This is the part that stuck out for me as well. They quite plainly state that they knew this would alienate their existing audience, and that they were perfectly fine with that.
I personally think it's not going to be as bad. Oculus has a clear path to monetization, while Facebook, with their other products, have always been struggling to monetize their user base, which lead them to implement controversial features like Beacon. In this case, all they have to do is back off and make sure the right people are leading Oculus -- and so far, I think they are doing fine with that.
"Monetization" is a bastardization of a term that was necessary to describe how non-profitable companies could somehow make money from giving away their product for free -- usually by abusing the userbase they're handing the free product to.
See the second paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization
I think what you meant to say is:
"Oculus has a clear product that they will sell for money, because that's how businesses that actually sell products to their customers survive".
This is a major reason why the Facebook buyout is so terrible for a product company. Facebook doesn't know how to make and sell a product that isn't their own users.
And how is this any different to Google ? They have exactly the same business model as Facebook.
So no, they're not quite the same, but ignoring that, why bring up Google when no one is talking about them here?
I have no problem with companies changing their focus and direction, and my response was strictly related to the poster's out-of-left-field comment.
It isn't, they're both raping their users' privacy for money, and that is why Oculus selling to Facebook is disgusting. Facebook will only use it for more privacy-raping, since that's just what Facebook does.
And should they ever decide to compete with Google's AdSense they would be able to make a significant amount more.