Early Supporters of Oculus VR Denounce Facebook Buyout
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
It makes absolutely zero sense for Facebook to meddle with Oculus by pursuing any of the ridiculous paths people are worried about like trying to integrate the Rift into the Facebook platform or turn away from the gaming community or charge for the SDK or any other tinfoil scenarios people are assuming Facebook will pursue.
The truth is, the Sony announcement was a significant shot across the bow at Oculus. From all accounts their headset is already on par with the rift, plus they have a massive built in user base. Oculus may have had the support and interest of a subset of hardcore gamers behind them but that's small potatoes compared to the console market. With Facebook, they may actually have a fighting chance to retain their position as the leader in VR.
On the upside, however, everyone is canceling their DK2 orders which should allow me to get mine earlier :)
I think you are missing the big picture because you are not realizing the potential of this technology (Mark probably has, that's why he bought Oculus). VR will absolutely change the way we interact with each other in the future. This is not about gaming at all. This is about people wearing VR headsets (which will probably look like sunglasses) in everyday situations (augmented reality). Oculus is the leader in this area and Facebook is in control now. For many people a possible utopia has turned into a dystopia over night.
"VR will absolutely change the way we interact with each other in the future."
Probably... but OR was solving hardware/society challenges, and those challenges can't be solved by handing the reins to the masters of the fucked-up dystopia that is Facebook.
Jeri Ellsworth (Technical Illusions) with the CastAR, Sony has one, GameFace Labs, Durovis, etc. are all competitors.
Even if Oculus is the best thing out there, their advances will quickly spread to the community. With the competition we're seeing in the area, it's going to be very crowded, I don't think Oculus being bought by Facebook is bad for consumers. It could be bad for Oculus, but it's not like Facebook is against open source (just look at their github), so I don't think we need to worry about them trying to squirrel away every advancement they make behind a patent or anything.
With such uncertain prospects for going it alone it seems clear why Oculus would want to be bought by Facebook; like a typical FB acquisition, what's less clear is why FB would want to buy Oculus, since the Rift will have comparatively few owners at first even if all goes well. Three possibilities:
1) Zuckerberg is worried that Oculus and all the other VR efforts could fail, leaving FB without a Next Big Thing to evolve into in future years as VR becomes affordable
2) Zuckerberg is worried that Oculus could fail while Project Morpheus succeeds, leaving VR a failure on the PC but successful on consoles. Sony would love to have its own hit social network, or to make Facebook grovel to gain access to the PS4 platform; Facebook would not enjoy it so much
3) Zuckerberg is another starry-eyed Oculus-loving geek, but unlike all the others he has the spare change to make sure that the VR dream stays alive
My hunch is that it's some combination of all three. Other people are worried about FB wanting to exert proprietary control over the Rift "platform"; I'm less worried about that. If the Rift is a hit on the PC it will have competitors, which will put manners on Facebook and/or just give people somewhere else to go. If Oculus had gone it alone and failed, likely there would be no successful competitors for several years either, and FB logins would be the least of our concerns.
Virtual reality goggles/glasses/whatever will probably be a lot like computer monitors: dumb, commodity devices that you can shop for at best buy. Saying that facebook is in control of VR is misunderstanding the situation - it would be like saying google is in control of mobile phones. Facebook won't be in control of VR, they're just ahead of the curve a little so they can help define what VR will be (instead of reacting to what it will become, like they did with mobile).
edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to make my main point: with facebook's resources, the entire field of VR will be pushed ahead by at least a few months. Oculus likely has the "right" vision of how to move forward with VR but didn't have the resources to fully execute it. The innovation that will funded by facebook will help the rift, which will "inspire" competitors.
[0] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/446122463747776512 [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/20vzid/massive_infor...
Facebook is a company. Facebook is also evil. The decision to immediately drop OculusVR like a hot potato the moment they got acquired by Facebook is a completely sound one.
On top of that, a lot of us are actively hoping to see the death of Facebook- I personally am, because I think they've acted unethically. (It's the job of IT professionals to protect users, not mine them.) Tying Facebook to the Rift means that the Rift is, well, part of that thing that I/we want to die.
> It makes absolutely zero sense for Facebook to meddle with Oculus
> With Facebook, they may actually have a fighting chance to retain their position as the leader in VR.
How does Oculus get access to Facebook's builtin userbase, as Sony has, without having Facebook's software get involved? The only optimistic answer is that the purchase is an financial boost, but it didn't seem necessary. The Rift's strength was that it was purely PC - untied to any platform. They alienated the developer market they were cultivating by doing this.
I've thought through the financial angles, I've thought through the "Sony and Valve were gonna beat them" angles, and I still think they're weak arguments. I think this is about Oculus building the software platform, and Facebook taking part in that.
And this is really at the heart of all the nerd-rage. None of the responses I've seen are based on any kind of logic. They are completely emotional based on people's biases (justified or not) against Facebook the Product. If you look at Facebook's actions when it comes to their major acquisitions, ignoring all the controversy around Facebook the Product, you will see that they've been pretty good stewards of acquired tech so far. I was certainly impressed with their handling of Parse thus far.
The way I see it, Facebook has been having a hard time coming up with their second act. Pretty much every new Facebook related feature or product has been a flop. So they are wisely looking to acquire rising stars rather than engineer them internally.
But I'm going to use an exaggerated metaphor: Facebook is like a surgeon that quietly removes and sells patients' organs, then handles complaints with "hey, you can't beat my price!" It's part of IT ethics to protect users from things they lack the expertise to handle themselves. Facebook has done the opposite: they've pushed people to over-expose themselves.
They had the resources and the position to create a self-hosted product that meshes with their network and keeps the social dataset segmented and private, but they didn't. It matters that they didn't. Not in a nerd-rage way, in an ethical way.
You may not agree with that, but you should try to understand the position as something deeper than "nerd-rage."
To your point about success, it's true, the users don't seem to mind, but that makes it even more of an ethical issue. As someone else pointed out, Facebook probably wouldn't have been successful in the first place with self-hosting, and that's probably true. But now they're here, they have market position and the resources, so what are they waiting for?
But just for the sake of conversation, I'd like to make an even less reasonable point: if you can't succeed and do the right thing, then how important is your success?
Also, Facebook gaming is seen as a huge danger for many "core gamers", so it isn't just anyone buying their stuff.
It is also silly not to acknowledge that effect.
If you think they are going to let Oculus develop freely without their completely self-absorbed facebook centric mindset, you're kidding yourself.
From what I've read this isn't true at all.
Have a read of this excellent Valve slide deck on VR, which touches on the technical challenges: http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2013/MAbrashGDC2013...
My understanding is that the vision that Oculus has for their consumer product is x2 1080p screens (at a minimum, ideally x2 4K screens or even higher, if the supply chain was ready), one for each eye, to eliminate the screen door effect and deliver true immersion. Supporting x2 1080p screens (or above) requires serious graphical horsepower as you can imagine.
The PS4 has nowhere near that ability for graphics. I saw a comment saying the "PS4 is a mid level gaming PC", so do you think that the PS4 will deliver the jaw dropping visuals and immersion required to blow away consumers on their first VR experience and change gaming forever?
I suspect the PS4 might only be capable of supporting x2 720p screens (based on what I've read about the PS4), which would deliver a hugely compromised vision of what VR could be compared to what Oculus' original vision was/is. It would be even more disappointing if Sony had a compromised product that made loads of money, as this would send the signal to VR companies that it's ok to not shoot for the stars with a consumer VR product.
Oculus stated all along that they wont release consumer product until its ready, which was credible as they had to answer to no one (except if you count the hopes and dreams of backers that had no equity, and VCs that bought into their vision.) Now there is huge uncertainty with this bolt from the blue acquisition.
People here defending Facebook are comparing the acquisition to Instagram and WhatsApp. Those companies may have a lot of users, but they don't fundamentally promise to make a massive leap forward into a virtual universe, a kind of a leap forward not seen since Carmack implemented 3D graphics in the original Doom. No nerds here give a fuck about photo sharing with filters, or SMS over the web. Those aren't exciting leaps, they can be cloned easily, there aren't the same technical challenges to be overcome. Facebook is welcome to buy those types of companies. VR, however, with the team Oculus has, had the potential to do something great, with zero compromises or outside pressure. Now all that has been thrown into doubt.
I'd sum up the reaction here as:
- those who are annoyed that Oculus' independence is compromised by a company with long history of privacy abuse
- disbelief that those who chipped in good faith now have contributed to another way for Facebook to mine users for data and stick ads in front of their eyeballs
- For those who chipped in on kickstarter: they added value to a company with a long history of privacy abuse instead of ultimately funding what they thought would be an independent entity with amazing technical talent and vision
If Oculus felt that threatened by Sony, I'm sure they could raise tens of millions on very favourable terms, in very short space of time. I'm so disappointed that there is a risk of the original vision being compromised, I hope Valve or someone else picks up where Oculus left off if there is indeed a comprise because of this acquisition.
Neither do most gaming PCs today, but of course that comes with many caveats. The PS4 (and most modern gaming rigs) don't have the ability to run Crysis 3, at max settings, across two 1080p displays, sure.
But it isn't Crysis 3 on max or the highway. There is a lot of middle ground to be had. Naturally, even most PCs today can't run Crysis 3 on max and maintain 60fps, unless we're talking purpose-built high-end gaming rigs.
The two big things you can't lose in VR is latency and framerate, without these two factors the whole experience just sucks profoundly. The resolution is more negotiable.
The problem with the Oculus DK1 and its low-res screen isn't that it's low-res, it's that it has huge pixels, and the gap between each pixel on the LCD is plainly visible to the user. This is the infamous "screen door". A higher density/resolution screen that's upscaling from a lower-resolution signal would not suffer from the screen door effect. Upscaling is totally a viable option.
Beyond that, the PS4 absolutely has the ability to push 2x1080px60Hz, it just can't do it with enormously complex graphics. This may mean we'll have to settle for stylized graphics instead of photo-real, but such is the reality of ultra high-res gaming in 2014 (whether it's a single 4K screen or multiple combined smaller screens).
Let's be honest, if the base requirement for effective VR experiences was a quad-core with SLI GTX TITANs, the Oculus Rift would've made a loud thump in the market as it hit the ground. To stand any real chance at success Oculus, and everyone else, has to include "mid level gaming PCs" in its target demographic, whether it comes in the form of an Xbox One, a PS4, or a Windows PC.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very disappointed that Oculus got acquired by Facebook, but Sony's product is far from DOA, especially not on account of the PS4's graphical horsepower.
But Oculus Rift is losing the core of the gaming community here. And that is its target demographic for both early and medium term adoption, it isn't a small fringe community. (It isn't just early supporters who are mad, it is the core of the gaming community that was excited about this.) If I was in management at FB or Oculus Rift and cared about its future, I would be freaking out and trying to figure out damage control strategy (which I haven't yet seem arise, although maybe I have missed it so far.)
This really open up the space for competitors to take a large bit out of what seemed to be a clear leader.
If Oculus misses out (or even arrives late) to the "Doom of VR"), they are, well, doomed.
A lot of devs are not fans of Microsoft but I'll be damned if there isn't a shit ton of software for Windows out there.
Rift is going into competition against entrenched gaming brands like Sony. I believe that Sony is too risk averse to invent something like Oculus, but they are certainly skilled enough to clone it but better, rapidly.
If Oculus is launching a second best product against companies that already own the market, they need to be percieved as David vs Goliath. Now they are not.
Gamers do not care about the holiness or honor of a company, that's hacker culture. The only loyalty they have to a company is if that company continues to make stuff they want to play. Gamers want a good experience and that's it. Look at how good EA does despite having oppressive DRM and a horrible history of customer service.
You, and the parent post, believe that gamers as a market, unlike sell phone consumers, buy on purely pragmatic grounds. Given that more money is spent on game advertising than game development, I would say the industry money disagrees.
It's a very active and rebellious scene and gamers enjoy direct relationships with studios like Valve, CDProjekt, Mojang, etc etc, those "big" studios who still operate independently and directly listen to their audience and target instead of trying to monetize everything to maximize income.
And for every post about how EA is the devil, they continue to sell games hand over fist. I think the gaming community has a perception that they're far larger than they are. And at the end of the day if a product, or game, is good they're going to buy it.
People that ask themselves "Am I comfortable with this money being used in an unexpected way?" before they pay a Kickstarter are less likely to be upset when the money is used in an unexpected way (or when they don't get anything or whatever).
The real tension in my eyes is that the most effective kickstarters seem to be ones that get people emotionally involved or attached some way. Joining a "revolution", or playing on nostalgia or a sense of community. It makes an effective kickstarter, but can lead to trouble in cases like Oculus where (even though they didn't and never did), people felt like they owned a small part of Oculus for kickstarting it.
Amongst the mountains of screams and cries, this is a good place to get Palmer's point of view on it.
http://www.reddit.com/user/palmerluckey
I got a DK1 through kickstarter, and I had my DK2 on order within minutes of the reddit pre-announcement. So I'm a big fan. As many have said, I'm waiting to see if the likes of Carmack stick around -- though from his Twitter feed it seems he's fairly comfortable with the deal. I'm reasonably excited about all this, to be honest.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469115
You got my respect before I met you. You kept it when I met you. I understand that this happened because people with investments in the company saw big sacks of dollar bills. I understand you're probably under a big NDA and stuck in golden handcuffs, and that this might be a frustrating situation.
I just hope you got your fair share. VR will live on. Thank you for being part of making it finally happen.
I really wish this hadn't happened.
1) Loans 2) Personal cash (last I know, Carmack was loaded) 3) Investment (Kickstarter / preorders being one form of this)
Or some combination thereof. Surely you didn't think every single new device comes from a extremely large corporation.