VR Devs Pull Support for Oculus Rift Until Palmer Luckey Steps Down | Hacker News Reader

VR Devs Pull Support for Oculus Rift Until Palmer Luckey Steps Down

motherboard.vice.com

35 pointsdavidgerard33 comments

At this point, I don't think any of this matters for the viability of Oculus (regardless of these being small devs anyway, it's not like their games make or break the platform, even in aggregate). It's dead, and here's why:

Facebook wants "regular people" to "hang out with each other" in VR. Facebook wants to own the movie theater, the mall, the billboards, the radio, and everything else, all at once, without having to buy real estate, so they can own 100% of global advertising, on the VR globe anyway. But regular people can't afford Facebook VR. Regular people make <$20,000/year (40% of American workers earn under 20k, and 45mil are on food stamps).

A hard plastic VR phone case with decent lenses is $10 and it's pretty damn convincing for that price.

The next cheapest VR is PS4, which is ~$700 all up, console and headset. Sony has a known name in the gaming space, a reputation for quality, and is the #1 console maker. People will buy this.

And then you have the PC VR, whether oculus or vive, $600-800 for the headset alone, and then over $1000 for a PC (because most people don't have a PC they can just plug a headset into, nor a PSU allowing them to just upgrade their GPU, etc, it requires a new unit for most.) -- and no killer apps.

So where are the devs going to go? Playstation has advanced graphics AND is difficult or impossible to pirate. Mobile has obscene penetration and people who don't play games and don't want to invest in gaming hardware have the ability to engage here.

I don't see Oculus having a good end regardless of decisions it can make.

Why limit who you do business with based on who agrees with you politically? That will probably hurt you more than it does anyone else.

The guy didn't even accomplish anything. He tried to solicit donations and involvement from Trump supporters online and they quickly told him to beat feet. In their own words, "memes are not for sale" because "meme magic is real".

Meanwhile, the NYTimes has a story about Hillary's real, operational, online propaganda machine: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/us/politics/hillary-clinto... I can't help but wonder if the Nimble America story is being pushed to bury this.

I wonder why FB didn't pull Luckey aside at company purchase time and say "ok you're worth a LOT of money now, time to delete the reddit account."

I wonder if this whole debacle is just FB throwing Luckey under the bus.

It boggles my mind that people think this is okay, but when a business that doesn't agree with gay marriage and won't bake a cake, it needs government intervention (as long as they don't refuse a gay person from purchasing any cake, it should be well within their rights).

These developers are using bullying tactics to try to punish the Oculus developer for merely having an opinion. It only makes me want to vote for Trump even more.

It's pretty hypocritical to attempt to stop what you think is bigotry and exclusion by doing the exact same thing to the people you don't like.

With this line of thinking, our world will never change. We are better than this.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. If someone refuses to bake a cake for gay people, I agree that is well within their rights. It is also my right to not buy a cake from them.

This is not a bullying tactic, this is people exercising the same freedoms that Palmer is by having and supporting his views.

People quickly forget that Palmer is a private citizen. He is free to have what ever political views he wants. I could some what understand if it was Oculus, but it is not. Oculus has nothing to do with Palmers political views.

CEOs/Founders of multi-billion dollar companies are more than private citizens. They are visionaries and metaphors for their vision. People associate the entire company with the idea of the person. Not always, but certainly in many cases. For the longest time, and especially before the Facebook acquisition in the minds of most people, Oculus == Palmer, and part of the incredible appeal of Oculus was that it wasn't the product of a multinational conglomerate but felt like it came out of some dude's backyard.

When people support a kickstarter/home-grown project they are supporting more than the idea - they are supporting the person behind the idea as well.

So you better believe that the political views of such people have an impact on the perception and success of their companies.

> If someone refuses to bake a cake for gay people, I agree that is well within their rights.

Not in America in 2016, it ain't, bub.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine the interstate commerce clause stomping on a human face, forever.

All the cases I've seen on that issue have been state-law cases, so the interstate commerce clause is completely irrelevant.

Oh, well, since it isn't the federal government doing it that means it's completely okay.

Do you think it is OK to fire , refuse to hire, demote, or sanction in any other way or form some one based on the political opinions?

If you do, you are not a liberal.

"someone refuses to bake a cake for gay people, I agree that is well within their rights. It is also my right to not buy a cake from them."

Well, if you look at the few cases that have happened in the last year, the business owners were forced, by law, to bake a cake.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/court-rules-baker-cant-refuse-to...

"It is also my right to not buy a cake from them."

You're right, it is. But we aren't talking about many individual people deciding this. It's one person (or a few people) getting together an army of people to go against a cause they disagree with. It is now acceptable to bully someone you don't like to get them fired, call them the worst names in the world, ostracize them from society, and ruin their main source of income. Tolerance is no longer accepted. There needs to be complete subjugation at metaphorical gunpoint.

Social media (and our current leadership) have only encouraged this behavior. Twitter will allow BLM protesters to gleefully talk about murdering police officers, but then ban a conservative pundit from trying to honestly talk about their opinion on the real problems in the black community.

Our freedoms and rights are being slowly eroded away and small authoritarian groups are deciding how we should live our lives. Because our leaders won't admit this is becoming a problem (and some are even using the exact same tactics), the people like me that feel like my voice is never heard have to go to people like Trump. I don't really agree with everything Trump stands for..and I don't even know if he will be a good leader, but I just want to put a stop to this politically correct bullshit that is destroying our society.

The sad part is many people don't want to admit they are voting for Trump, because their house/car will get vandalized. A guy on my street had a Trump sign stolen multiple times, his house spray painted, and his mailbox destroyed. All because of his political views.

At this point, there is nothing that will change my vote because Hillary is a vote for the same bullshit I'm seeing now.

This is just the start. With the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised to see liberal companies and activists with all the correct political credentials organising boycotts of people who oppose bombing civilians abroad, just like the right were doing a decade or two ago. We've already seen accusations of misogyny and supporting violence against women levelled at them by people like J. K. Rowling (because apparently suggesting voters will consider politicians responsible for their votes is a call for violence now). Same has been happening to minimum wage activism, disability rights, and all the other traditional left-wing causes. The attacks on the right are getting the most attention, probably because they're in a better position to fight back, but I think it's the left that's actually being wiped out here.

> We've already seen accusations of misogyny and supporting violence against women levelled at them by people like J. K. Rowling (because apparently suggesting voters will consider politicians responsible for their votes is a call for violence now).

huh?

A little fish can't bully a big fish. The government is the biggest fish so we have to be careful about it.

A game developer can bully its employees, but not it's distributor (oculus). Oculus can bully its developers, but not its competitors. The government can bully all of them.

These are all generalizations of course--the devil in the details. But the point is it's not just behavior that matters, it also matters who has power over who.

> It's pretty hypocritical to attempt to stop what you think is bigotry and exclusion by doing the exact same thing to the people you don't like.

Fighting bigotry and exclusion by refusing to do business with people and calling them out for it is absolutely reasonable.

That said, it's a grey area. Eich getting forced out still leaves an unpleasant feeling with me. Sure, I think the argument of "marriage is between a man and a woman" is just complete trash, and he advocated for some form of that, but that issue does at least have a spectrum to it (marriage for all!, marriage for men + woman but something equivalent for gays, no marriage for gays, gays are abominations).

>Fighting bigotry and exclusion by refusing to do business with people and calling them out for it is absolutely reasonable.

No this is not reasonable in any way shape or form, this isn't fighting "bigotry" this is political prosecution regardless of how vile you might see their political views to be.

Democracy works when anyone can express their political voice without suffering for it. When your political voice comes with a hefty price it is effectively thought control.

P.S.

It is pretty ironic that the "left" especially in the US forgot what it had endured https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/28/college-apol...

I didn't say this was fighting bigotry, I said it's acceptable to refuse to do business with bigots and to call them out.

> Democracy works when anyone can express their political voice without suffering for it.

I wouldn't advocate for violence or oppression of political beliefs. It's entirely valid to refuse to remain idle in the face of bigotry. If someone opens a shop up and puts up a sign that says "No gays" then I consider it entirely reasonable for a bunch of gay men to stand outside protesting, organize a boycott, etc...

You should be able you express your own opposite political view in a proper manner, forcibly disturbing their business is not any different than some bigots doing the same to a black owned business. For the most part if some one puts a sign that says "no gays allowed" it should be handled through anti-discriminatory actions set by law.

A proper action in this case would be to contact the authorities, write an opinion letter to a newspaper, organize a town meeting.

That said there is a huge difference between individual political activity and involving groups and businesses. I don't understand how people can call themselves liberal and effectively DOX people all the time and try to get them fired because they expressed a specific political view.

In this specific case I also find the fact that people claim that liking a post on twitter (a post in which BTW did not violate Twitter's own pretty strict anti-hate speech policy) is hate speech on its own to be quite disturbing, or amusing depending on your point of view.

But overall boycotts should ideally never be used in proper political discourse, they are antithetical to democracy, a boycott is the refusal to conduct a dialog, to hear any opposing opinion and to discuss things in a proper manner. It is effectively the "grown up" version of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling nananananana I can't hear you.

Overall "Trump" to some extent is the outcome of the current political climate, there are many liberals that still hold true liberal values that are scared shitless of what the left is doing, they look to the alt and see crazy nut jobs, the alt right has been dubbed as "closet racists", and the center is pretty much deserted. Partisanship and political extremism has pretty much taken over everything, and everything now is binary and almost bundled together if you don't support A+B+C you are X, and we hate X.

I really wonder what happened to the ideal of free speech and appreciating the fact that you can be "offended" and having your opinions challenged as a healthy sign of living in a pluralistic and free society.

But would you fight all bigotry?

If a group of black people said "No Whites", would you fight that?

Or if women opened a store (or a gym) and said "No Men"?

Or if Latinos started a scholarship fund and said "Only Latinos may apply"?

Would you call out racism if someone didn't support Ben Carson, or sexism if they opposed Carly Fiorina, or sexism if they joked about Trump's "hands"?

To ask the question is to answer it, as the man says.

This liberal McCarthyism is getting a little scary.

Can't we just make cool shit and check the politics at the door?

If only. I'm sure we'll get there eventually, the question is if we'll live to see it.

> While everyone has a right to express his or her political opinion

We'll just try to blackmail your company into stifling political thought.

On the other hand, who would want to work with a company lead by a racist?

> "I absolutely support him doing whatever he wants politically if it's legal. To take any other position is against American values."

Also disagree with this. Refusing to work with someone because of their politics may be a nasty thing to do, but it's equally valid speech.

All that said, i don't know if Palmer Lucky is a racist. I do think he's a young man with a high profile and based on things that have happened I think he should probably have someone working with him to help maintain a more professional online presence.

His GF is a trump supporter. Maybe he is too. So is Thiel. I think less of them all because of it, but ultimately who they are politically isn't a big deal to me. I just question what good Luckey thinks can come of funding "shitposters". Throwing a fundraiser, starting a super pac, endorsing trump, etc... those are all pretty standard political process things. This just seems ridiculous.

I'd also be especially careful given what happened to Eich. Yes, he gave money to a cause many view as oppressive (me included). Don't really see a big difference between that and Trump at this point.

+1 for sentiment, upvoted.

-1 for spelling (led is the past tense of lead). Not downvoted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com