Anybody considering picking up an Oculus Rift..?

[SNESFAN]

I have no idea, that wasn't a part of my argument. The same backlash would be seen here though in that situation. Sometimes people use the internet to bitch about stuff they can't control.

 

[WizardStan]

I have no idea, that wasn't a part of my argument.

That was the entire basis of my argument though. Sorry, I thought you were addressing me with your earlier post.

The same backlash would be seen here though in that situation

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.

But saying without doubt that Facebook will shoehorn in backdoors and necessary social interaction and Gord knows what else, saying right now that they won't buy it because of these things that will absolutely be put in for sure (even though no one has said anything of the sort and in many cases would be financial suicide for the very reasons being presented) will do nothing at best and actively hinder the progress of what could actually be a well intentioned purchase at worst. These aren't arguments, they're only barely conjecture, and people are hoping to get changes based on this conjecture: that's infuriating!

 

[SNESFAN]

My first reply to the acquisition was a joke post. I 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. Possibly game store integration as that seems the most likely course. Are people opposed to logging into Facebook to buy a O/R optimized game? Doubtful. What is in response to what you said is how the acquisition could be damaging outside of actual announced changes. I do feel the boycotting on principal is a significant portion of customers.

 

[Ian J]

I wonder how the kickstarter backers feel.

Maybe it's time for a Kickstarter where the backers are actually buying a share of the company and get a return on their investment.

I'm presuming that this will also affect how open the device will be in the future.

 

[pmprog]

I wonder how the kickstarter backers feel.

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 now

 

[WizardStan]

I do feel the boycotting on principal is a significant portion of customers

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.

What does it matter to them now?

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".

 

[Asmo]

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.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/25/facebook-oculus-vr-2-billion/

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.

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!

 

[SNESFAN]

Yea, me too. I am still negotiating getting the dk2 regardless of this news as I was a couple days ago. Nothing I've read says this will be significantly worse a product than the consumer release. My current real fear is that I do get the dk2 and they are able to source even better parts (screen/optics) due to the influx of money and that my money now won't buy the same experience that will be available later.

 

[WizardStan]

My personal guess is that they want in on the ground floor of VR social networking. Second Life except VR and better. That in itself would secure them for a long time, effectively being "king" of the "next internet". Internet 3.0, or Net3D if you will.

I can't see them requiring a facebook login or anything like that if you're playing an unrelated game. If they made the user experience anything less than expected it would take almost no time for a competitor to pop up that did things the way the Rift was originally going to be. Assuming that VR social networking is Facebooks aim, it is very much in their interest to let the technology continue exactly the way it has been and get as many users and developers on their side as possible.

 

[pmprog]

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"

Yeah, I get where you're coming from.

 

[Klumpen]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game/comments

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!

 

Notch wrote:

And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.

Using community investments this way before even shipping the first consumer version is so wrong...

 

[akeley]

Me nodding in agreement reading Notch`s comments? It`s a weird ol` world..what`s next, Cliffy B talking tellin` it like it is? 

I don`t really understand the part of the argument in the comments above - it`s beyond obvious fb has no interest in making worse product in technical sense of the word. That would be crazy and not very productive. 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. What would be a point of buying it otherwise, if not integration with their business model, sorry - vision. 

In earlier reply to my post SNESFAN said that YouTube "gained" from being acquired by the Big G - but I fail to see how, instead we got quality downgrade and inevitable ad spam, pushing their G+ thingy and regional locks. OR is different of course, but expecting that fb is a good uncle who`ll let them flourish undisturbed is rather naive. Now, for some (most?) people seeing fb logo, ad, login etc wont` be a big deal since they live in the fb world already anyway. But, let`s say that even that is kept to absolute non-intrusive minimum - it still would be much better if OR was an independent brand.

It`s easy to snigger at "indie cred" - on some other occasion I`d perhaps join in, for the indie (read: hipster) attitude is sometimes truly insufferable. But this is different  - and for me, and maybe a few others, it does matter. It`s about the future - formerly called dystopian when described by assorted Neuromancers or Shadowruns, but you can see the seeds being planted already. We`ll have a few borderless zaibatsus controlling the majority of goings on on this planet (that`s why I mentioned Google earlier - didn`t mean that their purchases are opportunistic - even paying nearly 4bn for a funky thermostat manufacturer has an angle. And the angle is total control. Add robotics, AI, missions to the Moon and beyond and it`s easy to see where this is going.)

So, no need for crystal balls - some knowledge of history, human behaviour and general pattern recognition will suffice. And is this "unified" future a good thing? I don`t think so, but won`t try to convince anybody - haters will hate, but similarly  believers will believe.

 

[WizardStan]

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

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.

What if Facebook wants to build a 3D interactive social environment? And in order to do that they need to ensure certain technologies. Things for control, audio, force feedback, networking. Buy Occulus, ensure the technologies are added, become king of the Net3D.

Maybe they sell it with their new social environment software, and if you use it then you need a login, and there are ads in the software (billboards), and probably some data mining, but so far it is only fear that any of this will become mandatory to 3rd party developers. There is nothing thus far to suggest that if someone develops a game they will need to require facebook login before someone can play the game with rift support, nothing that makes me think there will be popup ads funnelling money back to Facebook. From a business standpoint, assuming Facebook wants as many people as possible to use their software they're going to want as many people buying the hardware as possible, and in order to get that they're going to need as many developers on board as possible.

Will you pay $300 just to play Facebook games? Where ads are thrust in your face? Some people would, probably a lot more than we'd suspect, but not as many as if it were more open and immersive.

I am entirely certain (as certain as someone can be without any direct proof) that Facebook has no interest in the hardware, per se, and every interest in making software. They will want as many people as possible to use their software, but people will have trouble justifying the price of the hardware if it is ONLY for their software, so they're going to want as many developers on their side as possible as well, producing compatible software to help convince people to buy the hardware. And if people then install and use the software, then they've accomplished what they wanted.

 

[Yoyobuae]

But if people buy the hardware and then install and use a different and competing software then they would only help their competition. If OR were to be really open, what's to stop some other company from building software competing to FB's own?

 

[WizardStan]

If OR were to be really open, what's to stop some other company from building software competing to FB's own?

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.

Other software will come along, just as many other social sites have come along to try and contest Facebook, yet Facebook is still on top, and I'm pretty sure they know exactly how to hold onto that in a 3D transition.

There'll be competition, but that competition would require people to actually do something to get it. They'd have to download something, sign up for something, interact with something they don't know anything about. Facebook will already be there, they'll already have the login, and if the team does knows what its doing it should be nice and simple for even the biggest Facebook idiot to use.

But if people buy the hardware and then install and use a different and competing software then they would only help their competition.

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.

 

[Yoyobuae]

If OR were to be really open, what's to stop some other company from building software competing to FB's own?

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"

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?

But if people buy the hardware and then install and use a different and competing software then they would only help their competition.

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.

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.

 

[erico]

Come on guys, accept it, try it, feel it! I know you will all love it!

 

[WizardStan]

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?

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.

Hell, even if I am so completely turned off by Facebook's "game" I might still install it just to get at the cheesy demos (for a while, at least). And then maybe I'll give it a quick try. Just to see what the fuss is about. I won't like it, I just want to see for myself how bad it is...

Come on guys, accept it, try it, feel it! I know you will all love it!

And that's what Facebook really is hoping for.
I have one other very important reason why I believe Facebook won't change much, in regards to preventing future software from running on it without all kinds of junk:

All the content developed using DK2 will work with the consumer Rift.

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.

 

[TrashyMG]

Eh Facebook or not this thing would most likely get me motion sickness if I used it.

 

[ekianjo]

It's pretty clear the Occulus Rift will happen anyway, but if Facebook makes it compulsory to use their API / Facebook account to play games using the Rift, then I guess this will push away a certain amount of people. And I don't know how Valve would feel about that either. 

Now Valve's own VR device looks like a solid contender for a "free of junk" platform.