Bush said:Aaaaaand no more Oculus support for Minecraft. Wow
Bush said:Aaaaaand no more Oculus support for Minecraft. Wow
+1Zero said:It's funny how Palmer has essentially "taken the blame" for this whole thing on the entire internet, when he hasn't been the majority holder in a long time. What do those people think happened when Oculus received all that investment money? You think Marc Andreessen just threw money at them out of the kindness of his heart? Heck, iirc he wasn't even the majority holder prior to the entire Kickstarter. Even if Palmer had disagreed with this decision, it wouldn't have mattered one bit. It's like no one knows how business works.
The entire internet is going insane over this and they need to step out of the anti-facebook circle-jerk and relax. I've even seen multiple people on reddit wish for Palmer's death. Seriously, that's not cool. Notch especially is in no position to talk, being known for his many empty promises. The grassroots argument I keep hearing is flax too, if someone like Google or Valve would have bought them out, the backlash wouldn't be anything like this. No, you'd see people praising them for investing in the technology, even though Google has just as many, if not more, privacy concerns as Facebook. And honestly, I'm glad it was a company like Facebook that doesn't deal with hardware or games, because if it was a big gaming company like EA or Sony buying them out, you can bet the Oculus team would have little to no input. Facebook isn't stupid, they know Oculus already has some of the best in the industry there, so as long as they keep up the good work, Facebook will keep them operating independently.
This is a good thing, even in the long term. Everyone here especially should know that Palmer wouldn't publicly support this if it wasn't. He's a smart guy, and I'm sure this wasn't a rash decision by any means, and probably took months of discussion. Plus, he has guys like John Carmack with him, who I'm definitely sure is for this, because otherwise he would have quit beforehand.
Give it time, let them show off what they've been working on when the time is ready and make your decision then. As long as they keep doing what they're doing now and are successful at it, Facebook has no reason to intervene. If they do, I'll bite my tongue; just give them a chance.
+2grossaffe said:+1Zero said:[stuff]
PalmerTech said:Thanks for the support, guys!
We are going to be operating independently, and we can do a lot of things that were impossible before, like completely custom components. The big picture will become more clear over time.
Also, Zero is right about stakes in the company. We did not sell out control to FB, we did it a long time ago when we had to raise money to keep going.
The problem with this is that to my knowledge, no one at Oculus ever explicitly stated that Oculus was no longer autonomous after the venture-capital rounds. At best we knew palmer was giving some control to the venture capitalists, but there was never any hard numbers thrown around, to my knowledge. All in all this situation is at heart, an accountability situation.Zero said:It's funny how Palmer has essentially "taken the blame" for this whole thing on the entire internet, when he hasn't been the majority holder in a long time.
Internal conferences and quotes from Zukerberg himself confirm at this point that facebook will start integrating facebook ads and services in the long term, which is a bad thing, in my opinion.The entire internet is going insane over this and they need to step out of the anti-facebook circle-jerk and relax.
Valve has been collaborating with Oculus this entire time, so yes, the community would be pretty comfortable with that, and why wouldn't they? Valve has proven its own worth and desire to consistently revolutionise the VR space. If EA, or Facebook, or Google, or anyone really, had a significant collaborative hand in the past year of oculus, I would be perfectly confident if they were absorbed by that collaborative hand.The grassroots argument I keep hearing is flax too, if someone like Google or Valve would have bought them out, the backlash wouldn't be anything like this.
You cannot predict the long term. No one can. Palmer definitely can't. Anyone claiming to know about the "long term" for VR at this point is actually talking about "mid-term". There are so many more variables at play now than there ever was. Facebook has to maintain its valuation, and answer to a further abstraction of investors. The consumer variant we might see in 2018 onwards is much more unclear a device than we could have envisioned last week. I can see some good and bad points stemming from this. Greater customisation earlier on will lead to rapid developments in some areas for the next couple of years, but that advantage will slow to a ceiling eventually; while bureaucracy will now drag back other areas, particularly long-term. All we can legitimately extrapolate is the roadmap for VR for the next 5 years or so. Even towards the tail end, things get shaky as Oculus diffuses into facebook.This is a good thing, even in the long term. Everyone here especially should know that Palmer wouldn't publicly support this if it wasn't. He's a smart guy, and I'm sure this wasn't a rash decision by any means, and probably took months of discussion. Plus, he has guys like John Carmack with him, who I'm definitely sure is for this, because otherwise he would have quit beforehand.
It doesn't matter whether one "asks" the community to "give them time". If the community is unhappy with what's happening up top, they will stop supporting it, whether anyone thinks it's a good thing or not.Give it time, let them show off what they've been working on when the time is ready and make your decision then. As long as they keep doing what they're doing now and are successful at it, Facebook has no reason to intervene. If they do, I'll bite my tongue; just give them a chance.
Antome said:The problem with this is that to my knowledge, no one at Oculus ever explicitly stated that Oculus was no longer autonomous after the venture-capital rounds. At best we knew palmer was giving some control to the venture capitalists, but there was never any hard numbers thrown around, to my knowledge. All in all this situation is at heart, an accountability situation.Zero said:It's funny how Palmer has essentially "taken the blame" for this whole thing on the entire internet, when he hasn't been the majority holder in a long time.
lovablechevy said:oh... my... god...
ok, i JUST put 2 and 2 together tonight. palmer! you have totally blown my mind! i had heard about oculus, but never realized it was YOU! totally awesome!
i really can't wait to see what is in store for oculus now!
*edit*
i was chatting with tibia when i had this realization. she wanted to post a message, but she's gone inactive and is having issues with it. so she asked me to post something for her.
Tibia says:
"Dang Palmer, I don't even know what to say. I was pretty shocked when I realized who founded Oculus. Congrats and best of luck with what comes next!"
dat strawmanttsgeb said:What amuses me are all the people complaining that it's been bought by big business, and now Sony's headset is our only hope for VR.
... DOWN WITH BIG BUSINESS, ALL HAIL BIG BUSINESS!
Would you care to enlighten me on how questioning a company's autonomy when no hard figures are ever released, is a bad thing? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but in my mind you are essentially suggesting that we should just ignore what goes on in big business and carry on our daily lives discussing and speculating over vague press releases.V8Griff said:You thought that a company started from nothing that has received nearly $100m in VC funding was still controlled by the young guy who started it in his garage?
...
williamepps said:Yes, this is FASCINATING, even right here on his own board people don't put 2 and 3 together! I met tons of people at GDC, at the IGN mixer party, at boeing (when I was in seattle) who knew oculus, but never heard of Palmer Luckey, and it just blows my mind, so I always make sure to tell them about the founder Palmer (and maybe I have selfish reasons for that)...
Antome said:The problem with this is that to my knowledge, no one at Oculus ever explicitly stated that Oculus was no longer autonomous after the venture-capital rounds. At best we knew palmer was giving some control to the venture capitalists, but there was never any hard numbers thrown around, to my knowledge. All in all this situation is at heart, an accountability situation.
I don't have the quote on hand, but did he say will or was he referring to the possibilities to help relax FB shareholders? Regardless, integrating =/= forcing. That's key here. What, are you going to boycott Steam for letting you link your facebook and steam accounts?Antome said:Internal conferences and quotes from Zukerberg himself confirm at this point that facebook will start integrating facebook ads and services in the long term, which is a bad thing, in my opinion.
Antome said:Valve has been collaborating with Oculus this entire time, so yes, the community would be pretty comfortable with that, and why wouldn't they? Valve has proven its own worth and desire to consistently revolutionise the VR space. If EA, or Facebook, or Google, or anyone really, had a significant collaborative hand in the past year of oculus, I would be perfectly confident if they were absorbed by that collaborative hand.
The former portion of that argument is also invalid for me, as I wouldn't want anyone except valve to acquire Oculus anyway. EA, Google, activision, microsoft, wouldn't matter. The only companies, currently, which I have the confidence in fully realising VR in mid-term are Valve, Sony, and Oculus. Even if Sony were to only aquire Oculus to then fire a third of the team, I bet they could make a better product than facebook. Tough words to swallow, but can you really suggest otherwise?
You seem to forget that in some areas, Sony is further along in VR than Oculus. Morpheus looks dramatically more ergonomic than any developer or concept variant, and we already know that Morpheus was in development at the same time palmer formed Oculus.
Antome said:You cannot predict the long term. No one can. Palmer definitely can't. Anyone claiming to know about the "long term" for VR at this point is actually talking about "mid-term". There are so many more variables at play now than there ever was. Facebook has to maintain its valuation, and answer to a further abstraction of investors. The consumer variant we might see in 2018 onwards is much more unclear a device than we could have envisioned last week. I can see some good and bad points stemming from this. Greater customisation earlier on will lead to rapid developments in some areas for the next couple of years, but that advantage will slow to a ceiling eventually; while bureaucracy will now drag back other areas, particularly long-term. All we can legitimately extrapolate is the roadmap for VR for the next 5 years or so. Even towards the tail end, things get shaky as Oculus diffuses into facebook.
If I can't predict it, then neither can you. I was simply giving my opinion on what the acquisition means, same as you did. I think you certainly can't accurately say something like "Oculus diffuses into facebook" when neither company has given any indication that will happen. Looking at their history, even a direct competitor in social media that they bought out, Instagram, has not been diffused into facebook, so I'm not sure why you think they'd do it here.Antome said:In other words, I see this as net-positive for short-term VR development, but progressively bad in the long term.
I think the core supporters have already settled down. If you take a look at general gaming sites, even one with notoriously bad commenters like Joystiq, you can see the overall sentiment and attitude turning around. Even on /r/Oculus, you can see them do an almost 180, now that all the circlejerkers from the front page have left. The mods actually posted an interesting link showing the increased traffic spikes from the front page, and how now it's starting to return to normal. Reddit in general is pretty flaky once the mob-mentality starts to wear off. Remember how well that EA boycott went? We'll see what ends up happening, but as long as Oculus and Facebook keep their word, I don't see it as reason to call the Rift dead.Antome said:It doesn't matter whether one "asks" the community to "give them time". If the community is unhappy with what's happening up top, they will stop supporting it, whether anyone thinks it's a good thing or not.
This isn't a problem you can PR out of like XBone, for the next year or two the vast majority of people buying this product will be the core gaming community, no matter where you think VR will go. The gaming community is fairly smart, but they aren't going to see the (positive) mid-term and (speculative) long term. And from my perspective, even those seeing the long term should know that it is pure speculation now, and even those who are willing to speculate will probably fall no better than 50/50 in expectations.
Zuckerberg said he could envision people visiting virtual worlds where they can buy goods and are served advertisements. nope.I don't have the quote on hand, but did he say will or was he referring to the possibilities to help relax FB shareholders? Regardless, integrating =/= forcing. That's key here. What, are you going to boycott Steam for letting you link your facebook and steam accounts?
And thanks for missing my point which is that Valve was collaborating with Oculus this entire time, so no one would be surprised if valve absorbed them in the end.Thanks for reinforcing my point by saying everyone would be happy if Valve bought them out.
I would love to see this "open platform" then, unless that is just speculation?"Better" is subjective, especially when we don't have all the details. To me, an open platform would be "better", and currently ... I also find it hard to believe that Morpheus was really in development that early, because (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), didn't Sony offer to hire Palmer and basically start their entire VR department after seeing the Rift prototype? This was right before Oculus was formally founded, so it seems strange to me that Sony would put everything together that quickly.
And I agree that we should stop dealing in absolutes here. Anyone thinking that the rift is going to leap forward or die is a fool, and those predicting positive or negative long-term results are speculating. My empirical-sentiment-ometer is still detecting general negative sentiment, so I don't know about what is happening for you. Maybe we could try and pool together and fit an exponential decay curve to negative sentiment?I think the core supporters have already settled down. ... but as long as Oculus and Facebook keep their word, I don't see it as reason to call the Rift dead.
Indeed, we are both speculating, and I want to continue to stress that anyone here touting that their opinion is right is also speculating. But I am still unquestionably of the belief that the progress of VR could have come about far more effectively than it has currently, and as a result we won't be seeing any reasonable standards or ARM/open-esque community driven development for a long time, or even ever, and this would be unquestionably not community-centred.If I can't predict it, then neither can you. I was simply giving my opinion on what the acquisition means, same as you did. I think you certainly can't accurately say something like "Oculus diffuses into facebook" when neither company has given any indication that will happen. Looking at their history, even a direct competitor in social media that they bought out, Instagram, has not been diffused into facebook, so I'm not sure why you think they'd do it here.
Just because Zuckerberg would like that doesn't mean he'll transform the Rift into a dedicated shopping machine. A gaming/entertainment accessory that happens to also be able to function as a shopping machine makes more sense.Antome said:Zuckerberg said he could envision people visiting virtual worlds where they can buy goods and are served advertisements. nope.
They probably didn't bring palmer on board because they were already on par, if not ahead.
That'd work in an ideal world, but in the real world full of sensationalist headlines, it'd be a bad idea as soon as one major publication says "OCULUS OWNER GIVES UP CONTROL OF THE COMPANY". Like I said, it's not hard for someone to figure out the numbers on their own with public information. Refer to this post, for example.Antome said:It might not be common practise, but it's community-favourable practise to release something along the lines of "X has bought $x stake in company, now controlling Y% share in company. Z% is divided among employees(or not), and Y% is divided into y% among the board.
There you have it. They never had to say that palmer lost effective control, but they could have easily been transparent about expectations and structure for oculus moving forward, and it should have happened long ago. The lack of transparency from the corporate scale all the way down to the engineering scale has been completely uncalled for, particularly given the community-funded background in the first place.
I'll agree that sounds like a terrible idea just by his wording, however I'm going to agree with vskid that it doesn't mean he's gonna force ads or micro transactions over everything.
I didn't miss it, I just chose not to address it because it was unrelated to my original argument. Whether it would have been expected or not, Valve is still "big business" and an acquisition by them would mean Oculus would no longer be a "grassroots" movement or an "indie" company, which is an argument many people were using against the Facebook acquisition. I was simply stating that those same people would likely be happy if Valve had bought Oculus, which is hypocritical.And thanks for missing my point which is that Valve was collaborating with Oculus this entire time, so no one would be surprised if valve absorbed them in the end.
Your point was also if "Google, valve.." IIRC which I already disputed.
Oh, has Sony announced PC support for consumers for Project Morpheus? Unless that's the case, I don't see how anyone could argue that Morpheus would be more open than the Rift. As much as Sony wants people to think otherwise, the PS4 is a closed platform, and the limitations of the PS4 will only hurt Morpheus. It's my understanding that Oculus never intended to force people to use their software, and Palmer's comments make it seem like that's not about to change.I would love to see this "open platform" then, unless that is just speculation? I recommend watching this if you want to argue towards the rift against Morpheus any further, to prevent misinformation.
I was simply going by the information I recalled back when Palmer was offered the job by Sony. It's entirely possible I misunderstood, or Sony mislead Palmer to make him believe he'd have more control then he actually would have if he took the job. I don't think anyone can blame me for not entirely believing Sony though.Sony has been developing Gaming-centred VR since at least 2010, and were clearly converging into the contemporary VR design since at least 2011, using the same hardware design teams as those which worked on the Vita and co.
While bringing palmer on may have helped, they clearly weren't struggling, and would have if anything accelerated development. They were already on par, if not ahead.
Agreed.And I agree that we should stop dealing in absolutes here. Anyone thinking that the rift is going to leap forward or die is a fool, and those predicting positive or negative long-term results are speculating. My empirical-sentiment-ometer is still detecting general negative sentiment, so I don't know about what is happening for you. Maybe we could try and pool together and fit an exponential decay curve to negative sentiment?
I think something that hasn't been discussed often is that by Oculus now having the resources to better compete with Sony, as well as now being part of a large corporation, we could see more big companies willing to jump in and take a piece of the pie as long as their is no clear market leader.Indeed, we are both speculating, and I want to continue to stress that anyone here touting that their opinion is right is also speculating. But I am still unquestionably of the belief that the progress of VR could have come about far more effectively than it has currently, and as a result we won't be seeing any reasonable standards or ARM/open-esque community driven development for a long time, or even ever, and this would be unquestionably not community-centred.