John Carmack Speaks On Oculus/Facebook Deal

[Alterego-X]

Oh yes, lets take a look.

-Armadillo Aerospace is making a loss yearly.
-Doom 4 in development hell.
-Oculus rift making tons and tons of money.

Hmm, why would he ever want to work on OR? Ignorance is bliss.

Wealth doesn't work that way. If you have your personal aerospace company, and a lead position in a AAA development studio, it matters little whether their recent business luck is best summarized with little green arrows pointing upwards or red arrows pointing downwards, it's still a fact that your standards of living are absurdly secure, and creative fulfillment is a much more important priority than "cash".

Why would he want to work on OR? Why would *anyone* keep working in such demanding positions for decades after founding their own prosperous corporation? Probably not to pay off his car early, or to put his kids through college, but because it's the most fun thing he can spend his time with.

 

[RA92]

Cheif technology officer for company which just made a deal which probably made him personally a shitton of cash says deal is a great idea.

News at 11.

You do understand that he gave up a cushy job at Bethesda to work in a young upstart company like Occulus just out of pure enthusiasm?

Oh yes, lets take a look.

-Armadillo Aerospace is making a loss yearly.
-Doom 4 in development hell.
-Oculus rift making tons and tons of money.

Hmm, why would he ever want to work on OR? Ignorance is bliss.

Ignorance is bliss? Speak for yourself. If Carmack was so infatuated with wealth, why does he always insist on releasing the source code of his engines under the GPL? Most of the money that Oculus has raised are from investors, and that's where most of the sales cash is going to go. Carmack is not an investor. Whatever money he's going to get out of this is going to be nothing compared to the licensing revenue he earned from idTech 1 through 3.

 

[Atmos Duality]

So, that was actually enlightening, and simultaneously worrying and assuring.

Zuckerberg spoke with the man himself; Carmack isn't and has never really been a money-grubbing douchebag despite being in an EXTREMELY powerful position to do so (the guy is basically the grandfather of modern 3D gaming; even Call of Duty uses tech from a platform Carmack developed) and it sounds as though Zuckerberg has something of an understanding of the design philosophy of the OR.

...BUT, at the same time, Carmack hinted at plans for a Valve (Steam) like system development. Which both makes a terrifying amount of business sense; literally, it terrifies me because it is Facebook.

Instead of just getting a VR package to supplement/replace a standard display for media, you get a VR package with that and a lot of other baggage. If that baggage is internal to the system but context-specific then there's no problem (just as a lot of Windows components are useless to the majority of its users, but are included "just in case").

But on the other hand, it would be trivially simple to data-mine and monetize the OR platform, and given that is Facebook's entire model, there is a powerful incentive to do so.

So...I was ambivalent before, I'm ambivalent now.
And the kickstarter backers are going to get their OR for sure now, but it may come with more baggage than they expected.

 

[Somebloke]

We Kickstarter backers got our Rifts long ago.

Orders are now open for a second revision developer kit, with better screen and positional tracking (still not consumer version specs) -- delivery stars in June.

 

[Alterego-X]

And the kickstarter backers are going to get their OR for sure now, but it may come with more baggage than they expected.

The Kickstarter backers have already got all their DK1s a year ago, their business with Oculus is done.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The Kickstarter backers have already got all their DK1s a year ago, their business with Oculus is done.

Ah.
Well, then I don't know why I keep seeing all these claims about them getting screwed everywhere, or the butthurt reactions.
(on second though, maybe I do. It's the internet. It's driven by butthurt impotent rage)

 

[Vigormortis]

You don't make a commitment like they just did on a whim."

"I spent an afternoon talking technology with Mark Zuckerberg, and the next week I find out that he bought Oculus."

Maybe it's just me, but these two comments seem in contradiction.

"I talked to a guy for a few hours one day and the next day he tosses two billion dollars at me."

Seems kind of like a whim to me. :/

And besides, even Carmack doesn't seem entirely convinced that Facebook has the same end-goal for the Rift as Oculus did pre-buyout.

So...I'm still dubious about this deal.

 

[Tuxedoman]

I'm glad the blind hate has calmed down a bit. As I said before, until more information about the actual product is out there is no real reason for us to get angry. Instagram hasn't changed since facebook bought it, it's still a site you post lots of pictures of food, cats and sex.

I do not think that advertising will be bundled with the Rift. If it's put in the firmware then there will be a hack to remove it. If it's part of a third party program then there will be a way to block it. I can tell you that it won't be in the games you play because that would mean you either need a second micro-computer built into the rift that can manage its own overlay (adding more cost, weight, heat, power consumption etc) OR an automatic mod to the exe file of any game that is ever run, which seems to breach quite a few ToC's in some games.

J.C Denton's announcement hasn't changed my thoughts on the matter. I'm not worried, I'm still going to buy one, and im going to spend entire weeks immersed in who knows what games.
Unless the rift becomes blue with a giant facebook 'like' sign on the front.

 

[Coles_Law]

I'm looking forward to see what they can do with the boatloads of money they got. Yes, they raised $2.5 million on kickstarter-but that's only about a third of what Ouya raised, and I don't think people want something that's about one-third as polished as Ouya. (Never mind the fact that OR is trying something a lot more complex than Ouya did).

 

[Baresark]

Some people need to set aside their anger and read. He wasn't part of the negotiation. He is their lead tech guy, he doesn't have much say in who buys the company or how the product is funded. He also confirmed Zuckerberg's desire to hold the current course. Everyone should know that if this thing was only ever about gaming, well it would be a niche product always and forever. The concept of Virtual Reality was always intended for a lot more than gaming. Just as gamers, we want to see it go far. And it will only if it gets major backing from a company such as Facebook. I'm not gonna lie, I wanted Valve involved in this, but I know they can't match Facebook's offer.

 

[Karadalis]

Some people need to set aside their anger and read. He wasn't part of the negotiation. He is their lead tech guy, he doesn't have much say in who buys the company or how the product is funded. He also confirmed Zuckerberg's desire to hold the current course. Everyone should know that if this thing was only ever about gaming, well it would be a niche product always and forever. The concept of Virtual Reality was always intended for a lot more than gaming. Just as gamers, we want to see it go far. And it will only if it gets major backing from a company such as Facebook. I'm not gonna lie, I wanted Valve involved in this, but I know they can't match Facebook's offer.

Stop....

He is a tech guy that has no idea how business is done and doesnt like to get involved in such things...

But hes preeeeeeeeety sure Mark "shady" Zuckerberg is willing to stay the course?

Facebook allready kinda sorta laid out their plans to turn the OR into a social media plattform made for add revenue and not a gaming periferal.

How is that "staying the course" ? Look John might be the go to guy if you want to discuss technical stuff about the OR but he clearly has no idea about business or what Facebooks real plans are. A simply "oh sure we wont change the course" from mark zuckerberg means jack shit if its not written on paper and signed by the guy himselfe.

Zuckerberg OWNS the company now.. he can do whatever the hell he pleases both with the company and the product. Heck he could dismantle the whole company only leaving key personal and transferring the whole thing to another department if he so wanted. (the feasability of such a thing might be non existant but hey... he threw 2 billions at the OR guys to get his hands on a new toy)

It doesnt matter what Carmack thinks or says... he has as much influence about all this as the guy sitting right next to him in office... none what so freaking ever.

From the sounds of it he wasnt even really involved in the talks and was left in the dark till the buyout happened. So hearing from him how "great" of a chance this whole deal is... yeah.. im sorry Carmack but dont say stuff you have no idea about. Youre a great techie but you have no business sense as you have explained over and over and over back in your ID days.

Whatever happens to the OR now it will not be what the company originaly intended it to be. Otherwise Facebook would have never gotten involved.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I never had a beef with Carmack. He did what he felt was right for Oculus. My beef lies with Facebook. I have absolutely no trust in the company and I am vehemently against all of their business practices. Where foot-faced Zuckerberg preaches an "open and connected world" I see opportunists in a board room licking their lips at how much more money they can rake in at the expense of all of our personal information.

If Facebook can exist and play in it's own corner I'd be fine with that, but I fear they'd rather stick their fingers into every other IP and aspect of my life until one day they are just unavoidable. Just a few days ago I read they are working with NASA to launch their own drones and satellites.

I refuse to buy or use the Rift now. Which sucks because I was looking forward to it.

 

[Strazdas]

And Carmack is such idol to be listened like GOD because?

The difference is, that EAs aquisitions were treated with scepticism based on an elaborate knowledge of what they did to Bullfrog, Origin, Maxis, Westwood, and BioWare, and not with the vague stereotypes of a community that knows very little about Facebook's business behavior so just assumes the shallowest possible expectations about it's philosophy, and about how it's hardware branch would be treated the exact same way as it's main website.

This is less like EA aquiring a small developer and worrying that their talent will be driven away, and more like Coca Cola buying Kellog's and worrying that your cereal will start to come in coke flavor only, or Disney buying Lucasfilm so expecting the next Star Wars movie to be an animated musical.

Um what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook
Facebook has a pretty known history of its aquisition. Not a good one. In fact, id personally say its worse than EA aquisitions. EA ones at least try to push out at least one last game before deing and getting assimilated.
There is no denying Facebook practices are evil, whether their philosophy is that or not is irrelevant, because its the actions that matter.

In fact, your examples show that you are the one who has little knowledge of the companies you claim to make a point with.

 

[Alterego-X]

Um what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook
Facebook has a pretty known history of its aquisition. Not a good one. In fact, id personally say its worse than EA aquisitions. EA ones at least try to push out at least one last game before deing and getting assimilated.
There is no denying Facebook practices are evil, whether their philosophy is that or not is irrelevant, because its the actions that matter.

In fact, your examples show that you are the one who has little knowledge of the companies you claim to make a point with.

There are only two aquisitions on that list that are even remotely similar to Oculus or to the EA aquisitions in scope, and in thei subject being a pre-existing revered brand with it's own business culture, and those are Instagram and WhatsApp. Both of which are still running as rather autonomous platforms. What's so evil about that?

 

[Strazdas]

Um what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Facebook
Facebook has a pretty known history of its aquisition. Not a good one. In fact, id personally say its worse than EA aquisitions. EA ones at least try to push out at least one last game before deing and getting assimilated.
There is no denying Facebook practices are evil, whether their philosophy is that or not is irrelevant, because its the actions that matter.

In fact, your examples show that you are the one who has little knowledge of the companies you claim to make a point with.

There are only two aquisitions on that list that are even remotely similar to Oculus or to the EA aquisitions in scope, and in thei subject being a pre-existing revered brand with it's own business culture, and those are Instagram and WhatsApp. Both of which are still running as rather autonomous platforms. What's so evil about that?

Its not scope thats in question here. Its previuos facebook aquisition practices. And those are evidently leaning towards assimilating aquisitions and/or killing them.

Instagram is still running, however facebook tried to integrate it and failed as its userbase rebelled against it.
WhatsApp is something we cannot comment on in retrospect due to it being a new aquisition. Thats like saying there isnt facebook logo on Oculus on day 1 that means its not going there.

 

[Alterego-X]

Its not scope thats in question here. Its previuos facebook aquisition practices.

Aquisition practices are handled differently depending on scope.

EA also aquired plenty of small studios like JAMDAT Mobile or PlayNation, and guess what, no one gives a shit about those.

There is a difference between openly angling for obtaining a patent, a talent, or an asset, that happens to be held by a minor corporation, and the kind of fusion between two separate established brand identities that works better as diversification into two separate areas unless/until it is screwed up.

If Coca Cola bought an obscure independent plastic bottle manufactury, I would full expect them to integrate it into themselves. If they bought Kellog's, I would expect them not to mess with cereal manufactury too much, because so obviously not just separate brand identity, but a separate process to boot.

Instagram is still running, however facebook tried to integrate it and failed as its userbase rebelled against it.

Now you are either just making stuff up, or you have read some headlines about Instagram's ToS change controversy, and misremembered it as something about Facebook integration, which is exactly the kind of shallow understanding that I'm talking about.

 

[Baresark]

Some people need to set aside their anger and read. He wasn't part of the negotiation. He is their lead tech guy, he doesn't have much say in who buys the company or how the product is funded. He also confirmed Zuckerberg's desire to hold the current course. Everyone should know that if this thing was only ever about gaming, well it would be a niche product always and forever. The concept of Virtual Reality was always intended for a lot more than gaming. Just as gamers, we want to see it go far. And it will only if it gets major backing from a company such as Facebook. I'm not gonna lie, I wanted Valve involved in this, but I know they can't match Facebook's offer.

Stop....

He is a tech guy that has no idea how business is done and doesnt like to get involved in such things...

But hes preeeeeeeeety sure Mark "shady" Zuckerberg is willing to stay the course?

Facebook allready kinda sorta laid out their plans to turn the OR into a social media plattform made for add revenue and not a gaming periferal.

How is that "staying the course" ? Look John might be the go to guy if you want to discuss technical stuff about the OR but he clearly has no idea about business or what Facebooks real plans are. A simply "oh sure we wont change the course" from mark zuckerberg means jack shit if its not written on paper and signed by the guy himselfe.

Zuckerberg OWNS the company now.. he can do whatever the hell he pleases both with the company and the product. Heck he could dismantle the whole company only leaving key personal and transferring the whole thing to another department if he so wanted. (the feasability of such a thing might be non existant but hey... he threw 2 billions at the OR guys to get his hands on a new toy)

It doesnt matter what Carmack thinks or says... he has as much influence about all this as the guy sitting right next to him in office... none what so freaking ever.

From the sounds of it he wasnt even really involved in the talks and was left in the dark till the buyout happened. So hearing from him how "great" of a chance this whole deal is... yeah.. im sorry Carmack but dont say stuff you have no idea about. Youre a great techie but you have no business sense as you have explained over and over and over back in your ID days.

Whatever happens to the OR now it will not be what the company originaly intended it to be. Otherwise Facebook would have never gotten involved.

You seem to think that him having discussed the goals of the platform and having a feeling about the direction he thinks it may still be going in as being the same as brokering a deal with Zuckerberg... which he didn't do. His opinion was the Zuckerberg plans to let it remain on the current course. Zuckerberg has also said that he plans on the letting the company run independently at this point. He can, of course, change his mind anytime he wants, but so far he hasn't.

The only thing that stated these changes, that I have seen, was confirmed false. Facebook has made no legitimate announcements about changing anything as of yet, but they can at their whim, of course. I also think that JC would bail if the direction changed as he wanted it used for games himself. He wouldn't be sitting there saying that it looks good for gaming still.

I don't know how familiar you are with how corporate works, but a man in his position would not be needed for negotiations. No one in his position, in any company ever, has ever been involved in sale negotiations. Also, why would he be told it was happening? So far as we know, it has no bearing what so ever on him.

Also, this was never ever ever ever going to get a consumer model till it was bought out by someone. It was not gonna happen. They have been conducting themselves in a way that invites buyout. Constant news flashes about what is happening in development, Riftcon (which is fuckin' stupid for something that doesn't technically exist for anyone but a small minority of the fanbase), constant updates about "who's supporting the OC now". I knew it was coming, anyone who knows the smallest thing about business knew what was coming, but guys like me were hoping for someone like Valve. But so far, Facebook has not stated anything about changing it.

Also, say it does become utilized for some sort of social networking. If you still got your gaming device, would it even matter? It wouldn't matter to me. Zuckerberg can do whatever he wants, but if look at the short track record of the things him and Facebook have acquired, none of them have been changed post purchase. Instagram, for instance, has not been changed to look like Facebook. It's still Instagram, and still almost completely useless to people like me. It's like I said, everyone seems a bit too mad and freaked out to actually look at what is going on. I may eat my words, but there is no reason change years of R&D in gaming and throw all that away, and it doesn't look like it's changing as of yet. So why don't we just wait and see and stop freaking out about it.