Facebook May Rebrand Oculus Rift, Import Interface - Update

[Smiley Face]

I'm not really on the VR bandwagon, but I can see the potential it has and was fairly open to being won over once it came out and started strutting its stuff.

But with this move, Facebook's thrown a good deal of mud in those waters - if it's re-branding, that sends a strong signal that it didn't just acquire Oculus as an investment, but that they intend to inflict their ethos on everything that comes out of it. I'm not sure what's the worse possibility of what could come of this - Oculus crashing and burning as Facebook turns it into a thing people won't want and setting VR back, or Oculus succeeding in spite of that and Facebook dictating what this promising new technology will be used for.

Seriously, I've never liked Facebook, or the current generation of social media, but for a while it's been so ubiquitous that it's been necessary for me to maintain a presence there if I want to maintain my social life. It's been what, almost 10 years? I've been impatiently waiting for it to die already, for something new to come along as things continue to evolve, something that with any luck will be less offensive to me than creating a culture of no privacy.

 

[matrix3509]

If this isn't the biggest argument against crowdfunding ever I honestly don't know what is. This is speaking as someone who has proudly kickstarted things in the past. The fact that something that was crowdfunded is now going to be used to make billionaires ever richer disgusts me to my core. I don't pretend to know how ethical it is to take something that only exists because of community generosity and turn it over to billionaires is, but it feels sleazy as fuck. It feels like a giant "fuck you" to the people that made it possible in the first place. Whats really worrying is that silicon valley will likely see this as proof that they can now offload the entire risk of new tech or other ventures onto the consumer with no risk whatsoever.

 

[klaynexas3]

And the Rift has failed. No gamer will want to buy it at this point, and no person that is glued to their phone is about to buy a VR headset. There is no market for this product anymore. Just have to hope the Valve VR headset will be good or Project Morpheus. Goddammit I feel bad for the people that kickstarted this thing.

 

[Lightknight]

If the Occulus Rift ends up being something that I don't HAVE to use publicly and socially then it could still be fantastic. I think the strong objection is that we know how Facebook currently mines the hell out of our data so this is another large way for them to take advantage of us, but there's still potential if done right.

If I get a product that I can play other games and watch movies on without having to log into facebook and have them watching me then it will be exactly what I want. If they end up force-integrating social aspects and online connectivity then I will not buy the product.

This is a tremendously good sign for the future of VR though. But honestly, some optional social aspects could be nice. Like being able to go to a live ball game with friends and family virtually or movie watching in a theater. It could be cool. All of the things they mentioned they can do sound good because they are. It's just about how they're implemented. For example, if I can put a movie I purchased into my computer and watch it offline without ads, then perfect. If I HAVE to stream movies from a proprietary FB movie streaming source then screw them.

 

[balfore]

The backlash that is present here is just ridiculous. I'm going to hold off my judgment until I actually see what Facebook does with the headset. And I'm just guessing here but I feel some of this backlash is aimed towards the fact that Facebook is where "filthy casuals" go to game.

 

[Chatboy 91]

It's pretty simple.
 
If I have to login to Facebook to use it, it gets thrown in the trash. Or out the window. Or off a high rise building. Or onto Kijiji.
 
Here's looking at you, Project Morpheus.

 

[tacotrainwreck]

Didn't Oculus Rift begin on crowd funding? Selling out before there is even a retail version of that product on the shelves for its supporters to purchase is a massive kick in the pants to anybody who had previously stood by this independent company. If this turns out to be true, I will happily set fire to any of my future plans of purchasing it.

 

[Weaver]

After reading most of the last thread, and getting insights on both sides of this acquisition, I'm surprised how many people flat out dislike Facebook.
I wonder why that is it be honest.

Because it's a company whose CEO literally does not believe in the notion of privacy. He simply doesn't believe users have a right to data privacy for some reason. He's gone on record stating this.

 

[AdmiralCheez]

Things like this are why I'm trying to get away from gaming these days. It used to be something to do when I was done interacting with other people for the day. Now it's getting harder to find things that don't have mandatory login accounts, or heavily emphasized multiplayer, or sharing, or leaderboards, or facebook/twitter integration, or any number of other nonsense. Sometimes I just want to play a game or do something without the whole world knowing about it.

 

[Gorb]

EDIT@AdmiralCheez: your opinion is, by publicised metrics and polls, in a minority. People want leaderboards. People want achievements. People want to play with their friends.

In short, people like socialising, in general. It was only a matter of time before socialising became a key part of computer gaming, as social ability is generally required to get by in life itself.

Quoting on this forum software is horrifically broken. The Escapist continues to deliver.

As a general rule, I remain skeptical of news articles about anonymous sources stating things.

This is no exception.

Finally, someone with sense.

People lose their jobs over things posted on Facebook.

And Twitter. And news sites.

That doesn't make it Facebook's fault.

It amazes me, the number of people in this thread that are blaming Facebook for people using the service abusing it and making mistakes.

It's like blaming the street when a mugger jumps you. And before anyone gets snippy, I was mugged in recent months. It's not a nice experience, I don't recommend it and it's not a macho situation.

 

[Vivi22]

After reading most of the last thread, and getting insights on both sides of this acquisition, I'm surprised how many people flat out dislike Facebook.
I wonder why that is it be honest.

Not sure if you're serious, but their numerous attempts to subvert user privacy and take ownership of things like any picture you put on Facebook alone are enough of a reason not to trust them. And those are really just the tip of the iceberg. As things are today, they're an awful company with an awful social media platform that everyone's just kind of stuck using because no one uses anything else.

As for the article. If this turns out to be true then they'll be shooting themselves in the foot with everyone who was interested but is now hesitant due to this deal. Doing this would be an explicit confirmation that everyone concerned about Facebook taking the reigns was right top be worried.

 

[Weaver]

Well, I'm going to start calling this thing the FaceBox.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

The more I read about this, the more my hate for the facebook brand grows...
There, I deleted my account.

 

[Gorb]

Oh, and another thing.

Why are we taking a completely anonymous source that was apparently barring from communicating (but managed to communicate) as some kind of absolute fact? Bearing in mind that disclosing company secrets is not only gross misconduct, but can come with legal punishment.

And people wonder why the Internet has a terrible reputation for taking something completely untrue and making a hellhole out of it. Don't worry, I can sell you some moon dust that fixes all ya problems for ya. It's completely legit moon dust? Why? Because I'm telling you it is, shh.

I swear, professional journalism is a lost art these days.

 

[cerebus23]

stuff like this sometimes get floated to get a reaction, we are reacting .

 

[Lightknight]

The backlash that is present here is just ridiculous. I'm going to hold off my judgment until I actually see what Facebook does with the headset. And I'm just guessing here but I feel some of this backlash is aimed towards the fact that Facebook is where "filthy casuals" go to game.

Oh, it has nothing to do with casual gaming or anything like that. Its the notion that facebook could potentially ruin great hardware.

I'm ok with the option of socializing, but at the end of the day I just want to sit on my couch watching a movie in my own private VR IMAX theater. I don't want to have to log into the internet or sign into facebook. I just want the Rift to be hardware in that circumstance. Not a social endeavor.

Now, if I am given the option to do other things online, then that makes it better. If I HAVE to log into facebook to use the device or can't watch my own movies or play my own games then it will be a problem. I can imagine the Rift requiring you to go through a streaming service for movies or games. Not my cup of tea.

I have been incredibly excited about the Rift since kickstarter. It isn't that this is bad, it's that this casts a shadow of uncertainty on the whole thing. Previously this was going to be hardware you could plug into your computer and pick and choose how you use it. Now it will likely be controlled. If not controlled too much, it could be fantastic, just like we've hoped and even made better by Facebook's grand design. Or, they could cripple it.

At least it wasn't EA. Then it would be casting a shadow of certain ruin.

 

[Gorb]

How about Activision instead? They're pretty good at milking stuff. Better than EA, certainly.

@cerebus23: It's a cheap attempt to get page views, is what it is

Though I guess it's working!

 

[Cerebrawl]

Pictures of the rebranded facebookulus rift have already leaked to 4chan and spread to imgur.

But yeah that's basically what we expect from facebook in a nutshell.

 

[Lightknight]

Didn't Oculus Rift begin on crowd funding? Selling out before there is even a retail version of that product on the shelves for its supporters to purchase is a massive kick in the pants to anybody who had previously stood by this independent company. If this turns out to be true, I will happily set fire to any of my future plans of purchasing it.

They've already released multiple dev kits. As far as I know, they're still doing exactly what they said they would. What's more is the kickstarter perks have already been paid out.

As near as I can tell, it was already an existing device and they used kickstarter as a way to get it into the hands of developers. It's really a grey area because they needed developers to have it to kickstart it even if they didn't need the money perse.

 

[Weaver]

Here's a hot zinger from Zuck himself:

We're clearly not a hardware company. We're not gonna try to make a profit off of the devices long term. We view this as a software and services thing, where if we can make it so that this becomes a network where people can be communicating and buying things and virtual goods, and there might be advertising in the world, but we need to figure that out down the line.

You can hear it yourself at 29:15
http://www.shareholder.com/visitors/event/build3/stage/stage.cfm?mediaid=63723&mediauserid=0