That was the entire basis of my argument though. Sorry, I thought you were addressing me with your earlier post.I have no idea, that wasn't a part of my argument.
And I'd be just as against that hypothetical backlash as I am over this OR/Facebook stuff.If people want to be against the merger based on principle that's fine. You don't agree with anything Apple does and don't want them to have your money? Great! I have boycotts of my own. Talk about how crappy the company is and how you don't want them to get your money, I like those arguments.The same backlash would be seen here though in that situation
What does it matter to them now? All rewards didn't give anything past the Dev Kits, which I'm sure most, if not all, will have had by nowI wonder how the kickstarter backers feel.
Probably, and I'm glad to hear from them. It's the "this is the end, Facebook will do this and Facebook can't do that" crowd blathering on about things that haven't happened yet that bother me.I do feel the boycotting on principal is a significant portion of customers
A lot of them backed the project on principle and are feeling disenfranchised by the loss of "indie cred" or whatever you want to call it. You know what I mean?Notch said something to the effect of "I didn't contribute $10'000 to bankroll another acquisition for Facebook".What does it matter to them now?
http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/25/facebook-oculus-vr-2-billion/don't think we'll have facebook ads in our games. I do think they will shoehorn some part of it with their app though.
As long as I can stay away from every part of that aspect of it, I'm still in - though I'll be scrutinising all the small print from here on in!Update: We're on the call now, and Mark Zuckerberg is already pointing out Facebook's acquisition of Instagram as an example of how the company is getting experience buying properties and allowing them to continue to operate independently. Zuckerberg called out virtual reality as one of the computing platforms of the future -- following desktops and mobile -- and yes, talked about building Facebook's advertising into it. Specifically, he talked about the potential of a virtual communication network, buying virtual goods, and down the line, advertising.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from.A lot of them backed the project on principle and are feeling disenfranchised by the loss of "indie cred" or whatever you want to call it. You know what I mean?
Notch said something to the effect of "I didn't contribute $10'000 to bankroll another acquisition for Facebook"
Brian Bedford 15 minutes ago
So Oculus, I backed the original Kickstarter for $10...
I'd like my $8200 (.00041%) of that 2$ billion Facebook deal now, please. I backed a VR project for games, not a massive social media company's fairly obvious attempt to stay relevant in the face of a waning Facebook and make more money in the long run.
I'm a game developer/artist struggling to even find a job in the face of frequent studio layoffs. Shareholder stake in something I believed in would have helped a LOT right about now, but screw the little people, right? Thanks for that...
Sander van Rossen about 3 hours ago
Glad you guys where able to sell out with a product build on our money. I can understand that you guys need more money to be able to compete with Sony, but Facebook?? Come on!
Using community investments this way before even shipping the first consumer version is so wrong...Notch wrote:
And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.
Well yes, they wouldn't put anything in to it unless they got something out of it, that's pretty obvious. Turnkey project isn't usually what big business does, they buy something because it can be developed into something useful to them.But here is where I argue: it's not obvious that it is something necessarily bad. There've been claims about having ads, or logins, and data mining, and other problems, but none of those are guaranteed.But it`s also obvious it will be tainted with their associated BS in whatever form will it manifest itself - be it ads, logins, what have you
Facebook's would be there first, pre-installed, saying "try me. Go on. It'll be fun. If you've already got a Facebook account then that's all you need"That's as much as a lot of people would need. Assuming they don't completely mess it up, it's hard to unseat the king.If OR were to be really open, what's to stop some other company from building software competing to FB's own?
I don't see why that would be a problem. If someone buys the hardware for games put out by not-Facebook, that's still a sale and therefoer money for Facebook. And once they've got the hardware, if they want to try out this Net3D thing that everyone is going on about... win. And if they don't, they still made the sale.The alternative is no competition, a locked down system, where the only reason to buy the hardware is for this 3D Facebook experience. The numbers don't add up: if they were going to buy it JUST for the 3D facebook, they'll buy it whether it encourages 3rd party developers or not. They won't suddenly not buy it just because it can play games they aren't interested in (actually I'm pretty sure there are people who will refuse to buy it if some company does release a Rift featured version of their game, just because some people have weird priorities that I cannot understand). Therefore the people Facebook needs to grab are the ones that are having trouble justifying the cost of the hardware, and to do that they need lots of software.But if people buy the hardware and then install and use a different and competing software then they would only help their competition.
Pre-installed where? Does it mean that using OR would require installing FB's software? Will the OR become standalone and able to have stuff preinstalled?Facebook's would be there first, pre-installed, saying "try me. Go on. It'll be fun. If you've already got a Facebook account then that's all you need"If OR were to be really open, what's to stop some other company from building software competing to FB's own?
It depends on how much competition there is in the VR device world. If OR turns out to be the single solution that really works, then FB just bought themselves a monopoly, at least for a while. So 3rd party developers will be forced to go to FB if they want VR capability.I don't see why that would be a problem. If someone buys the hardware for games put out by not-Facebook, that's still a sale and therefoer money for Facebook. And once they've got the hardware, if they want to try out this Net3D thing that everyone is going on about... win. And if they don't, they still made the sale.But if people buy the hardware and then install and use a different and competing software then they would only help their competition.
The alternative is no competition, a locked down system, where the only reason to buy the hardware is for this 3D Facebook experience. The numbers don't add up: if they were going to buy it JUST for the 3D facebook, they'll buy it whether it encourages 3rd party developers or not. They won't suddenly not buy it just because it can play games they aren't interested in (actually I'm pretty sure there are people who will refuse to buy it if some company does release a Rift featured version of their game, just because some people have weird priorities that I cannot understand). Therefore the people Facebook needs to grab are the ones that are having trouble justifying the cost of the hardware, and to do that they need lots of software.
I shouldn't have said "pre-installed". The rift, as it currently stands, doesn't require any installation. There're no drivers for the input/output, it's all USB HID and HDMI, standard things which any software can interface with. That's part of its power, that it doesn't need drivers so it can just work on anything.My prediction is that Facebook will ship it with some kind of "experience" CD, something that'll let you configure your video card, audio devices, controller, install a few fancy demos maybe, and of course the Facebook "game". Most people will install all this without second thought, even though none of it is required.Pre-installed where? Does it mean that using OR would require installing FB's software? Will the OR become standalone and able to have stuff preinstalled?
And that's what Facebook really is hoping for.Come on guys, accept it, try it, feel it! I know you will all love it!
This is more than a press release, it's an enticement, they are promising a product now (DK2) which will be (at least partially) compatible content wise with the future consumer Rift. It constitutes part of a contract and is legally binding. If they release the consumer version and software written for the DK2 is not compatible with it they are opening themselves up to a class action suit. Palmer's lawyers would have been aware of this, or they're very stupid, and it would have come up in negotiations.Therefore it is basically required that software written for the DK2 be compatible with the consumer version. If Facebook jams any crap into the SDK for the final version that people disagree with, ignore those features and just work with the SDK provided with DK2. And sue Oculus, don't forget that part, very important.<a href='http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/announcing-the-oculus-rift-development-kit-2-dk2/'>http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/announcing-the-oculus-rift-development-kit-2-dk2/</a> said:All the content developed using DK2 will work with the consumer Rift.