Oculus Rift

Retr0gamer

If the user copy and pasted it would appear as plain black text within one reply.

Those are multiple replies as the usernames are in blue etc...

Kiith

Fnz wrote: »

*non-accusatory tone* Source?

I find it almost impossible to believe that a Facebook account won't be required. Unless they're using weasel words and actually mean "well, you can browse the store without an account".

He answered a few questions someone posted on a Reddit post (sort the comments by Top)

http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/21dvlz/palmer_i_will_continue_to_support_oculus_but/

Genghiz Cohen

A collection of Palmers answers.

http://imgur.com/a/ftOpP

Kiith

Oculus Rift Founder - Palmer Luckey wrote:

Facebook is going to give us access to massive resources, but let us operate independantly on our own vision.

That's what we all hope will happen, but it's hard not to be cynical.

norrie rugger

ummm you know it would happen

Grumpypants

I think so what, if it's good and the games on it are awesome I'd still buy it regardless of who made it ..... well maybe not Apple.

Wossack

cant see how fb expect to make profit out of the 2 billion investment on h/w alone

so I really cant see how Oculus have free reign, or have their vision of VR unsullied tbh

Retr0gamer

Wossack wrote: »

cant see how fb expect to make profit out of the 2 billion investment on h/w alone

so I really cant see how Oculus have free reign, or have their vision of VR unsullied tbh

My guess is it will make it on patents if it takes off.

AlmightyCushion

Wossack wrote: »

cant see how fb expect to make profit out of the 2 billion investment on h/w alone

so I really cant see how Oculus have free reign, or have their vision of VR unsullied tbh

They paid $19b for whatsapp and $1b for Instagram, I don't think they're worried about getting that money back any time in the short to medium term. I think oculus have a better chance of paying them back then whatsapp ever will.

FlyingIrishMan

They'll probably end up making some version of Playstation Home, fill it with ads, loads of Facebook integration. If anybody has seen the movie 'Gamer' with Gerard Butler, there is something like it in that.

ScumLord

Kiith wrote: »

That's what we all hope will happen, but it's hard not to be cynical.

If they made an official statement confirming the rift will hit the market as expected and promised then it would enough for me. I can see that partnering with Facebook who aren't technology experts and don't have anything to offer but money could be better than if they teamed up with someone like Microsoft who would think they know better and try and control the development is a good thing.

They just need to make a statement putting all our fears to rest and tell us everythings going to be ok and give the whole internet a pat on the head.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

My guess is it will make it on patents if it takes off.

Pretty sure the only patent OR have is a design patent to avoid potential rip offs. I could be wrong though as I only gave it a quick look when I saw the announcement last night.

Some quotes from Luckey and Carmack here anyway.

AlmightyCushion

They paid big money for it because they think VR is gonna be huge in the future. It'd be like someone paying over the odds for Nintendo's game division back in the days when the home console market was very small. At the time that would seem like a bad idea but now it'd be seen as the bargain of the century. If VR takes off massively and oculus stay dominant in that area then it will pay off. Whether that will happen, especially with Sony getting into it is another story.

moc moc a moc

lmimmfn wrote: »

Sorry man but for 2 billion I'd sell out too lol

Selling out is one thing - hiding the fact that you're selling out while people are pre-ordering your product is another.

If they were after money, the least they could have done was go to Valve first to see if they were interested. GabeN has deep pockets too, and he could be trusted not to bollix the whole project up by trying to milk it.

Dyr

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

A collection of Palmers answers.

http://imgur.com/a/ftOpP

Most of what the guy says is moot because OR will not ultimately be making the decisions from this point forward.

norrie rugger

moc moc a moc wrote: »

Selling out is one thing - hiding the fact that you're selling out while people are pre-ordering your product is another.

If they were after money, the least they could have done was go to Valve first to see if they were interested. GabeN has deep pockets too, and he could be trusted not to bollix the whole project up by trying to milk it.

It's their business, what do they owe you? The reason to be in business is to make money. Would you expect that they take a smaller offer for GabeN, to satisfy your idea of not "Selling out"?
You order a product and get it, that is the extent of their responsibility to you.

You being upset that they took the deal, while there are open orders, is like getting in a twist that the company building your house gets bought out by another company but still complete the house

o1s1n

norrie rugger wrote: »

It's their business, what do they owe you? The reason to be in business is to make money. Would you expect that they take a smaller offer for GabeN, to satisfy your idea of not "Selling out"?
You order a product and get it, that is the extent of their responsibility to you.

You being upset that they took the deal, while there are open orders, is like getting in a twist that the company building your house gets bought out by another company but still complete the house

Few things wrong with that.

There are different kinds of business and reasons to be in that business.

The reason Oculus were in business (or lead us all to believe they were in business) was to bring VR into being. Luckey with all his talking of dreams and holodecks etc.

So people invested in the kickstarter, invested in devkits, invested in demo building and invested in the community to try and get VR off the ground. At no point was there the whiff of big corporations and money making. It all seemed very honest and passionate, finally VR in the hands of people who want the same thing as us - VR!

Until today that is. It's such a complete turnaround from the company that it has left many a jaw on the floor.

The fact that it was announced after the DK2 is not a coincidence.

norrie rugger

But the simple fact is that a business is a business. It may have aspirations to do a task but its primary aim will always to be to make money for the owner(s). To think anything else is naive

ScumLord

o1s1n wrote: »

The reason Oculus were in business (or lead us all to believe they were in business) was to bring VR into being. Luckey with all his talking of dreams and holodecks etc.

He may have started out like that but the reality of trying to get a product to the marketplace would change a person.

norrie rugger

ScumLord wrote: »

He may have started out like that but the reality of trying to get a product to the marketplace would change a person.

Their may also be substantial personal financial liability, risk, pressure, stress etc.

OK, let's all be honest. If you set up a business tomorrow and put a lot of work into it, then someone offers you $2,000,000,000 for it, would you say no?

ScumLord

norrie rugger wrote: »

Their may also be substantial personal financial liability, risk, pressure, stress etc.

OK, let's all be honest. If you set up a business tomorrow and put a lot of work into it, then someone offers you $2,000,000,000 for it, would you say no?

Nope.

o1s1n

norrie rugger wrote: »

Their may also be substantial personal financial liability, risk, pressure, stress etc.

OK, let's all be honest. If you set up a business tomorrow and put a lot of work into it, then someone offers you $2,000,000,000 for it, would you say no?

It depends what the business is.

If it's a standard run of the mill business I put a lot of work into purely to make money, then yes, I'd sell it in a heartbeat.

If it was my life's work, my passion and I was doing something that was breaking new ground... I dunno. Can't really say until you're in that situation. There is more to life than money after all.

Would Oculus ever end up in a scenario where they made zero from their product if they didn't take the Facebook deal and remained an independent company in full control? I seriously doubt it.

safetyboy

"According to a person involved in the deal who was not allowed to speak publicly because he was not authorized by either company, Facebook eventually plans to redesign the Oculus hardware and rebrand it with a Facebook interface and logo."


http://www.slashgear.com/oculus-vr-facebook-rebranding-tipped-new-interface-and-logo-26322238/

AlmightyCushion

ScumLord wrote: »

Nope.

It's very easy to say that when the offer isn't on the table. Oculus are a small company with very little financial backing and a major player like Sony just showed the world they're entering your market. They have many advantages over you including money, talent, better marketing, a household name, an already huge consumer electronics division which gives them considerable experience and economies of scale. When you're looking at going up against that on your own, you see the value of'selling out'.

They really did need to team up with someone bigger, I'm not sure Facebook is the ideal choice but anyway.

norrie rugger

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's very easy to say that when the offer isn't on the table. Oculus are a small company with very little financial backing and a major player like Sony just showed the world they're entering your market. They have many advantages over you including money, talent, better marketing, a household name, an already huge consumer electronics division which gives them considerable experience and economies of scale. When you're looking at going up against that on your own, you see the value of'selling out'.

They really did need to team up with someone bigger, I'm not sure Facebook is the ideal choice but anyway.

Given that I asked the question of "Would you say no?" and he answered "Nope" I think that he was saying that he would take the offer.

o1s1n

norrie rugger wrote: »

Given that I asked the question of "Would you say no?" and he answered "Nope" I think that he was saying that he would take the offer.

Yeah, that's the impression I got too.

G'wan ScumLord you big sell out, I hope your super yacht can hold the weight of your guilty conscience :pac:

norrie rugger

o1s1n wrote: »

Yeah, that's the impression I got too.

G'wan ScumLord you big sell out, I hope your super yacht can hold the weight of your guilty conscience :pac:

Think about it though, that's enough money so that you never have to generate a Kickstarter again, never have to go cap in hand for your next project.

I would take it in a heart beat

ScumLord

o1s1n wrote: »

Yeah, that's the impression I got too.

G'wan ScumLord you big sell out, I hope your super yacht can hold the weight of your guilty conscience :pac:

It can not only hold the weight of my guilty conscious but the guilty conscience of my live in coke dealer.


Like I already alluded to, if Facebook keeps their nose out of the development until we at least get the consumer rift it could be better than teaming up with someone who'd want to take over completely. So I'd rather take Facebooks 2 billion than Sony's 4 billion (although with numbers like that it's easy to be choosy).

Shiminay

ScumLord wrote: »

I can see that partnering with Facebook who aren't technology experts and don't have anything to offer but money could be better than if they teamed up with someone like Microsoft who would think they know better and try and control the development is a good thing.

Whoah there, hold on. Facebook is a legit hard and software tech company and have some brilliant people working for them - just not in this niche area. Google, Sun, Amazon and MS are maybe the only people who know more about server farms and the likes than they do. They have a BILLION users, one doesn't simply ring Dell and ask for a few racks full of servers to support a monster like that

They've also spent time working on mobile devices and if they're smart, which they are, have been looking at an alternative to a Chrome Book and so one.

They've made it clear that they see Google as their main competitor for a long time, this is another step in that direction I think.

AlmightyCushion

norrie rugger wrote: »

Given that I asked the question of "Would you say no?" and he answered "Nope" I think that he was saying that he would take the offer.

I see that now. Looks like I read it wrong.