyone wondered what the hell business a playing card company had with video games.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
You'll still be able to play Candy Crush on the Foculus Facerift.
Facebook does have a team with in-house knowledge of VR tech. It's called the Oculus team, and why anyone would imagine Facebook is dumb enough to put anyone else in charge of figuring out the best uses for the technology when they just paid $2 billion to acquire some of the brightest minds in the field is beyond me.
Paracelsus
Member
Put in the OP that it's "Q/A", the first line in each paragraph is not what Palmer said, only what comes after it. It means the OR will be rebranded, that you're a kid if you refuse to develop FarmVRille and that it's not their fault when everyone starts putting ads in their games.
So are you disagreeing with any of the points I stated? Or just stating an example and using that as justification? One can make a bad decision and get a desired result from it, this situation obviously applies.
It's parsed incorrectly in OP's image. Palmer, is quoting someone else's post. It should be like this:
OP - If I ever need a Facebook account to use or develop for the Rift, I'm done.
PL - You will not need a Facebook account to use or develop for the Rift.
OP - If I ever see Facebook branding on anything that's not optional, I'm done.
PL - Not really reasonable in a literal sense, but I get your drift.
OP - If I ever see ads on anything that I've already paid for, I'm done.
PL - That is a developer decision, not our decision. If someone wants to sell a game with built-in ads, they will have to deal with the natural consequences.
I'm saying that it's a silly justification for outrage to say that a business has not historically been interested in a sector considering they are now demonstrably interested in that sector.
Ahhh, alright. Makes sense now.
SuperSonic1305
Member
So Palmer is admitting that he is done?
Mushroomer25
Member
Surprise surprise, they're NOT planning on intentionally shitting all over a $2 Billion acquisition. I get that people hate Facebook, but you'd assume people could at least trust their business savvy.
Discotheque
Banned
Well I thought tech like this would be awesome for way more than just gaming. If the Facebook acquisition allows for research into using this for concert streams and virtual tours and such then so be it.
I just hope they leave the gaming portion alone and let them do their thing. I wonder if John Carmack will stay. Did he get stock options when he joined oculus? If so god damn dude got even richer in so short a time frame
I just hope they leave the gaming portion alone and let them do their thing. I wonder if John Carmack will stay. Did he get stock options when he joined oculus? If so god damn dude got even richer in so short a time frame
Who's saying that? I'm saying they're not qualified as a software company.
But then when it came to videogames they shutdown lucasarts, fired everyone, and signed a contract giving EA all the future titles.
WarMacheen
Member
Facebook doesn't give a shit about the users. It only cares about generating revenue, but it is a business. To think the OC will remain unchanged is just being naive. It will change just as Facebook itself has changed. If Zuck and company can figure out a way to leverage a pay scheme or environment that is vastly in their favor, that is the way they will ultimately go. At the same time they will tell the users the changes are in their best interest. I mean what kind of shitbag company tries to steal the intellectual rights of user photos with no way to opt out, unless you simply delete the account. As we've seen with Facebook itself, even deleting the account wouldn't have meant it was gone, never to be seen again.
I'd hope 'early adopters' were smarter than needing some flashy tech branding to sell the system.
I think the Rift is going to sell whatever it'd sell even with the Facebook name, but more importantly, the people who don't care about gaming might be attracted if it's marketed as social/virtual tourism device, with a brand they believe in.
At this point, anyone who cares about the Rift already knows Oculus is under Facebook, the name isn't going to let the cat out the bag.
meanspartan
Member
Maybe he knows what he is doing, but I'm starting to feel like there is a slight chance he got outplayed in this deal by Zuckerberg and co. Just yesterday he was promising no ads around the same time Zuckerberg was contradicting him in a meeting.
Of course, his share of this deal is presumably tens of millions of dollars. So can't really say he is the "loser" here. But as far as keeping power over his baby, I have concerns that he thinks he still has more than he actually does.
A billion, no?
He would have retained 51% of Oculus until the sale, Oculus sold for $2B.
meanspartan
Member
Oh ok, then yep a billion.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Sure, in all reality, but ostensibly, before the sale, Oculus VR was its own independent entity.
Mushroomer25
Member
Palmer was promising no ads in the basic interface. In other words, you wouldn't see an ad just for using the Rift. It would all be software-side & optional - which Zuckerberg was outlining.
I actually had forgotten about this... this is nothing to overlook. A partnership would of been the best case scenario for Oculus, instead now Oculus is at the mercy of a publicly traded company. This scenario is a far cry from what actually created the wave of enthusiasm for the Rift, so I can totally understand how most people have reacted to this negatively.
Essentially, I feel facebook is trying to secure its relevancy for the future... and this is what really pisses me off about the whole thing. After everything, the kickstarter, all the adoration it has garnered through the gaming community, the advancements made from DK1 to DK2... all this is really going to be used to keep facebook from going the way of myspace, and that right there is a total shame in my eyes.
Only 200 million in cash though! And .8 billion in Facebook stock.