Facebook May Rebrand Oculus Rift, Import Interface - Update

[Jamash]

While it's all very well to get angry at Facebook and the Oculus guys, I think we all know who's really to blame:

Damn you Rockstar, for inspiring yet another real life tragedy.

Zuckerberg* must have seen the Lifeinvader Docker and thought "I've got to get me some of that... just need to make it interface with people's eyeballs rather than their cock to be more marketable... sod it, I'll just use the Oculus Rift".

*[small]As an aside, why does Firefox's spellchecker insist that "Zuckerberg" isn't a proper word and suggest that the only correct alternative in the entire English language is "cocksucker"? Is this an Easter Egg?[/small]

 

[smithy_2045]

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

This is no exception.

How about these:

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home.

I'm excited about facebook secretly dropping in on my medical advice

http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/21cy9n/the_future_of_vr/

In the end, I kept coming back to a question we always ask ourselves every day at Oculus: what?s best for the future of virtual reality? Partnering with Mark and the Facebook team is a unique and powerful opportunity. The partnership accelerates our vision, allows us to execute on some of our most creative ideas and take risks that were otherwise impossible. Most importantly, it means a better Oculus Rift with fewer compromises even faster than we anticipated.

Fewer compromises? This just made compromises inherent to the design.

I'm sorry, but why should I be outraged at that? Because it's no longer a dedicated gaming device?

The whole reaction to this announcement is people kicking up a massive stink over nothing.

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

I decided to come out of Escapist retirement to share my view on the topic
*hoping I don't get banned for lack of content*

 

[Neta]

Would integrating a Facebook interface or logo be enough for you to not purchase an Oculus Rift once consumer models are made available to the public?

Having them bought out by Facebook after all the Kickstarter money they've essentially conned out of people is enough to make me never purchase it.

 

[IceForce]

Facebook has auto-playing video ads?

I take it you missed this piece of news?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.844810-Facebook-Rolls-Out-Auto-Playing-Video-Ads

 

[Rabid_meese]

Can... can we just take a step back people?

This is leaked information with no credible basis in fact. A leak from an un-named individual could just as easily be a hoax as a real deal. Remember all those leaks about the "PS4" and "Xbox 720?" Yeah.


Facebook has given no proof that they mean to dismantle anything the Occulus stood for, or add anything for that matter. There's been no mention of it from the company. Facebook doesn't have a record of doing such a thing with previous buyouts. And if the leak is true, it doesn't say that these features are necessary for using the Occulus.

We all need to collectively stand back, untwist our panties, and wait for a credible shred of evidence before we start condemning Occulus for having the gall to take a buyout. How dare they want money and resources!

You didn't read all comments, did you?

Did you at least read zuckerberg's facebook update? That should tell you enough.

Yes, I did.

To both. There is a lot of circle-jerking hatred going on about the Facebook buyout.

Zuckerberg himself said that Facebook and Occulus will be operating independent of eachother. They're not interfering. Sure, there will be extra features for the Rift - such as some Facebook game support, but that doesn't mean the focus is shifting from its initial stance. The little snippet of "40% of time spent on PC's is gaming, and another 40% is social media, so lets fuse them" seems to be the crux of many peoples Anti-Facebook buyout.

Which is a misquote. Here is his actual quote "[On mobile,] what we see is that about 40% of the time that people spend overall is in gaming," Zuckerberg said. "And about 40% is also spent in social communications. About half of that is in Facebook. What we basically believe is that unlike the Microsoft or Sony pure-console strategies, if you want to make this a real computing platform, you need to fuse both of those things together."

Eek. That sounds pretty damning, doesn't it? Well, lets read something else that Zuckerberg posted...

"Immersive gaming will be the first, and Oculus already has big plans here that won't be changing and we hope to accelerate. The Rift is highly anticipated by the gaming community, and there's a lot of interest from developers in building for this platform. We're going to focus on helping Oculus build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games. Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this."

What can we infer from all of this? That Facebook bought Oculus because it thought VR is the next big thing. The Rift, which is already being worked on, isn't changing in the slightest. Facebook and Oculus are working independent of each other. And Facebook's track record for this kind of thing has been fairly good - Instagram didn't change a bit after the Facebook buyout.

There is no doubt that Facebook is using Oculus to help them build some social media VR powerhouse. But there is zero proof that its coming at the expense of a Rift. In fact, all evidence points to Facebook being hands off for the Rift - aside from throwing them extra money and engineers, and driving the price point of the final headset down.

 

[Cerebrawl]

If you want to listen to Zuckerberg talk about how he wants to do to it what was done to mobile and be the new social media device, with ads, shopping, etc, datamining not spoken about but easy to read between the lines, just listen to this interview:

http://www.shareholder.com/visitors/event/build3/stage/stage.cfm?mediaid=63723&mediauserid=0

 

[Triscut900]

I feel some branding would be fine, but it has to be something that can be ignored or not even seen (internally) when worn.

 

[Link Kadeshi]

I don't have a Facebook account, and never will. This being the case, I will no longer give any of my limited supply of craps to Oculus Rift. I'm out. Thanks for being yet another sell-out to shatter my hopes upon the rocks of corporate shores. The untold number of dead hopes and dreams over the years could have made a nice reef, had it not been for the pollution. Sigh.

 

[Gorb]

But yeah, it's not Facebook/Twitter/Google's fault. I accept that. The fault is with legislation being unable to keep up with technological progress. Until such legislation is put into place to protect my rights, my welfare, and my financial security, I will not be using social media.

I accept that and agree completely. Well, I use social media, heavily (involved in gaming circles, pursue amateur games development, have a job as a software developer, etc) - but I agree with your stance.

Legislation is falling behind at an increasingly-rapid rate. And it's unlikely to get any better, so I applaud being cautious.

That said, I don't understand the "i'll never have a facebook account because facebook is toxic" I've seen from others here. As you said, they're all pretty similar in that regard and none of them are adequately covered by law. I think it's just a cool thing to hate on, perhaps, moreso than any other platform.

 

[Gorb]

Sorry, missed one.

Facebook has auto-playing video ads?

I take it you missed this piece of news?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.844810-Facebook-Rolls-Out-Auto-Playing-Video-Ads

To Facebook's credit, it's not going quite that far just yet: It's begun introducing auto-playing "Premium Video Ads" in its users' news feeds, but as Product Marketing Manager Susan Buckner explained in a blog post, they'll begin playing in silent mode and won't start making noise unless people click on them.

From the article you gave me.

Doesn't seem too bad at all. Certainly, while I notice adverts or sponsored posts, they don't stick out like a sore thumb, vibrate, flash or make any noises.

 

[Lightknight]

You don't need to be outraged by anything.

But it's easy to see why people who put $250 into a promise of a potentially revolutionary gaming device, together for a total of 2 million are pissed off when control of this company is sold for 1000x what they put in to a company who's only contribution to gaming has been a negative one through companies like zynga and who's disregard for user privacy is constant.

Did Facebook also announce that they weren't going to release the Rift? Because it sounds like they're still doing it but with more money and an intent to reach an even larger audience which is what a product this revolutionary should do.

No one put in $250, that wasn't a pledge level. You had the $1 through $75 pledges that were the posters and shirts and such. But then there was a jump to $275. Now, those people got the early dev kit, VR Doom 3, and access to all that stuff that was produced over the following months and years. The $300 mark got them the fully assembled version and all that stuff which is the exact price of the original dev kit.

So they literally bought the dev kit. They absolutely got something cool that they wanted but the point of the kickstarter was to get these devices into the hands of developers. They stated in the campain that they wanted developers to be the ones buying the dev kit and that the $75 and lower levels were just for people who believed in the project and wanted to support it. Even the newest kit is $350 and that's because they added a Leap Motion for better head tracking.

So, no one got burned and everyone is still getting what they want. All this bitching is just over the name facebook because it adds some uncertainty to the product. I say ***** when it comes out or when we learn details that actually negatively impact us in some way. But a company willing to pour billions into the product is only a positive.

 

[Lightknight]

My bad. $300. Not $250. (Although the average backing amount is $255 dollar)

Again, they didn't back the project, they bought a Dev Kit. It's literally the same price as the dev kit and they've been using it for well over a year now.

Tell me how you think they got taken advantage of. Does Facebook backing the project somehow take away the fact that they got exactly what they were promised or how much fun they've had with the Rift since then? Does it somehow take away from all the honest work already poured into the future dev kits. Does the product being released with a facebook logo on it somehow detract from the fact that they delivered on what they promised?

I've counted the responses on kickstarter so far: exactly 150 negative and 20 positive. That's 1.5% that's speaken up about this in the first 2 days since this news.

Backers are saying:
"You've betrayed our dreams, Palmer."
"You can now forget about innovative, challenging or even adult content."
"Facebook is not a hearts-and-minds company, it is a "relentlessly monetize the user base" company."
"Your non Kickstarter investors got spooked by the first credible competition and you sold your soul to a data mining company."
"Seeing our little donations and big hopes sold off for 2 billion definitely looks and feels like a betrayal, and I'm wishing I hadn't backed."

So, no, people aren't getting what they wanted.

Great, you have now officially demonstrated that people will overreact to situations they have absolutely no knowledge of. Especially on the internet.

Tell me, did facebook announce anything other than the fact that they bought it? They said they had some innovative ideas but is there anything that would lead you to believe that you couldn't still use the product for all of the original intended purposes?

It's naive to think that facebook purchases this and won't affect it's future beyond giving it money. They are not a charity. They are a corporation that answers to shareholders. Just like oculus is now a company that answers to facebook.

Looking at facebook's previous acquisitions, it sure looks like those sites are still functioning like they used to. Is it naive to base an opinion on facts? Don't get me wrong, facebook could absolutely ruin this, but we're talking a grade-a overreaction here for a firm that hasn't traditionally screwed up products it has purchased.

People purchased a vision of what oculus rift might be.

No, they purchased a dev kit. The kickstarter requested only developers purchase them. Something people seem to be forgetting. It wasn't for the money, it was to get the rift out there. They said that several times.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game#project_faq_35368

They tell non-developers to hold off from backing. That this is to get the dev kit into developers hands.

Heck, watch the main video at the 3.50 mark. "The reason we're using kickstarter is to get these dev kits into the hands of developers as fast as possible."

This wasn't a kickstarter for financial support. This was a kickstarter for developer support. People absolutely seem incapable of understanding this. It's like talking to a wall when I try to explain that they already had financial backing and were already producing the product before kickstarter. Hence why the project finished in September and shipped in Nov./Dec. of the same year.

Facebook purchased the right to change anything about oculus' future that it wants.

Do you think they would buy the Oculus Rift and not still release it? Burn money much?

Zuckerberg's statement shows clearly that they have a very different vision.

What? No, they have an idea to use the hardware for even more. The original vision was to produce a viable VR environment. That hasn't changed at all but its uses have now been expanded. It only benefits us that this product will be more common and have more uses. Again, things like giving you a seat in a stadium of a live sporting event. Previously, this wasn't for social things. This was just being able to play games and watch movies in your house. This step could allow you to greatly expand the features and social options the Rift didn't have while not necessarily preventing the use for gaming and movies. If they do hinder those things, then I will consider Facebook to have ruined the Rift but that is NOT in facebook's best interest. Not with real competition looming. Who is going to buy a video/game display that doesn't let you play your movies and games?

The fact that developers (like notch) are now pulling out AFTER having paid $300 and AFTER having spent significant work hours into it, shows pretty clearly that they do not believe they are getting what they paid for.

No, all it shows is that they don't believe Facebook will continue to guide the Occulus Rift ship in the right direction. It does NOT mean that they did not get the development kit that they paid for. They've had those for well over a year now and as I've clearly illustrated were the purpose of the kickstarter. Frankly, I'm surprised Kickstarter let the product ride since it wasn't a request to financially back the product.

Look, Notch is a much beloved indie hero of gaming lore. But he can also be a bit quick to respond to things. He already had a preconcieved notion of Facebook and took this action without any real information about what the consumer rift would look like under Facebook's stewardship. He can do that if he wants, but it really was a kneejerk reaction. The truth is that we have no idea what they're going to do with it. It is uncertain. Notch's fears, whatever they are, could be warranted or entirely unwarranted and only time will tell that. He should have waited to ask questions. It honestly does Facebook no good to turn this product into something other than what has gotten so many people excited. If the product sucks then they just wasted BILLIONS of cash. If we could take a step back and finish hyperventillating into our bags long enough to realize that Facebook benefits from it being awesome then maybe we could handle waiting to see how things really turn out and what they say is going to change.

 

[XMark]

I'll remain cautiously optimistic. I don't think the people at Facebook are stupid enough to completely destroy Oculus by forcing any kind of Facebook integration into it.

I can definitely see Facebook trying out some kind of social VR experiment, but it would be a horrible business move on their part to make some kind of Facebook integration a required thing for using the Oculus. I know I wouldn't buy it if they did pull that kind of BS on us.

Facebook hasn't screwed with the Oculus Rift in an evil way yet. The possibility of them ruining it certainly exists, but let's not bring out the pitchforks until that actually happens.