Top
280°

John Carmack Finally Talks About Facebook's Acquisition Of Oculus VR

It is no secret that a lot of developers and gamers got upset with the recent news about Facebook’s acquisition of Oculus VR. Naturally, a lot of people wanted to see what John Carmack had to say about this whole thing and at last, Carmack shared his first thoughts about it.

Read Full Story >>
dsogaming.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Godmars2901332d ago

Its not what he has to say about, its whether or not he'll still be with the project outside of six months.

SteamPowered1332d ago

Im still hoping he runs into Valve's loving arms and finishes their VR tech.

Clover9041332d ago

Are you a Valve insider? Because Valve has said that they have no interest in releasing their own VR headset and are currently collaborating with Oculus for Oculus's eventual consumer model.

aliengmr1332d ago (Edited 1332d ago )

How does Oculus hiring Valve's VR expert sit with you?

@3-4-5

Tell me you're joking?

Those people don't but smart phones that strap to your head.

My wife is that market, and I can tell you getting her to wear a Rift is not going to be easy no matter how much to Facebook it up.

SteamPowered1331d ago

@Clover,
dude, Valve said that they would work with Oculus in January before the Facebook buyout. All bets are off now, son.

Clover9041331d ago (Edited 1331d ago )

"dude, Valve said that they would work with Oculus in January before the Facebook buyout. All bets are off now, son."

@SteamPowered - And where did you hear that Valve isn't working with Oculus because of the sale. I've been following the sale very closely, and haven't once read anything like that. Oculus just hire Valve's top VR engineer so he can work on VR full time. You need to stop with all your nonsense conjecture, son.

starchild1331d ago

No, I doubt Valve are having the same kind of knee-jerk reactions as a lot of people. They are probably talking to Oculus and Facebook behind the scenes about the future of VR on the PC.

As far as Carmack's comments, well, it's all reasonable stuff.

-“Much of the ranting has been emotional or tribal, but I am interested in reading coherent viewpoints about objective outcomes.”

You can say that again. Much of the ranting has been extremely irrational and driven by emotion, not critical thinking.

-“I think they can give us a lot of positive guidance. I want enumeration of the vague evils to beware of.”

Yeah, that would be nice. But instead we get "Facebook is evil because...well...um...well...b ecause they are"..."wait, I know!...it's because they use ads to make money". I guess these people don't realize that much of the internet would disappear without advertising dollars. These people seem to think that businesses run on air, sunshine and smiles.

cemelc1331d ago

What do you mean by irrational @starchild?

I think its fair to fear this buyout:

-First: facebook is not a gaming company they dont care about specs, or improving the medium.

-Second: one mayor developer dropped as soon as this was found out.

-Third: the now owner of the company was talking about branching the product.

-Four: This project was a kickstarter, i actually went out of my way and gave money, Where is my money now? i didnt pay for this.

If you are not concerned, well you have a problem.

starchild1331d ago (Edited 1331d ago )

-"First: facebook is not a gaming company they dont care about specs, or improving the medium."

Baseless assertion. How do you know they don't care about specs or improving VR? They have clearly stated their intention to help Oculus "build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games". Now, you can claim that they are lying, but what evidence to you have?

And the fact that they aren't a videogame company is irrelevant. Sony wasn't a videogame company until...it was. Google wasn't in the smartphone or tablet market until it decided to be. You have to start somewhere. Facebook is simply trying to diversify the way most successful companies do.

-"Second: one mayor developer dropped as soon as this was found out."

Notch acted rashly. He has a history of behaving this way. He is always trying to appear edgy and "against the man", but to me he seems like a bit of a hypocrite. He had no problem taking a huge payment from Microsoft for timed exclusivity of Minecraft on the 360. I'm not saying Microsoft is a horrible company, but they've made more mistakes than Facebook in my opinion.

The majority of developers are going to continue working with Oculus. (read this: http://www.ign.com/articles... ) And with their new infusion of cash Oculus will likely be able to forge lots of new partnerships with developers to bring even more games to VR.

-"Third: the now owner of the company was talking about branching the product."

And? Why is this a bad thing? Branching out into other applications for VR has always been talked about by Oculus and in the VR community in general. Being a good VR headset for gaming and a good VR headset for virtual tourism or social interaction are not mutually exclusive things. Gaming is going to be the first driving force behind the adoption of VR, but it will naturally branch out from there and this is nothing but a good thing. It won't take away from gaming on the Rift, merely add to it.

-"Four: This project was a kickstarter, i actually went out of my way and gave money, Where is my money now? i didnt pay for this."

I gave my money as well. What did we get? An already incredible DK1 version of the Rift. Lots of great experiences using it. A chance to be part of something so revolutionary. And the opportunity to help a company get off the ground and get a real shot at making the VR dream a reality.

This last thing has a better chance of happening now than it ever did before. The worse thing that could have happened to Oculus is for a more well-funded company to have stepped into the VR arena with a better, more affordable VR headset and have Oculus be left by the wayside defeated and a mere footnote in the history of VR. Now they have an actual shot at being the ones to bring VR to the world and be the dominant force in VR on the PC for years to come.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1331d ago
3-4-51332d ago

The Facebook crowd most likely a lot of them have expensive iphones/smart phones. Heck, most people do now anyways.

Those devices are NOT cheap.

This Oculus will NOT be cheap, but mixing it with facebook could sucker those same people into buying one of these once it hits market.

* Half of Oculus's sales, if they market it right, will be "Nintendo Wii casual " sales, of the Oculus because it's promised "social" features.

WOMEN will spend money on this thing, and Zuckerberg knows it.

ATi_Elite1331d ago

"WOMEN will spend money on this thing, and Zuckerberg knows it."

LMAO! Women don't want to mess up their hair wearing this thing!

ATi_Elite1331d ago

"John Carmack Finally Talks About Facebook's Acquisition Of Oculus VR"

while doing a 150 mph in his new Ferrari John says.........

"Oculus Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiift, vroooooooooom vrooooooom"

Neonridr1332d ago

Zuckerberg stated that Oculus will still run itself. And that the gaming side of the device will still be handled by Oculus VR solely. He understands that the gaming aspect of this device is the top priority. Zuckerberg clearly wanted this product so he could explore other untapped sources utilized through social integration. As long as it doesn't interfere with a VR device for gaming on my PC, then I have no objections to this sale whatsoever.

For those of you who backed Oculus and got a dev kit, you got what you paid for so you shouldn't feel like you are owed anything else.

listenkids1332d ago

What about those who backed, without getting a dev kit?

Neonridr1332d ago

then they can try to ask for their money back.. ;)

Bolts-N-Rays11091332d ago

They get nothing except the product when it gets released, and you gotta pay for that, too. Just because you backed a kickstarter doesn't mean you have a say or get anything at all from it. You donated money. That's it.

JBSleek1332d ago

It wasn't an investment. It was a donation. Read the ToS which all people refuse to actually read and just say I agree.

aliengmr1332d ago

They got their newsletter, poster, or shirt.

And unless OVR has officially announced they are scrapping the Rift completely, everyone got what they wanted.

Their Kickstarter wasn't for the company. It wasn't for the company to not be bought out. IT WAS FOR THE RIFT.

Whatever emotional investment was made on their end is meaningless and on them.

wannabe gamer1331d ago

they helped get it this far.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1331d ago
GentlemenRUs1332d ago (Edited 1332d ago )

I can see him ditching and running away with a TON of CASH all thanks to Facecrap.

Why did you fk up OR's future you greedy pig...

- Before you hit that Disagree button, Think! Is it worth it? Reply to why you disagree with me.

Neonridr1332d ago

why would Facebook buying this company automatically mean that the product will never release? Or that suddenly Facebook will be branded or integrated right into the device? Facebook saw potential in this company, like all of us did, and decided to ensure that any financial success that comes from Oculus would help line their pockets. That is nothing new in this industry, so why act surprised?

Small indie studio makes a couple of great games. Along comes a studio like EA or Activision and buys them out. Does that mean you stop playing the games that that same indie studio makes because their funding now comes from a different source?

justSumDood1332d ago

"Small indie studio makes a couple of great games. Along comes a studio like EA or Activision and buys them out."

Is that supposed to be a reassurance of Oculus' vision under FB?
Because history shows that the scenario you just outlined USUALLY turns out for the worst.

Ultr1332d ago

I agree with you. If you don't like a company I just don't see why you should side withvthem at all, or use a device produced by them. Facebook is definately not a company I would support if I have a choice.

aliengmr1332d ago (Edited 1332d ago )

Might want to take a bit of your own advice.

Think! Is it worth buying a tech product then:

A. Refocusing it toward a market that literally does not exist.

B. Not sell that product just for laughs.

C. Jeopardizing that product's future (and the investment) by making changes to it so that the small market (that they need) doesn't buy it.

Think! How does any of that make any sense?

I haven't thrown money at the consumer version so I can still not buy it. The DK1 is out and the DK2 likely won't be altered. So...

My only concern at this point is the openness of the platform going forward. The openness of its development and so on.

Facebook is meaningless to me, I don't use it. I want the OR and unless they actually do make all these changes everyone claims I think I'll stick with it.

Again, I am free to not buy one and won't if they seriously mess with it, as I'm sure most would agree.

dcj05241331d ago

I disagree because the Facebook money will improve and accelerate the Rift's development far beyond not having that 400 million dollars in cash.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1331d ago
SteamPowered1332d ago

“I think they can give us a lot of positive guidance. I want enumeration of the vague evils to beware of.”
I think he is looking for feedback? Damn college graduates...

Linkz9731332d ago

As long as FB just funds the project but leave complete directive control to OR then i think the gamming aspect will be in good hands. Think about it at GDC, when i saw Morpheus i thought to myself damn OR is dead. They wouldn't be able to compete with sony's resources or funds. But now they have a fighting chance, as long as they dont loose sight of their focus and give funding to the different developers who are trying to make amazing games on the OR, they will be fine.

Show all comments (32)
The story is too old to be commented.