The Oculus team finally responds to the flood of negative comments concerning the deal. They're in fact rather surprised to see what's happening.
Facebook is full of the most casual shmucks on the internet/ this type of tech may as well be alien technology to them.If they want the Facebox ™ to take off, they better have an extremely open dev policy and allow all console/PC compatibility or Project Morpheus will destroy this thing.
Not trying hard enough, buddy.
dude they have so much money to throw at this thing and a few quality devs on board that it's bound to do some good. we just HATE that it's under FACEBOOKS evil control now. Doom4 in V.R. should be the coming out party for it in all it's glory.
Don't expect VR for Doom 4. Carmack said he left id Software because Zenimax refuses to support VR in any meaningful way. So don't expect VR for Doom, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, etc. It's just not likely to happen.
@porkChop They already have Skyrim working with Oculus Rift. Even if they're not officially supported, modders will find a way.
Facebook is trying to expand like google did in the 2000s.
FaceBook hasn't yet realized that dominance through the world's stock markets is akin to a marathon. They're trying to sprint all the way to the finish line.
I just hope their no "VR exclusives", if one want to play with tv or VR then that his choice (this includes PS4's VR)
Really when you basically betrayed those who believed in you, give you their hard eared money to support your dream only to shove it back in their faces buy selling it off for a huge profit. You honestly didn't think it would be this negative.
That doesn't make any sense. Oculus used the kickstarter money to make Devkit 1. Devkit 2 was made from money from Kick starter and investors (think Valve).They were using expensive off the shelf mobile parts and was not making much profit. Now being acquired by Facebook the Oculus can use High-end above 1080p displays, faster manufacturing,better tracking and they can take a loss potentially making it cheaper as well as getting it out to market sooner (potentially) and being able to invest into AAA games designed specifically first Oculus Rift. This makes the Rift as a product much better and more likely to succeed. How that is betrayal is beyond me. Facebook expanding similar to how Disney expanded. Disney doesn't have a clue about sports at all but ESPN seems fine. Instagram and Whatsapp also seem fine and non-dead after facebook buying them.The positives outweigh the negatives by a lot.Kickstarter isn't an investment firm. You pay for development of a PRODUCT and receive maybe with some goodies. Oculus delivered Devkit 1 to all kick starters who wanted them. They no longer owe NOTHING to them.
That isn't true in the slightest. I'm an Oculus Kickstarter backer and I don't feel betrayed. This is the best shot we realistically had at getting the Rift and VR to succeed. How can we feel betrayed? When you fund a kickstarter project it doesn't mean that you get equity in the company. You are essentially donating your money in the hopes that the project will get off the ground. You usually get something in return, such as the DK1 Oculus Rift most backers got in this case. So let's put this in perspective. Those of us that pledged $300 or more were given the DK1 and the hope that Oculus could get the product off the ground and eventually launch a superior consumer version with good software support. The first thing already happened: we got our dev kits. The second thing has not happened yet, but there is no evidence that it won't happen. Oculus is trying to get there the best way they know how, and I believe they are sincere. Some people are jumping to absurd conclusions before they have all the facts and they are likely going to end up looking like idiots. But you know what? Even if Oculus failed and was never able to launch the consumer Rift, it still wouldn't mean that backers would have a right to sue or get something else from the company. When you fund a kickstarter project there is no guarantee that the product will come out and be everything that YOU personally think it should be. That's completely unrealistic and isn't how things work.
It's a business do you think they really care?
Never underestimate the narrow mind of the internet mob.
Talking about yourself?
I'm not sure that a hostility towards corporate entities and relevant buyouts, even if sometimes it can reek of hypocrisy, can be considered narrow minded, especially as the disparity between the wealthy and everyone else with the constitutive intersections between the power interests of capital and the state having become all the more apparent for many in this generation of young adults. I've seen so many otherwise principled people sell out, just about always they were remolded into a shape suitable for that of mass production and marketing in which profitability became the primary objective, a loss of control over creativity. Maybe that won't happen with this, but either way it's symptomatic of larger issues. People may even get a better end product, but is that all that matters?
I wonder...everytime someone blinks wearing the headset, will a photo of whatever they're viewing be posted to their Facebook wall? :p
Anyone who thought this was a good idea sure is dumb. Never let a company like Facebook buy you. They're going to destroy this thing.
I'm not surprised at the backlash. The internet has proven tinge and time again to spawn angry mobs over just about anything... Just looks at the first few comments on this article. Folks giving prophecy on how Facebook will ruin Oculus Rift as a gaming device, despite having no logical idea on how Facebook intends to integrate they tech into their business. If you think Facebook would spend 2 billion dollars just to sell VR headsets to casual gamers and farmville addicts, you are insane. Shoehorning 3d ads into games wouldn't give them a shot at getting a return on their investment. It's much more likely that they want to prove the viability of VR to the world through a serious investment in gaming, then license VR technology to other industries. I understand being concerned, or worried, but to automatically assume the worst, and spew vitriol towards a man who is clearly dedicated to ensure VRs future, is down right wrong.. But like I said, the internet is known for this type of behavior.
So very true. I agree with all of your points. A few thousand angry idiots on the internet can seem like an overwhelming majority even though in many cases they actually represent a tiny minority. Facebook is trying to diversify just like all successful companies do once their growth has gone through the S-curve and is starting to slow or even decline. They tried the Rift and were amazed by it, so they decided they wanted to help bring it to its full potential and get in on the ground floor of a potentially revolutionary technology. In order to maintain a leadership position in VR, though, they know that they have to give people the quality of VR experience they expect. They aren't going to require bothersome facebook sign-ins or slap ads in our faces while playing games because they know that to do so would cause people to drop the Rift like a rock. Most of what comprises the Rift is not patentable technology. And it would be easy for other competitors to bring VR headsets of their own to market, similar as we have recently seen from Sony. The only way Facebook/Oculus is going to stay ahead is if they are ACTUALLY ahead in the estimation of consumers. Facebook isn't going to kill their one shot to be a dominant force in the emerging VR market by doing something stupid like having ads pop up in our VR experiences or dropping support for gaming. It amazes me that people are naive enough to believe these things would happen.
@hunter @starchild You both seem intelligent, contemplative individuals. That's why your comments sometimes surprise me. "...despite having no logical idea on how Facebook intends to integrate they tech into their business." You can't honestly say you don't know what FB is planning with VR tech. I don't believe that for a second. Starchild, you often talk about "critical thinking," yet you fail to acknowledge the obvious truth about what FB will do with their new found tech. FaceBook, like all other multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporations have vested interests in all manner of industries and sectors. But, more than anything it is a Social Networking service. It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to see what they have planned. It is the creation of a vast social virtual environment for the purpose of interacting with others from all over the world (think PS Home but on a much larger scale.) It only makes sense, this is what FaceBook is all about. It's simply the evolution of their current business model. In fact, I'd be surprised if FB's next big acquisition wasn't Linden Labs. Merging their network with Second Life's virtual world through Oculus VR seems logical and easily within their grasp. I saw the Oculus Rift as a runaway freight train, and it was only gaining speed. The buyout effectively derailed that train, and FB is now steering it in a new direction, away from gaming and towards their vision of social networking through VR. The reality is gaming is not FB's priority, social integration is. So, while the buyout will infuse Oculus with funding, the expected results of that funding will now be different. Advancements with both the hardware and software, will be geared more towards that end. Specialization will not benefit gaming, except as maybe a by-product. To be fair, VR gaming might see some major innovation somewhere down the road, but for the time being that just isn't their concern. Recouping that $2BN expenditure will be, that means sticking to what they know and what they do best, social networking; not taking a risk in a highly contested industry they know nothing about. This is why both the gaming and Oculus communities are in an uproar.
I believe Facebook has every intention of creating that virtual world you describe. But what better way to prove your ability to foster these virtual experiences than to tackle an industry that is all about immersing customers into a 3d environment, ei, GAMING. The gaming device they create will natural be useful in other applications. The 3d headset won't instantly become useless as a gaming peripheral simply because Facebook starts allowing users to virtually explore their friends pictures.... Using my oculus rift to play the next FPS won't suddenly suck simply because I can also use it to tour a vacation spot. People are all caught up in the idea that Facebook can't deliver on the gaming front because their expertise is elsewhere. How is it any different than when Sony and Microsoft entered gaming? They both started with the acquisition of key companies, the hiring of key talents, and the goal of using their foray into gaming to bolster their existing businesses. Low and behold, they've been able to deliver on the gaming front despite their expertise being elsewhere...this is exactly the approach Facebook is taking. Like Sony and MS before them, they have the finances to multitask. In any case, the Facebook buyout will only have a positive effect on the quality of the hardware. The content that arrives for the RIFT will still ultimately depend on what 3rd party developers deliver. Now in addition to game developers making experiences for the rift, other developers will too. That doesn't mean you'll be forced to partake in those other experiences.
Show me the market for what you are talking about. Let's say they do create this Second life thing, why would they make the Rift only usable for that? Why are you assuming that gaming wont remain a focus? FB has many plans for the Rift and want to do ALL of them. There is absolutely no indication that they want to create a closed system yet. The ONLY group, for at least the next couple of years, that can use and buy a Rift are GAMERS. Gamers who have clearly indicated via the internet, that they DO NOT WANT ANY OF THAT FB CRAP. What you are saying is, that despite FB and OVR saying the opposite regarding their direction, that the only possible outcome is the locked down FaceRift. The very thing NOBODY WANTS AT ALL. For FB to crush everyone's VR dreams there has to be a real VR market. Not just PC gamers with high end rigs.
hardcore gamers al arnd d world were looking forward to Occulus gaming. Under facebook u knw its gonna be too casual
"We assumed that the reaction would be negative, especially from our core community" -so they knew that their most devoted followers, who have likely been responsible for spreading the word of mouth to many others would be angered by this, yet they still went and did it? They deserve everything they get; if you don't keep your core fanbase happy, you lose both your biggest spenders and the largest amount of free marketing. Star Wars would never have been able to remain such a big entity if it had betrayed its core fan base who have kept it alive so long after the initial movies were released. And then you can look at Star Citizen, where a core fan base has spent a fortune on in-game content supporting it. Crusader Kings 2 is kept alive by a core fanbase who buy all the DLC. How could they be so stupid? The mass market are going to want to try it before they buy it, and the first people they'll experience it with are the day one backers who will buy it on day one. So let me re-emphasise that they deserve the PR mess they've found themselves in. They broke a relational contract in signing this deal; here's hoping EA have another year of respite as worst company America and that Oculus/Facebook are given the crown next year.
So you think they should have passed up an opportunity to accelerate the path to their vision, to afford top of the line hardware, to hire the best developers in the industry, and to make a deal that they feel will be best for VR I'm general, all because they anticipated that a few people would be too rash to even TRY to see the merits of their decision? Good leaders make these decisions for the greater good, even when they know they won't be immediately popular. Chances are, when they bring their first consumer headset to market, and it's an even better than their core base could have imagined, they'll be quickly forgiven.
Oculus being sold isn't the problem, but which company they were sold to is. Facebook both have a lot of information about people and are big on micro-transactions and free-to-play. In the first case, they could force us to sign in and then could monitor everything we play while knowing who we are. In the second, they could really push ads, F2P and microtransactions as part of their business model. So the worry is really that Facebook decide to widen the bridge between subsidiary and parent, and we see parts of Facebook the website trickle into our experience. I also seriously question your point about doing it for the greater good. The previous Oculus shareholders are now obscenely rich; that's why they sold the company. You might be right about their first headset delivering, and I expect it will. The worry is that once they have their consumer base, the Facebook side of things is going to come into play and headset 2 is going to come with unpopular clauses.
Are you say the Dev Kit 2 is going to be "Facebooked"? or a future CV2? 1. Altering the DK2 would be suicide financially. Worst possible idea. 2. Doing to a future CV could happen. Though they will probably have to separate devices for that. The PC gaming market wants what it wants. By then there will be competitors. Generally its not a good idea to make a product no one wants.
You mention ask of these things they COULD do.It's all speculation. And it flies directly in the face of things Luckey insists they WILL do. According the the owner (Luckey),he signed the deal after confirming they: 1) will not require a Facebook login to use or develop for the oculus rift. As is the case now, it's up to the game developer to decide if a game will require a 3rd party login (steam, origin, Facebook, whatever) 2) they will never require a developer incorporate ads or microtransactions into their software. As is the case now, it will be up to individual developers. 3) Facebook hasn't imposed the Facebook experience into any of their previous acquisitions... and those are all free services... Doing so with the oculus rift wouldn't allow them to create a product that people want to BUY. They know this. Like I said, I understand the worry, but to instantly assume that the worst case scenario will become a reality doesn't make much sense. The idea of trying to s SELL an EXPENSIVE piece of OPTIONAL hardware purely so that people can use it to look at advertisements is a business model that Facebook is to smart too think feasible. You are calling them the worst company in America, when you haven't even seen how this will play out. To your point of shareholders becoming rich, of course that was a factor in the decision.... They decided to invest in the company because they felt that it would become a major player in the VR industry. They were right. No one invests in a promising company with the hopes of being moderately successful. But if it was purely about the money, they would have sold the company, and flew the coop. Instead, they are staying on board, doubling down on the technology, and hiring more of the most talented developers in the gaming industry...
Since the announcement, Facebook's stock has dropped $6 per share, which is about $14B. On top of the acquisition costing them $2B, I agree - they should be surprised by the backlash. A very costly mistake from both parties.
Sorry you disagree-rs don't like facts. http://etfdailynews.com/201...
People are disagreeing with you because a stock fluctuation mere days after an acquisition doesn't indicate a bad deal... The stock price over time is what matters to investors..
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.