Support NeoGAF

[orborborb]

You can rationalize that this outcome "is the best chance for the idea to succeed" but history is not on your side with that argument. Facebook doesn't bring anything to their grand vision except money, money they could get from any number of other places. All Facebook had to offer was MORE money. If they had been bought by a company with related expertise you could make some plausible argument that they did what was best for the long-term success of their idea. Although even then I believe history is mostly on the side of it being entirely new companies having the best chance of popularizing a radical technological shift.

So yes, they just went with the largest check, which is perfectly fine when that's what the people behind the idea agree to and even the people who think they are compromising their dream are well-compensated, but MONUMENTALLY unethical in the case of a kickstarter. Anyone who gave them money, time, or even just attention in "spreading the word" should feel like they were scammed because they were.

 

[Mindwipe]

If that happens I wonder if he will keep his word.

It's worth noting that if you go and look at the context of that he edited the post to make the line breaks work. The first sentence in each point is a quote, not a statement by Palmer.

So it's not that he's saying he'd quit if it was Facebook branded - he's saying to an indie dev who wants to quit if it's Facebook branded that it would be unreasonable to do so.

Which is about as big a confirmation that it's going to be Facebook branded as you're gonna get.

 

[amdnv]

You are making stuff up and yelling at clouds. There is literally ZERO information that even remotely leans toward the stuff you've been saying in this thread. You're just being hyperbolic.

Between the following two use scenarios, which is more likely for Facebook:
a) A realistic VR first person shooter.
b) A realistic VR clothing store that lets you look at the items, "try them on", buy them and immediately post a screenshot to your Facebook timeline.

The above is not a "prediction" as you keep saying. I'm not predicting specific things. I'm giving examples of what I consider in line with Facebook's intentions.

 

[Nicktals]

You can rationalize that this outcome "is the best chance for the idea to succeed" but history is not on your side with that argument. Facebook doesn't bring their idea anything except money, money they could get from any number of other places. All Facebook had to offer was MORE money. If they had been bought by a company with expertise related to their idea you could make some plausible argument that they did what was best for the long-term success of their idea. Although even then I believe history is mostly on the side of it being entirely new companies having the best chance of popularizing a radical technological shift.

So yes, they just went with the largest check, which is perfectly fine when that's what the people behind the idea agree to and even the people who think they are compromising their dream are well-compensated, but MONUMENTALLY unethical in the case of a kickstarter. Anyone who gave them money, time, or even just attention in "spreading the word" should feel like they were scammed because they were.

Didn't they get exactly what the kickstarter promised? Or are they waiting to finish shipping DK2 before sending t-shirts?

 

[orborborb]

Didn't they get exactly what the kickstarter promised? Or are they waiting to finish shipping DK2 before sending t-shirts?

"Kickstarter is not a store" https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store

 

[jet1911]

Between the following two use scenarios, which is more likely for Facebook:
a) A realistic VR first person shooter.
b) A realistic VR clothing store that lets you look at the items, "try them on", buy them and immediately post a screenshot to your Facebook timeline.

The above is not a "prediction" as you keep saying. I'm not predicting specific things. I'm giving examples of what I consider in line with Facebook's intentions.

So you don't think relaistic FPS will be released with OR support? Am I reading this right?

 

[plagiarize]

You can rationalize that this outcome "is the best chance for the idea to succeed" but history is not on your side with that argument. Facebook doesn't bring their idea anything except money, money they could get from any number of other places. All Facebook had to offer was MORE money. If they had been bought by a company with expertise related to their idea you could make some plausible argument that they did what was best for the long-term success of their idea. Although even then I believe history is mostly on the side of it being entirely new companies having the best chance of popularizing a radical technological shift.

So yes, they just went with the largest check, which is perfectly fine when that's what the people behind the idea agree to and even the people who think they are compromising their dream are well-compensated, but MONUMENTALLY unethical in the case of a kickstarter. Anyone who gave them money, time, or even just attention in "spreading the word" should feel like they were scammed because they were.

stop this factually inaccurate bullshit. the kickstarter is over. they have fulfilled every obligation they had to everyone who backed them when the Rift Dev Kit became a real product people could buy, and when they finished shipping the pledge bonuses out to everyone who pledged.

they are no more beholden to their kickstarter backers than any one else. If Double Fine's next game is a military Call of Duty knock off funded by EA, that has nothing to do with the Broken Age kickstarter. If any backers of Broken Age thought Double Fine had a moral obligation to them to never make a subsequent product they didn't like, they would be stupid as shit.

"Kickstarter is not a store" https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store

While you're on their website you should stop by their FAQ and educate yourself on what a kickstarter even is.

 

[Yoda]

"According to a person involved in the deal who was not allowed to speak publicly because he was not authorized by either company, Facebook eventually plans to redesign the Oculus hardware and rebrand it with a Facebook interface and logo."

There is no facts here, only hearsay from someone who "MIGHT" be part of the deal. This is confirmation of nothing, and shitty reporting.

Its the NYT... Their sources aren't random hobos on the street, they are vetted and only make it in their reports if there is a high certainty they are leaking accurate information. Is there a chance its wrong? Sure. Is the chance its right much much higher than it being wrong? Yep.

 

[amdnv]

Facebook/Oculus NEED PC gamers with high end PCs to make VR a viable medium, before they can do the other things they want to do. They need gaming to take off FIRST.

Really? I think a virtual Walmart would bring VR to the masses much more quickly than a high end racing game. How about a chatroom with VR avatars? There are tons and tons of possibilities for Facebook, and very few of them have anything to do with hardcore gaming.

 

[Violater]

I'm out of this thread. 100 pages of nonsense. What a waste of lifetime.

50 Pages here lol.
Guess that gaf gold paid off.

 

[KHarvey16]

So yes, they just went with the largest check, which is perfectly fine when that's what the people behind the idea agree to and even the people who think they are compromising their dream are well-compensated, but MONUMENTALLY unethical in the case of a kickstarter. Anyone who gave them money, time, or even just attention in "spreading the word" should feel like they were scammed because they were.

What do they owe them after they shipped them the thing they purchased?

 

[-COOLIO-]

He can't.

he could when he's contractually allowed too. he's not stuck at facebook life.

 

[Chili]

Between the following two use scenarios, which is more likely for Facebook:
a) A realistic VR first person shooter.
b) A realistic VR clothing store that lets you look at the items, "try them on", buy them and immediately post a screenshot to your Facebook timeline.

The above is not a "prediction" as you keep saying. I'm not predicting specific things. I'm giving examples of what I consider in line with Facebook's intentions.

Why either/or? It is perfectly plausible that VR will be used for both purposes.

 

[bonercop]

So it's not that he's saying he'd quit if it was Facebook branded - he's saying to an indie dev who wants to quit if it's Facebook branded that it would be unreasonable to do so.

no he's saying that what that indie dev wrote sounded silly on it's face("unreasonable in a literal sense"), but he understood what the indie dev was getting at.

so basically a non-response.

 

[Seanspeed]

Between the following two use scenarios, which is more likely for Facebook:
a) A realistic VR first person shooter.
b) A realistic VR clothing store that lets you look at the items, "try them on", buy them and immediately post a screenshot to your Facebook timeline.

The above is not a "prediction" as you keep saying. I'm not predicting specific things. I'm giving examples of what I consider in line with Facebook's intentions.

Both. Along with a dozen other cool VR experiences and games.

Oculus doing well in the gaming sphere is very important for VR's long-term viability.

 

[raebodep]

It's worth noting that if you go and look at the context of that he edited the post to make the line breaks work. The first sentence in each point is a quote, not a statement by Palmer.

So it's not that he's saying he'd quit if it was Facebook branded - he's saying to an indie dev who wants to quit if it's Facebook branded that it would be unreasonable to do so.

Which is about as big a confirmation that it's going to be Facebook branded as you're gonna get.

I think you're right.

 

[Gorillaz]

So you don't think relaistic FPS will be released with OR support? Am I reading this right?

games will be released with the OR

but if people think the device will still be a pure gaming focused experience, then they probably should remember what type of business facebook is into

 

[Wiktor]

Between the following two use scenarios, which is more likely for Facebook:
a) A realistic VR first person shooter.
b) A realistic VR clothing store that lets you look at the items, "try them on", buy them and immediately post a screenshot to your Facebook timeline.

The above is not a "prediction" as you keep saying. I'm not predicting specific things. I'm giving examples of what I consider in line with Facebook's intentions.

So according to you Facebook will be doing all the software inhouse? No other dev will be able to use that hardware?

 

[MaLDo]

 

[-COOLIO-]

It's worth noting that if you go and look at the context of that he edited the post to make the line breaks work. The first sentence in each point is a quote, not a statement by Palmer.

So it's not that he's saying he'd quit if it was Facebook branded - he's saying to an indie dev who wants to quit if it's Facebook branded that it would be unreasonable to do so.

Which is about as big a confirmation that it's going to be Facebook branded as you're gonna get.

good catch. and his responses are perfectly reasonable.

 

[Ganondolf]

So according to you Facebook will be doing all the software inhouse? No other dev will be able to use that hardware?

think facebook games. they are made by external devs on facebook's platform. how many high end shooters are on facebook?

 

[Chili]

he could when he's contractually allowed too. he's not stuck at facebook life.

Facebook paid as much for the talent as they did for the hardware. They could cobble together a $2 billion VR machine, but there is only a limited amount of talent in the industry. That's why tech companies get bought out all the time.

It makes no sense for them to pay top dollar to get the likes of Carmack and Palmer Luckey (and the rest of the team) in their company, only to upset them by forcing Oculus into something they don't want to do. They will want to retain that talent-pool, and they will do so by allowing them to keep to their vision.

 

[jet1911]

games will be released with the OR

but if people think the device will still be a pure gaming focused experience, then they probably should remember what type of business facebook is into

So what if it's not just gaming focussed? What do you think they'll do, release a shitty product? What's the difference between a device that is focussed on gaming and one that is not?

 

[Jeevez]

Should we change the title for the thread to be "acquired oculus for $1.9 billion"? Facebook stock down 6% today. So it seems shareholders weren't happy with the purchase and neither were the majority of oculus supporters so in the end who was this done for?

 

[plagiarize]

Really? I think a virtual Walmart would bring VR to the masses much more quickly than a high end racing game. How about a chatroom with VR avatars? There are tons and tons of possibilities for Facebook, and very few of them have anything to do with gaming.

right now the hardware costs of a headset, and the hardware costs of a system running that headset are not something Walmart shoppers or people looking to dabble in a VR chatroom are going to remotely consider paying.

think of it like a console launch. while the price tag is high, you target the hardcore gamers who are willing to pay it. as you can bring costs down over the next few years, THEN you start leveraging the device to a wider audience.

Oculus are not going to turn around and say 'actually low framerates and resolutions are fine' because they know that a half assed VR headset is only going to kill the excitement for the technology.

For the next few years, that means your audience is hard core gamers. As they sell more, and costs come down on both the hardware and development side, we'll see that focus changing. You only get to the point where you can sell the product when your product has reached a mass market price, with demonstrated appeal.

Even if Facebook just leverage the hardcore for the first few years, and then forget all about us (like, say, Microsoft did with the Xbox One) a competitor WILL fill that void, because even if Facebook's new markets are more lucrative, no one is going to leave a proven lucrative market just sitting there, not when it's already demonstrated that other companies can enter the space.

For example, why *wouldn't* Nvidia launch a VR headset if the Rift abandoned high end PC gaming? Can you think of a single reason?

 

[-COOLIO-]

Facebook paid as much for the talent as they did for the hardware. They could cobble together a $2 billion VR machine, but there is only a limited amount of talent in the industry. That's why tech companies get bought out all the time.

It makes no sense for them to pay top dollar to get the likes of Carmack and Palmer Luckey (and the rest of the team) in their company, only to upset them by forcing Oculus into something they don't want to do. They will want to retain that talent-pool, and they will do so by allowing them to keep to their vision.

exactly. he's going to get a ton of freedom and room to go where he wants to with the rift. consumer version 1 will kick ass.

 

[KHarvey16]

think facebook games. they are made by external devs on facebook's platform. how many high end shooters are on facebook?

Why don't you go and grab the technical hat from your closet and posit a reason why high end FPS's might not be best suited for a website interface.

 

[Sub_Level]

Yeah, I don't base the success of the gaming industry on "nuanced" feelings from rabid die-hards. Quality is subjectively measured and the mewling of a vocal minority don't really mean shit. Of course that's opinion but I'm sure I'll hear someone tell me I'm wrong.

The point is there will be no "eating their own" because the mentality now for some is "us vs them". A crash wouldn't be as unwelcome for the vocal minority as you think it would be. There would be no irony.

 

[plagiarize]

think facebook games. they are made by external devs on facebook's platform. how many high end shooters are on facebook?

how many people are going to spend $200-$300 next year to buy a headset to play Farmville on what would need to be a PC that cost thousands of dollars?

basically no one. that isn't a viable market yet. it will be in three or four years, when PC's can easily handle VR's minimum requirements, and the headset manufacturing costs have scaled down, but that only happens if people buy it in the first place.

and right now, the most viable market is the kind of people that build and buy gaming PCs. for at least the next two or three years.

 

[MemoryHumanity]

Does this necessarily mean that we won't ever see proper PC/console games supporting Oculus Rift? Just Facebook stuff? If so, why?

 

[Gorillaz]

So what if it's not just gaming focussed? What do you think they'll do, release a shitty product? What's the difference between a device that is focussed on gaming and one that is not?

Where did I say it was going to be shitty?

I just said Facebook probably going for moren then just gaming. Most likely a more virtual social world.

 

[atr0cious]

Yes, but when a big player enters the arena with $2 billion, it won't let others decide on the direction. Which is exactly why I hate this acquisition.

I think your rage might be because of a fundemental misunderstanding of what Virtual Reality is. It is a medium, something to interact with. It is not a commodity. It cannot be bought or sold or traded. All Facebook can do is sell keys to it. That is why they bought OR. They can have the best keys to the new world, and people will willingly give them money because the experience is so good. If there are ads on your experience you downloaded them yourself.

Oculus has talked about staying independent. If that is true, then them looking for funding from Facebook cannot be true, as told by rumors that Zuckypoo was in their office a month ago. People are probably throwing money at them, because they know people will throw money at the perfect experience. It's that simple.

 

[-tetsuo-]

I laughed

 

[Zeth]

think facebook games. they are made by external devs on facebook's platform. how many high end shooters are on facebook?

Really? So just farmville style micro transaction stuff for Oculus? You think that will be the result of Oculus? As a platform that continues to be open, and encourages all types of developers.

 

[Ganondolf]

Facebook paid as much for the talent as they did for the hardware. They could cobble together a $2 billion VR machine, but there is only a limited amount of talent in the industry. That's why tech companies get bought out all the time.

It makes no sense for them to pay top dollar to get the likes of Carmack and Palmer Luckey (and the rest of the team) in their company, only to upset them by forcing Oculus into something they don't want to do. They will want to retain that talent-pool, and they will do so by allowing them to keep to their vision.

part of the contract probably states that they stay till the tech is complete to a certain level which will give enough time for facebook to learn and train staff to replace them. I expect them to stay a year or so before they move on.

 

[amdnv]

So according to you Facebook will be doing all the software inhouse? No other dev will be able to use that hardware?

I don't think that the product will be a standard display that you can freely use with anything. I'd expect something similar to an iPhone (if that's technologically possible, since it obviously won't come with its own operating system).

 

[KHarvey16]

Does this necessarily mean that we won't ever see proper PC/console games supporting Oculus Rift? Just Facebook stuff? If so, why?

Of course not. And both Facebook and Oculus have said as much but you'd never know it reading this thread.

 

[Archaix]

no he's saying that what that indie dev wrote sounded silly on it's face("unreasonable in a literal sense"), but he understood what the indie dev was getting at.

so basically a non-response.

He's saying it's unreasonable to expect that there won't be Facebook branding on it.


But the NYT rumor is completely unsubstantiated and nobody should ever believe reports that don't have a name attached to them, because they're never right.

 

[Violater]

Should make the f look like a tear falling out.

 

[KennyL]

Instead of growing organically, oculus have put themselves in hyper bubble. That $100m private investment is classic pump and dump that benefit the investors the most. Oculus will over extend themselves (look at their job openings) and head into areas beyond their core focus too soon, which could very well put themselves in much more vulnerable position in long run.

 

[Ganondolf]

Really? So just farmville style micro transaction stuff for Oculus? You think that will be the result of Oculus? As a platform that continues to be open, and encourages all types of developers.

facebook needs to make money, these type of games are what people on facebook play. facebook is not going after sony/MS market.

 

[btrboyev]

The best part of all this is Zuckerburg going on record saying this after their last big acquisition of whatsapp earlier this year.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-02-25/news/47670826_1_mark-zuckerberg-whatsapp-snapchat

 

[optimiss]

for 2 billion dollars, he'll do as he's fucking told

I wonder if he is contractually obligated to stay at Oculus though. Couldn't he just jump ship if things get bad and take his knowledge and clout and start a competing VR product?

 

[orborborb]

What do they owe them after they shipped them the thing they purchased?

Obviously legally they don't owe them anything. Ethically, they merely betrayed the people who are most responsible for their success.

 

[Zeth]

Does this necessarily mean that we won't ever see proper PC/console games supporting Oculus Rift? Just Facebook stuff? If so, why?

No, that's incredibly ridiculous. I think much of irrational outrage and speculation will die out in the coming months, especially after Oculus announce further news. It's been stated clearly that it will remain an open platform. If a dev wants to torture you with unskippable pop-up video ads, that's their choice. It's not turning into a walled garden Facebook device - that much is very clear.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Between the following two use scenarios, which is more likely for Facebook:
a) A realistic VR first person shooter.
b) A realistic VR clothing store that lets you look at the items, "try them on", buy them and immediately post a screenshot to your Facebook timeline.

The above is not a "prediction" as you keep saying. I'm not predicting specific things. I'm giving examples of what I consider in line with Facebook's intentions.

The way OR is right now...How could facebook or anyone else stop any random developer from making a realistic VR shooter?

 

[marrec]

Obviously legally they don't owe them anything. Ethically, they merely betrayed the people who are most responsible for their success.

Did they already do that by taking on VC money earlier this year?

 

[Haunted]

 

[Ganondolf]

Why don't you go and grab the technical hat from your closet and posit a reason why high end FPS's might not be best suited for a website interface.

because facebook has been around for along time and no sane dev would spend the dev costs on a game on a facebook platform, facebook works on micro transaction and ads.

 

[KHarvey16]

Obviously legally they don't owe them anything. Ethically, they merely betrayed the people who are most responsible for their success.

So they betrayed the people who wanted them to succeed by succeeding. They're more clever than I gave them credit for!

This has been an exercise in watching people scramble to justify ignorant emotional reactions. I'm sure some people feel betrayed, but the fact is they're wrong.