Oculus Rift Development Kit 2: Another Eyes-On

[house70]

Well, I am glad I didn't invest in this; I can't really blame OR for picking up the fat wallet, but I can't really blame the community for being picky about this choice, either, since FB comes with a great burden of controversy around it. Fact is, FB will have to make money off this investment, and the only way FB makes any money is by pushing ads in your face at every turn. This will come to OR sooner or later, and I for one would not like to be served an ad every few minutes while enjoying my gaming session, and maybe even just while using my PC. Imagine a monitor that has it's own firmware, built by FB, that pushes an ad every so often in your face and you'd have to interact somehow with the screen to make it go away. Who would buy it?

 

[skit75]

@stevejnb - You must have me confused with a backer of this project. I donated no money. I merely described em pathetically, what I might feel if I had. The word perceived describes exactly your argument.... a falsehood of ownership of control or direction of the product. You and I are in agreement. There was never any product control or development direction to claim, by the kickstarter community. Only a perceived one. Get it now?

I don't blame the OR team either to be honest. Would be hard to say no to that amount of money.

 

[stevejnb]

Well, I am glad I didn't invest in this; I can't really blame OR for picking up the fat wallet, but I can't really blame the community for being picky about this choice, either, since FB comes with a great burden of controversy around it. Fact is, FB will have to make money off this investment, and the only way FB makes any money is by pushing ads in your face at every turn. This will come to OR sooner or later, and I for one would not like to be served an ad every few minutes while enjoying my gaming session, and maybe even just while using my PC. Imagine a monitor that has it's own firmware, built by FB, that pushes an ad every so often in your face and you'd have to interact somehow with the screen to make it go away. Who would buy it?

Well, gamers' aversion to advertising explains the colossal failure of Steam with the gaming community. I mean, every time I sign on to Steam I've got banners and ads all over the place - so gamers are vehemently opposed to it, correct? The fact that the ad-free subscription MMO market has been overtaken by the ad-laden free to play MMO market is another sign that ads totally turn gamers off of gaming products. And gamers hate Google products, right? Gamers all use Windows and Apple phones since they don't like advertising - amirite? And heck, just looking at game app download number we can clearly see that the most popular games have one thing in common - no ads. Right again, eh?

I don't buy it. Gamers embrace plenty of products with ads. In this case, people are acting like ads are the end of the world in a gaming related product. My take? It has a lot more to do with "I HATE FACEBOOK!" than any actual aversion to ads, because the number one PC gaming service out there has plenty of ads. Again, it's cliquey behaviour - Facebook isn't cool with gamers so there is disproportional outrage over something that should be looked at as an actually kind of positive thing - an idea many of you were excited about has the backing to possibly make it big now.

 

[stevejnb]

@stevejnb - You must have me confused with a backer of this project. I donated no money. I merely described em pathetically, what I might feel if I had. The word perceived describes exactly your argument.... a falsehood of ownership of control or direction of the product. You and I are in agreement. There was never any product control or development direction to claim, by the kickstarter community. Only a perceived one. Get it now?

I don't blame the OR team either to be honest. Would be hard to say no to that amount of money.

My apologies then. This perception was pure delusion, and I just find all of this overly dramatic outrage ridiculous. Honestly, what were people expecting? This was business from day one, not some buddy-buddy company that really loves you when all the other ones really just want your money. Be happy that you helped get Oculus Rift to the point where it could become a big enough deal to get picked up by a big company and possibly make it truly big - don't spaz out that it actually now has the chance to make it somewhere since it has real substantial backing. If you want VR to become a big deal in the future, this is one of the best things that could have happened.

 

[house70]

Well, gamers' aversion to advertising explains the colossal failure of Steam with the gaming community. I mean, every time I sign on to Steam I've got banners and ads all over the place - so gamers are vehemently opposed to it, correct? The fact that the ad-free subscription MMO market has been overtaken by the ad-laden free to play MMO market is another sign that ads totally turn gamers off of gaming products. And gamers hate Google products, right? Gamers all use Windows and Apple phones since they don't like advertising - amirite? And heck, just looking at game app download number we can clearly see that the most popular games have one thing in common - no ads. Right again, eh?

I don't buy it. Gamers embrace plenty of products with ads. In this case, people are acting like ads are the end of the world in a gaming related product. My take? It has a lot more to do with "I HATE FACEBOOK!" than any actual aversion to ads, because the number one PC gaming service out there has plenty of ads. Again, it's cliquey behaviour - Facebook isn't cool with gamers so there is disproportional outrage over something that should be looked at as an actually kind of positive thing - an idea many of you were excited about has the backing to possibly make it big now.

Well, pushing the sarcasm beyond any reason doesn't make your argument stronger; in fact, it kinda blinds you to a "small" yet crucial detail: we're talking end-user hardware here, not merely a subscription-based software (game) or other similar service. That's why my comparison was with a FB-branded monitor, not a subscription service like Steam, for instance. That's why that FB-branded phone went Titanic; nobody wants that on a device that's supposed to be controlled by the end-user, not by some company. Someone here went a bit further here and mentioned how a FB account could become a requirement for using said hardware - and same guy gave a perfect example how a service available to everyone became a FB exclusive after a while. Makes that hypothesis not so far-fetched anymore.
OTOH, you're perfectly right, FB isn't considered 'cool' with gamers, and I predict that whatever other company will create a VR headset will instantly surpass OR (esp. if they make it PC-compatible).

Whatever happens, I don't have a dog in this fight; I am merely waiting for the market to expand, then I'll pick my device. Getting hot-headed about this is useless.

 

[stevejnb]

Well, gamers' aversion to advertising explains the colossal failure of Steam with the gaming community. I mean, every time I sign on to Steam I've got banners and ads all over the place - so gamers are vehemently opposed to it, correct? The fact that the ad-free subscription MMO market has been overtaken by the ad-laden free to play MMO market is another sign that ads totally turn gamers off of gaming products. And gamers hate Google products, right? Gamers all use Windows and Apple phones since they don't like advertising - amirite? And heck, just looking at game app download number we can clearly see that the most popular games have one thing in common - no ads. Right again, eh?

I don't buy it. Gamers embrace plenty of products with ads. In this case, people are acting like ads are the end of the world in a gaming related product. My take? It has a lot more to do with "I HATE FACEBOOK!" than any actual aversion to ads, because the number one PC gaming service out there has plenty of ads. Again, it's cliquey behaviour - Facebook isn't cool with gamers so there is disproportional outrage over something that should be looked at as an actually kind of positive thing - an idea many of you were excited about has the backing to possibly make it big now.

Well, pushing the sarcasm beyond any reason doesn't make your argument stronger; in fact, it kinda blinds you to a "small" yet crucial detail: we're talking end-user hardware here, not merely a subscription-based software (game) or other similar service. That's why my comparison was with a FB-branded monitor, not a subscription service like Steam, for instance. That's why that FB-branded phone went Titanic; nobody wants that on a device that's supposed to be controlled by the end-user, not by some company. Someone here went a bit further here and mentioned how a FB account could become a requirement for using said hardware - and same guy gave a perfect example how a service available to everyone became a FB exclusive after a while. Makes that hypothesis not so far-fetched anymore.
OTOH, you're perfectly right, FB isn't considered 'cool' with gamers, and I predict that whatever other company will create a VR headset will instantly surpass OR (esp. if they make it PC-compatible).

Whatever happens, I don't have a dog in this fight; I am merely waiting for the market to expand, then I'll pick my device. Getting hot-headed about this is useless.

Well, you may have noticed that one of my examples was a company that makes hardware. Now, take a look at a "Facebook buys Oculus Rift" thread and you'll see the Tom's Hardware community crawling all over itself to scream "FOUL!" Contrast this to a good number of Google hardware - the true advertising giant in the sea - and you'll find general applause. I seriously doubt anyone on here is buying an Apple or Windows phone because they just *hate* advertising, and they probably quite like Google's tablets and OS's. Oddly, Google Glass is the big exception to this for most here...

Actually, two of them make hardware now. Steam isn't just a subscription service any more, haven't you heard? Actually, it never was a subscription service, but that's a niggling point. It now makes hardware and an OS. It also advertises like it's going out of style. Go figure, the Tom's reaction to Steam making hardware and an OS? Not "ZOMG THE ADVERTISING!" but "this is the best thing EVER!" I might ask "aren't you worried about Steam OS being plastered with ads and banners like the Steam service is?" but all I'd expect to hear is crickets from the gamers who are now *so* upset about Facebook and its advertising.

Sarcasm makes me a prick. It really doesn't affect my point. My point is, Facebook is being crucified by gamers for advertising when gamers happily give other organizations making hardware and software get free passes. The problem isn't that Facebook bought the OR and advertises for revenue - the problem is that Facebook bought the OR and isn't cool. If Steam bought the Oculus Rift, even with it's spammed out advertising in its central service, this forum would be holding hands and singing.

I don't have a dog in this either. Check my post history and my comments on the OR have been almost exclusively "niche product, not interested." I'm just shocked at the turncoat PC audience which is in an uproar because this thing is actually being given a chance to make it big.

 

[neon neophyte]

stevejmb, the obvious astroturfergood luck on that public perception bit because i assure you that you are spinning your wheels on this one.

 

[D3ck3rCain]

The Wright Brothers had help with their dream of man made flight. Dan Tate with the brothers on the field mastering their craft. He worked with the brothers on the aircraft, day in and day out. He believed in their ambitious, why else would he dedicate his time and energy with the brothers. The brothers had little to no money compared to similar people like Samual Pierpont Langley, who had all the money and minds he needed and was expected to be the first. The brothers used proceeds from their bike shop to help fund their project. Dan was able to witness first flight. Eventually the brothers sold the patient rights 6 years after first flight. With Facebook buying Oculus Vr does this mean if Facebook wants to run the tech in another direction? The information i've read doesn't protect the company with full freedom to develop product at their own pace and own deadlines. Companies have rushed products when their aren't ready just to meet deadlines. Companies and pulled funding on projects to stifle product quality.

 

[stevejnb]

stevejmb, the obvious astroturfergood luck on that public perception bit because i assure you that you are spinning your wheels on this one.

Oh, I know I am. The PC gaming community is pretty much the poster child community for being entitled. The community at large spends years complaining that the only reason they pirate is because games are too expensive, then they do things like this:

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle

The PC gaming community considers the ending to a game they don't like a betrayal (Mass Effect III), games not being PC exclusive a betrayal, multiplayer not having dedicated servers a betrayal, and all of these things are - of course - just owed to them in their minds. Now they're acting as if donating money to this project - which, heck, most of them haven't even done, I'm betting - entitles them to have the development run just however they please.

I'm spinning my wheels, but that's mainly because the people I'm talking to act like entitled brats. Wake up people - you never owned this, you were owed nothing, and this is going to give this project a better chance at becoming big than staying with the table scraps the PC gaming community was throwing its way.

 

[daekar]

Until they can prove that prolonged use of these products don't have harmful physiological results, my eyes aren't going anywhere near this or Morpheus. The decoupling of sight from orientation and motion is VERY dangerous if it can wrongfully recalibrate the brain. Too soon to make any conclusions, but a quick Google search turns up a host of testers that had bad experiences.

 

[cozmium]

Oh, I know I am. The PC gaming community is pretty much the poster child community for being entitled. The community at large spends years complaining that the only reason they pirate is because games are too expensive, then they do things like this:http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-BundleThe PC gaming community considers the ending to a game they don't like a betrayal (Mass Effect III), games not being PC exclusive a betrayal, multiplayer not having dedicated servers a betrayal, and all of these things are - of course - just owed to them in their minds. Now they're acting as if donating money to this project - which, heck, most of them haven't even done, I'm betting - entitles them to have the development run just however they please. I'm spinning my wheels, but that's mainly because the people I'm talking to act like entitled brats. Wake up people - you never owned this, you were owed nothing, and this is going to give this project a better chance at becoming big than staying with the table scraps the PC gaming community was throwing its way.

You are literally the definition of ignorant. You must be very young or have simply 'missed the boat' of pc gaming during the 80s and 90s. Nowadays it seems to be becoming the norm for big companies to develop a game that isn't even close to finished because "it's ok, we expect patches now" - it's not ok. Or megacorporations like EA buying everything up and ruining the IP - that's not ok either.

We complain because it's ultimately all we can do to get change, and it sometimes works. Granted that doesn't speak for everyone - some people just want things selfishly their way - but you can't generalise with the entire pc community.

You're confusing what "is owed to us" as things that used to be standard, or at least not watered down; indie games are keeping the spirit alive, not big publishers, and if you're too ignorant to see how the pc gaming world is changing - not all for the better - then you have zero ability to say anything of substance about it.

 

[Ekinox]

the amount of noobs here is too damn high!

 

[house70]

... the people I'm talking to act like entitled brats...

WHOA there, buddy. Like I said before, don't get hot-headed on this. Esp. if it is true that you don't have a dog in this, either (makes one wonder if your dog here isn't actually FB, lol). What exactly do you expect, these "brats" to decide suddenly they're going to give more money to OR, maybe go ahead and buy any and all of their subsequent goggles? You've made your argument, they've made theirs, and they're entitled to their opinion just as much as you. Any backer here could be entitled to think "where was FB in the beginning, how come they didn't inject a large amount of money then?" and so on. I can't blame them for thinking that way, and calling them "brats" just for that is pushing it too far.

Like an old saying goes, "respect is the one thing you get by giving it".

 

[icemunk]

I think everyone lost all their interest in Oculus once facebook bought them.

Nah, just the fanboys mostly. Us developers, and forward thinkers realize this is an opportunity and are embracing it. Also, we have money to spend.

 

[hoofhearted]

@stevejnb No, the people who gave this money to this project were hoping to spend money on a beta of a product intended to be developed for their interest, PC gaming, not FB advertising. This was clearly deceptive. Now the black and white of it says that this is all perfectly legal, but guess what, kickstarter just got kicked with this. I am sure there will be FB ads and other such bloatware encrypted into the ROMs for this now and TOS that states you must take this and all the other garbage that get shoved into something that would have been a technical marvel. Almost like when you buy a nice cellphone and your carrier shoves their shit down your throat. I mean how much crap will I have to hack or root out of this device before it becomes useful in the realm of PC gaming now that FB owns it? Now if companies like Valve, Razer, Aliennware, Asus, or even Microsoft had bought this, it would be more palattable. Why? because these companies already have a presence in the PC gaming industry and also have some knowledge of what gamers like and don't like. And gamers don't hate ads, they hate being forced to look at irrelevant ads (control).

 

[Christopher Shaffer]

I'm curious about WHY Facebook wanted this company. What are their plans, exactly? Was it just a good ROI move or are they somehow going to shoehorn FB into this like everything else?I hope they don't think people are going to use this to play Farmville.

 

[Pedasc]

Honestly I think people are overreacting to this. I think it makes more sense to withhold judgement until they actually do anything evil. Facebook may be evil but they aren't stupid. They are in this to make money. I don't see anyway they can make money at this without actually making a good product. A $2B investment is huge and very risky at this stage. People talking about forcing adds and such aren't making a whole lot of sense. That would kill the user experience which they need to build to make this successful.

 

[computerguy72]

Seriously, vote with your dollar and let this flop. Without early adopters Rift is screwed. I used to tell my friends and family about it and was going to show them once I got one. Now I tell them what happened and that its a garbage product.

??? Nothing has changed. Same cool product . People really don't understand how these types of acquisitions work. FB didn't touch the operations of Instagram or WhatsApp. They won't touch Oculus either. The details are in the operating agreements that are part of the acquisition. FB won't have the ability to effect Oculus like you seem to think it will.

 

[neon neophyte]

stevejmb, the obvious astroturfergood luck on that public perception bit because i assure you that you are spinning your wheels on this one.

Oh, I know I am. The PC gaming community is pretty much the poster child community for being entitled. The community at large spends years complaining that the only reason they pirate is because games are too expensive, then they do things like this:

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle

The PC gaming community considers the ending to a game they don't like a betrayal (Mass Effect III), games not being PC exclusive a betrayal, multiplayer not having dedicated servers a betrayal, and all of these things are - of course - just owed to them in their minds. Now they're acting as if donating money to this project - which, heck, most of them haven't even done, I'm betting - entitles them to have the development run just however they please.

I'm spinning my wheels, but that's mainly because the people I'm talking to act like entitled brats. Wake up people - you never owned this, you were owed nothing, and this is going to give this project a better chance at becoming big than staying with the table scraps the PC gaming community was throwing its way.

an approximate calculation of what a 300 dollar investment would have been worth had it been done at the very beginning of the oculus rift project is about a 20000 dollar pay off. so yes, "entitlement" on the project going the direct that was stated at the begging of the kickstarter is to be expected.

if the kickstarter stated that they wanted to make a vr unit and sell it to facebook before launch, do you think for one second that oculus would have got off the ground at all?

 

[gopher1369]

. How many years has gone by since the Kick-starter campaign started? With the kick-starter money,

Years? Sorry, it was months. 18 months ago specifically.

 

[Mike Friesen]

"A lot of people here seem to think FB bought control of Oculus - they didn't. This is incorrect, Oculus is still independent and has equal BOD representation and no doubt some protections to keep that in place a long time. FB has the stock in the Oculus entity but the structure all still there. From the technicals of the deal it looks like FB is hands off for the foreseeable future."~computerguy72" I was initially hurt and feared the acquisition by Facebook, but the new found capital will only speed up the development with better hardware. I honestly don't care if/how Facebook could possibly track data (even though as a peripheral I highly doubt it would be anything significant). As long as they don't do anything intrusive or obtrusive, I couldn't be happier about this."MrMusAddict