Facebook account now required to login to Oculus devices

https://www.oculus.com/blog/a-single-way-to-log-into-oculus-and-unlock-social-features/

by superted • 6 years ago

1858 1016 6 years ago

Aardwolf• 6 years ago

My monitor, mouse and keyboard don't require any accounts (yet?), why does a device with two monitors and motion sensors require it?

throwaway2048• 6 years ago

If those devices were invented in 2020 you can be certain they would all be "platforms" with monthly subscriptions. They would also have nonstop rabid defenders on social media.

willcipriano• 6 years ago

My monitor, mouse and keyboard don't require any accounts (yet?)

I take it you don't have any Razer devices.

georgeecollins2• 6 years ago

The Razer accounts are in no way mandatory. They just have an app that auto-updates drivers (and probably does a lot of data mining) but you don't need to use it to use the device. It is a funny comment though, I laughed when I read it.

abstractbarista• 6 years ago

I've used a Razer mouse for ages solely on a Linux machine. Never made an account. Only used Windows initially to set my preferred LED lighting option via their crappy app.

zamalek• 6 years ago

Because Facebook needs your data.

And it's incredibly creepy. Movement just feels like an extremely intimate piece of data.

dividido• 6 years ago

Agreed.

Luckily my favorite purchases are on steam and 2 years gives me plenty of time to move on from my rift. I'm not going to be forced to use facebook.

Last thing I need is a remote exploit on my tracking cameras and facebook telling them exactly who and where I am.

whywhywhywhy6• 6 years ago

They manage to harvest my data just fine in Instagram and WhatsApp without having to login using Facebook

mortehu• 6 years ago

Oculus Quest is actually a complete gaming console, which is why you can use it for untethered play. You can buy and install games on it.

ccktlmazeltov14• 6 years ago

to track what games you bought and downloaded so you can download them again if your device breaks?

AlexandrB3• 6 years ago

Giving people a single way to log into Oculus — using their Facebook account and password — will make it easier to find, connect, and play with friends in VR.

Ugh. I guess Facebook is making a play to become the Steam/XBox Live of VR. Why can't we just have gaming peripherals anymore without some kind of platform tie-in?

phone86753095• 6 years ago

Because the companies make a large amount of money on the platform. Look at Apple/Google/MS/Sony/Nintendo charging for access to the platform - either explicitly for online play, by taking a cut of sales on the platform, or in the case of the console makers - both.

As someone who prefers to play games alone, it's frustrating. The first five minutes after installing Steam is a constantly stream of "stfu and stop shoving game release/update/sale announcements in my face", "gtfo with the popup messages that a friend is playing a game", "wtf? why are you auto-logging me into the messenger", "no, I don't consent to you building a hardware inventory of my machine and using it for internal stats", and "jfc, please just leave me alone and let me play some games".

It's almost enough to make me buy a shack in Montana and support the post office.

_trampeltier• 6 years ago

For me it's the reason, why I never started gaming again. I just wanna buy a game and play. I don't wanna have any spyware on my PC.

arkanciscan• 6 years ago

I get all my games from Codex and Fitgirl. No multiplayer, but you don't want that anyway.

strombofulous2• 6 years ago

FYI, Valve publishes the hardware survey and updates it monthly https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

The rest of your post stands, just thought you might be interested

InitialLastName3• 6 years ago

Hardware is difficult and expensive to make, and consumers are very price-sensitive.

In a world where everyone has a service subscription or a data hose to subsidize their hardware (see: most phones, game consoles, kitchen appliances, "smart assistants"), it's very difficult to be competitive just making hardware.

Given that the Oculus Quest is effectively a flagship phone with a strap attached to it at ~1/10 the sales volume of a flagship phone (rough figures: [0] [1]), it would be very difficult to even pay engineering expenses without a secondary income stream enabled by a) real-identity advertisement targeting/data sucking and b) ecosystem lock-in.

[0] https://www.notebookcheck.net/Galaxy-S20-series-sales-number... [1] https://arinsider.co/2020/05/25/data-dive-has-oculus-sold-80...

ehsankia3• 6 years ago

I understand allowing the option to login with your Facebook account, but how is forcing it make anything easier?

bitwize2• 6 years ago

Doing anything other than logging in with your Facebook account has been crippled; therefore, logging in with your Facebook account is easier.

It's just like "Download our app" to get a service the company can easily provide through a Web page, but refuse to. It's not there to benefit you. It's there to benefit the company.

bitwize2• 6 years ago

Because this is how the industry works now. Investors want to see the consistent revenue of XaaS platforms, so XaaS platforms are what you get -- and if you want hardware, it will be platform-tied.

ShamelessC• 6 years ago

More like the walled garden Apple App Store approach. Except this time it's a company with a bad track record of tracking you.

Steam is already the Steam of VR, btw. They have the flagship title (Alyx) and Oculus exclusives aren't necessarily compelling enough to make it a deal breaker.

MayeulC3• 6 years ago

They just want to squeeze as much data as they can out of you. The ultimate goal is to stand as a proxy between you and the real world. I'm not saying this is what they are trying to build with AR and VR, but that's not too far fetched either.

Just imagine eye tracking tech in VR headsets. What a trove of data for advertisers! Did the user see may ad? For how long? Etc.

I hadn't imagined that before writing this, but they could do the exact same thing in the real world with AR. Did you spend some time looking at that car? You are interested in cars. Spending some time in the garden? Watching birds? Running? Etc. What's better than an always-on, always-ouside device which you use as a proxy to see things, and request information? MITM TLS (which Google technically does with Chrome) becomes useless if you just have access to the eyes.

1f60c2• 6 years ago

MITM TLS (which Google technically does with Chrome)

Do you have a source?

strombofulous2• 6 years ago

MITM TLS (which Google technically does with Chrome)

Google does not (need to) do this. Download a program like Fiddler and check for yourself.

LegitShady2• 6 years ago

Oculus was always trying to do this. When they first launched they did the same purchased exclusives stuff epic has done. Their software isn't compatible with other platforms except through unsupported hacks and they have no plans of changing that.

This was the whole oculus spirit since the beginning.

squeaky-clean2• 6 years ago

Windows Mixed Reality headsets are the best in this regard. Still locked to Windows but at least that's not a social platform. I really wish there was a version of it with better quality controller tracking, it's fairly good, but not on par with Oculus or Valve controller tracking.

moron4hire3• 6 years ago

The platform play was the only reason they bought Oculus.

mortenjorck• 6 years ago

So if I don't have a Facebook account and I buy an Oculus Quest after October, does this mean I may have to submit a copy of my driver's license just to set up a piece of consumer electronics?

fullshark• 6 years ago

You need to submit a copy of your driver's license for a FB account these days??

rement3• 6 years ago

If that is the case it would be harder to get a FB account than to vote in some states...

avolcano• 6 years ago

Facebook has a policy where they can arbitrarily ban you for failing to "prove your identity" if they believe your account does not use "the name you go by in real life." One of the ways they ask you to prove your identity is to send in a license.

Unsurprisingly, this ends up hurting all sorts of people who do not use their legal names online: people who have just chosen other names, people who want to avoid being targeted or stalked, trans people, etc. They've updated this policy to allow for some of these situations (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/facebook-real-names-1.336...) but folks still get banned for failing to comply.

Freak_NL• 6 years ago

As soon as someone manages to get your account flagged as possibly using a fake name I think.

tssva• 6 years ago

You might not be able to use it even then. I deleted, not suspended, my Facebook account years ago and recently tried to create a new one because there was a Facebook group I needed access to. Created the account and a few minutes later it was suspended with no mention as to why and I was required to submit a photo of my driver's license to appeal the suspension. I did so and ended up waiting weeks before discovering that the account was now permanently suspended with no ability to appeal. No reason given. I literally did nothing between creating the account and it being suspended so I couldn't have violated any policies.

stjohnswarts6• 6 years ago

If they suspect you aren't who you are then yeah. Otherwise generally a phone number and email are enough. That's the price for Facebook, but it's good to be informed about what you're sacrificing.

baby6• 6 years ago

I’m guessing the upside is that if you ever lose your password there’s an actual account recovery flow based on identity verification.

entropea• 6 years ago

If you’re an existing user and choose not to merge your accounts, you can continue using your Oculus account for two years.

At least this gives me enough time to sell my Oculus and buy from another company.

WrtCdEvrydy4• 6 years ago

Yeah, they just lowered the resale value of your hardware... HTC Vive it is then.

mrguyorama2• 6 years ago

Better throw my "old" vive on Ebay. Some people are going to need some headsets!

ljm• 6 years ago

Yeah 2 years is enough for me to enjoy the Quest and then move on.

I deleted FB for a reason and it will stay that way.

A shame that their shitty growth hacking position will contribute more e-waste to the environment unless the headset can be fully jailbroken.

grumple3• 6 years ago

Exactly. I deleted my Facebook account years ago. I have an oculus account. Really disappointing though, it means I either have to link that to my girlfriend’s account or sell the oculus within two years.

Realistically I’ll probably sell the quest, stick to buying steam games from now on, and buy a headset from a different company as soon as they get a wireless headset.

shigawire• 6 years ago

Is there anything to stop you from making a fake Facebook with a throwaway email and use that?

Or do they verify accounts in some way now?

soulofmischief10• 6 years ago

Isn't it cool how you can dust off your old Nintendo Entertainment Systems and give your kids a blast from the past? Share your childhood with them?

Well, that's a things from the past with hardware it seems. Effective obsolescence through corporate policy.

DonHopkins• 6 years ago

They should shape the Oculus Quest like an Alien Facehugger.

https://www.getdigital.eu/Alien-Facehugger-Plush.html

brian_herman__• 6 years ago

This TBH

riskyfive• 6 years ago

I guess there are still other brands who sell headsets :/

tantalor• 6 years ago

I made an FB account just for Oculus apps that need it. It has no personal information about me except email address.

johannes1234321• 6 years ago

... and the personal data on how much time you spend in which game, whether those are day times or night, whether it's regualr or irregular etc. from which different information on your situation an be derived.

If it's connected to your desktop, it can also use all the dark patterns Facebook knows to tie it to your other activities ...

hammock2• 6 years ago

Isn't it against Facebook TOS to have more than one Facebook account, or to open a Facebook account for someone/thing that isn't a real person?

speedgoose• 6 years ago

Worst case they delete his Facebook account and he can create a new one.

Zenst• 6 years ago

Put in a data information request and see what they do actually know about you.

May well be insightful. Friends who have your email and phone number in a contact entry who also have FB and synced contacts - etc etc etc. May well have more information than just an email address and way to look at it is - would you bet a large sum of money that is all they have? Always a good way of putting perspective upon things I find.

nottorp2• 6 years ago

I have a bridge I'd like to sell you then.

sdflhasjd• 6 years ago

I did this. Then one day, facebook locked me out of my account unless I sent them a picture of my driving licence.

georgeecollins2• 6 years ago

This is sad to me. I would like hardware to be hardware and services to be services and I don't want a piece of hardware to require a particular service, particularly when the hardware is of general purpose. I can accept that an XBox wants an XBox live account because an XBox is for one thing, playing games. An Oculus device really ought to just be a display peripheral that is used for communications, for content creation, and yes games. I want something like that to be as open as possible.

atarian• 6 years ago

Palmer Luckey, the original creator had this to say over on /r/oculus:

  I am already getting heat from users and media outlets who say this policy change proves I was lying when I consistently said this wouldn't happen, or at least that it was a guarantee I wasn't in a position to make. I want to make clear that those promises were approved by Facebook in that moment and on an ongoing basis, and I really believed it would continue to be the case for a variety of reasons. In hindsight, the downvotes from people with more real-world experience than me were definitely justified. 

  A few examples below so people won't make up their own version of what I actually said:

  - I guarantee that you won't need to log into your Facebook account every time you wanna use the Oculus Rift.
  - You will not need a Facebook account to use or develop for the Rift
  - Nope. That would be lame.
  - I promise.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/ic4ye1/new_oculus_u...

daenz2• 6 years ago

In hindsight, the downvotes from people with more real-world experience than me were definitely justified.

I don't want to assume bad intent, but I find it hard to believe that someone could be so naive about the project and the organization controlling it.

ocdtrekkie2• 6 years ago

Without assuming bad intent, I think it's safe to say people will tend to think in line with what makes them comfortable with the massive amount of money they are about to get.

exolymph• 6 years ago

Why do you find it hard to believe that someone could be so naive?

Ensorceled2• 6 years ago

It was 6 years ago in 2014. Facebook has done a lot of stuff since then to reveal it's true colors.

MattGaiser2• 6 years ago

To close the deal, I suspect that many assurances were offered by Facebook. Why do we assume that he lied instead of someone at Facebook?

Aerroon2• 6 years ago

Maybe he assumed that his new position would allow him to veto or persuade the rest of Facebook to not make such a move? I could certainly see somebody being naive enough on that front.

gonehome• 6 years ago

I think he was 17 (or close to that) when starting the original kickstarter.

Carmack also wanted to sell because he had built businesses before and wanted to focus on the technology without having to deal with survival.

It wouldn't surprise me if Luckey believed that would be the outcome. I think Zuck's strategy as CEO was also less clear then. Today it would be obvious, back then though, I'm not so sure.

philosopher1234• 6 years ago

I think performing mental gymnastics to avoid bad intent is silly. Many people have actual bad intentions. “The divide between good and evil cuts through the heart of every man”

liability2• 6 years ago

People often become conveniently naive when offered a lot of money.

mgraczyk• 6 years ago

He was pretty young and didn't have professional experience at large companies. I think naivety is a reasonable explanation.

squeaky-clean2• 6 years ago

I don't believe him at all. If it is true, then that's surprisingly dumb of him. I'd respect him more if he just admitted he sold out for a life-changing amount of money. Heck, I probably would have done it too.

macspoofing2• 6 years ago

I don't want to assume bad intent, but I find it hard to believe that someone could be so naive about the project and the organization controlling it.

Let's not assume bad intent and recognize the reality that things change. That any corporate statement or policy is not true in perpetuity. It's very possible that at the time FB really did believe it. It has been 6 years since the acquisition after all.

hacknat• 6 years ago

Here's how money works on people:

Step 1: They get an credible offer for a ton of money.

Step 2: Their brain starts to spiral out of control and can't stop imagining all of the things they can do for themselves, their family, their friends, the world, etc

Step 3: They've just created millions of incentives for themselves.

It takes a very strong person to drive out the biases that money creates in our brains. Monetary incentives are the strongest bias creators, beaten (probably) only by sex and blood (i.e. family relations). Breaking them is the work of an iron will. You had better assume you'd do no better.

AlexandrB3• 6 years ago

Exhibit n + 1 on why when you're acquired you're not in a position to promise anything to anyone despite any assurances from the acquirer. Or, from the consumer's side, why those promises should carry no weight.

duxup• 6 years ago

We see this time and again but ... you SOLD, you're not the captain anymore.

If the new captain doesn't make the promise, you can't give it much weight, and if it is Facebook, probably no weight even if they did :(

vmception7• 6 years ago

The same thing applies to the gullible idealists that believe in B-Corporations

sneak• 6 years ago

I mean, this is really a condemnation of any data privacy practices whatsoever claimed by any company, as they may at any point in the future sell the entire company and databases with it.

The only privacy claims one may wish to take seriously are those that occur simultaneously with promises never to sell the company.

I used to use a location tracking app called Moves, which was a neat 24/7 location tracking lifelogging tool. Facebook, the very last people I would like to have that data, bought them, and presumably integrated it into my shadow profile.

Special thanks go to to the founders of Moves: Zsolt Szász, Jukka Partanen, Juho Pennanen, Aapo Kyrölä, and Aleksi Aaltonen. Hope you got paid selling private data that belongs to the users that entrusted it to you.

slim2• 6 years ago

unless you flex your cryptoanarchist power and enshrine strong encryption into your architecture. what WhatsApp did. make it costly for the new owner to change their minds.

ISL2• 6 years ago

One can demand such promises from the acquirer in the form of a contract that states, in effect, this:

a) If acquirer does X, the seller, Y, has the option to repurchase the company for $1. b) Any future acquirer must agree to the same contract. If it does not, Y must be extended the option to repurchase the company for $1 before the sale.

I don't think anything less could constitute a true promise that the acquirer would avoid X.

ccktlmazeltov14• 6 years ago

is it such a big deal to create a fb account though? Can't you just use a fake name if you don't care about having a fb account?

dragonwriter2• 6 years ago

Exhibit n + 1 on why when you're acquired you're not in a position to promise anything to anyone despite any assurances from the acquirer.

You are in a position to promise something where you have contractually retained control, or at least contractually secured an enforceable promise from the purchaser.

Otherwise, you are in the same position as Joe on the street.

fastball• 6 years ago

We were in talks with a potential acquirer of our company recently and this was an explicit reason we gave to them why we ended up not taking the deal – we knew that whatever promises they made to uphold our current priorities, there is a very real chance they wouldn't stick. And we weren't happy doing that to our customers in our current stage (all early adopters).

chrisandchips2• 6 years ago

This is why I was quite sad when IBM announced that RedHat would be continuing with “business as usual” ...

harrisonjackson• 6 years ago

He had as much authority as anyone else to make the promise. Consumers shouldn't have believed it from anyone.

godelmachine• 6 years ago

Just curious to understand what does Exhibit n + 1 mean? Would you kindly explain?

konjin2• 6 years ago

I remember the original reddit posts before their crowd funding on how they were going to be open hardware.

Then open firmware.

Then support Linux.

Then ...

nabla9• 6 years ago

It's possible to get assurances but you must write them down in the form of legal agreements.

Getting "company assurance at the highest level" is just as good as is the word of the person at the highest level. There are people for whom their word is their bond, but it's not very common.

ponker• 6 years ago

These promises are made from acquirers to acquirees so that they can save face, and tell everyone that they received these promises so that they have a rebuttal to accusations of being a "sell-out."

They aren't done with a wink and a nudge, but everyone knows that they're bullshit, it lets the entrepreneur maintain his public image while letting the carnivore devour its meal in due course.

pfortuny• 6 years ago

Yep: you cannot promise anything beyond your control.

nightcracker• 6 years ago

I would argue that he was and still is lying. He had the power to make good on his promise in the form of contractual terms during the sale, but didn't.

nrp• 6 years ago

Most of the folks on this thread are commenting from the perspective of 2020, but Facebook had pretty significantly different reputation in 2014, especially around M&A. They had recently brought in both Instagram and WhatsApp without meddling in either their product stacks or their leadership teams. It's easy to claim now that this was all naive, but at the time it was plausible that these organizations and brands would remain fairly independent and autonomous within the Facebook umbrella.

jacquesm19• 6 years ago

It doesn't really matter though, does it? No matter what the history of Facebook he wasn't in a position to make those promises, period.

You can only make promises about what you control.

seba_dos1• 6 years ago

The fact that it was actually discussed back then, people were asking about it and that Luckey was assuring them that it won't happen (even despite of the fact that he wasn't going to be in charge anymore) clearly shows that Facebook's reputation wasn't as "significantly different" back then than how you paint it.

kevingadd• 6 years ago

afaik they also betrayed similar promises made to the WhatsApp founders, to their dismay.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/30/17304792/whatsapp-jan-kou...

stjohnswarts6• 6 years ago

The people here are very on point and no doubt said the same thing in 2014 if they were privacy minded at the time. Most are under no delusion that "we will not do _______ , either now, or in the future" as empty promises. They were right then and they're right now. Facebook has obviously been in the business of selling its users out from the very beginning and no one who lives in this reality would have accepted such a promise from them as anything other than a nicety.

gambler• 6 years ago

No.

This development was trivially predictable right when Facebook acquired Oculus. Which is why I bought Vive instead.

You don't need to be a genius to see stuff like this ahead of time. All you have to do is refuse to be gaslit and be honest about the high-level drivers of corporate decision-making.

shazow3• 6 years ago

Here's a blog post I wrote in response to the acquisition when it happened in 2014: https://medium.com/@shazow/re-facebook-acquires-oculus-f8589...

I was far from the only one who was saying this at the time. I don't believe Facebook had a significantly different reputation in 2014.

I also have a follow-up draft from 2016 that talks about how the things predicted in the blog post have already begun.

edgarvaldes2• 6 years ago

Mmm... nah.

From the 2014 HN thread[0]

Please login using your Facebook account to continue.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469242

IncRnd5• 6 years ago

Facebook's reputations in 2014 or 2020 don't matter. This is what happens and how the world works.

ehnto2• 6 years ago

I have to disagree, many assumed there would be some kind of hamfisted integration even in 2014. The only surprising thing is how long they held off.

I had huge concerns regarding FB's purchase of Oculus at the time and I wasn't the only one. It was the single reason I did not buy an Oculus. It wasn't that I thought they would be brazen either, I just assumed they would be hoovering data up behind the scenes, and trading data between Oculus and FB.

If this announcement had occurred in 2014, it would not have been surprising, I think the concerns were clear from the outset to most of the community. The only people who were starry eyed were those who just wanted Oculus funded well and were happy to take the word of the founder.

rmrfstar• 6 years ago

Facebook had pretty significantly different reputation in 2014

That's not really true. Hipster antitrust wasn't a thing yet, so people weren't talking about it at your neighborhood Starbucks. But serious people were talking about it. Look at the conflicts of interest disclosures for prominent antitrust scholars... they were busy during that period.

Also, the infamous "Zuckerberg destroy mode" email is from 2012.

EpicEng2• 6 years ago

user: nrp
Founder at Framework, formerly part of the Oculus founding team

I don't recall it being much different, but I _do_ recall the outcry from Oculus followers and fans when the buyout occurred. This is exactly what we predicted and the fact that PL was assuring us it wouldn't happen would seem to disagree with what you're saying. It seems you may have just been ignoring it at the time for what may be a very obvious reason.

sukilot4• 6 years ago

Partner Luckey himself had admitted he was wrong. Why are you holding out and embarassing yourself further?

konjin2• 6 years ago

I was posting here and reddit in 2014. No they really had a terrible reputation back then too.

AndyMcConachie• 6 years ago

No. Facebook already had a history of lying by 2014.

ogre_codes• 6 years ago

Facebook has historically be truly crappy in this regards. The Instagram founders had a similar story, but rather than publish a half-apology, they left the company (walking away from quite a bit of money in the process.

It's gotta be hard to be a founder in a situation like this.

jacquesm19• 6 years ago

As a CEO of a company that is being sold you can not make any binding statements about the future of the company you will no longer own. This is really management 101 and Palmer Luckey does not strike me as an absolute beginner here, he knew how to get funded, how to execute and had a ton of people telling him this would happen. Of course he and FB had a pretty strong incentive to ensure that there wouldn't be an immediate break-off risk to the acquisition, and of course there was plenty of evidence from other acquisitions that this is how the world works.

I'd like to believe him, but it is pretty hard to do so given the historic record of acquisitions to date.

For me the heuristic is simple: I won't believe a word a CEO that is selling his company says about what will happen post deal. They are no longer in control and should know better.

rboyd• 6 years ago

I think Brendan Iribe did most of the management and fundraising. I like Palmer, but my impression was he hacked together a series of prototypes in the garage and ended up with a device that showed enough promise to bring in Iribe and Carmack.

(I think he really did believe at the time that Facebook wouldn't Facebook it up.)

mbesto• 6 years ago

Palmer Luckey does not strike me as an absolute beginner here

Which is why smart founders can still get away with making these statements during the acquisitions so they can continue to grow their company post close (which means their post close bonus also stays in tact) and then leave after their golden handcuffs are done (usually 2-5 years).

For me the heuristic is simple: I won't believe a word a CEO that is selling his company says about what will happen post deal. They are no longer in control and should know better.

For me, its on the other side of the coin. If I'm a founder and someone gives me billions of dollars for both acquiring my company and an additional bonus to pump the company I'm 100% incentivized to do everything possible to ensure that...even making forward statements that I don't genuinely believe are going to happen.

For everyone else - don't trust anyting an acquirer says - follow what they do.

macspoofing2• 6 years ago

As a CEO of a company that is being sold you can not make any binding statements about the future of the company you will no longer own.

Agreed, but that's no different that ANY corporate statement on anything. Things change. A policy or statement may be true this year, but may not be true next year.

GitHub made many nice statements post-Microsoft acquisition, and you know what, Microsoft execs may even believe all of them today. In 5 years though - who knows.

Of course he and FB had a pretty strong incentive to ensure that there wouldn't be an immediate break-off risk to the acquisition, and of course there was plenty of evidence from other acquisitions that this is how the world works.

That could be part of it. It could also be the case that FB just didn't make any decisions pertaining to this aspect of Oculus at that point in time. It could also be the case that FB had many different factions within its org that pushed for different things - one faction wanted to use FB login, another did not and the former faction won after a while.

This is less nefarious than people are making it out to be.

alehul• 6 years ago

While your points are reasonable and I’d normally agree with them, Palmer as a person seems to be the opposite of this.

Look at his exit from FB and his funding of Trump groups in 2016.

His life, in its successes and failures, has often been the result of what appears to be optimistic naivety.

He believed BigCo FB would keep their word to him on FB login not being required. He believed FB wouldn’t essentially fire him for his political opinions as well.

Impossible• 6 years ago

While the story is Palmer founded Oculus (and he was the original founder, so there is truth there), really Brendan Iribe, Michael Antonov and Nate Mitchell (Scaleform Mafia, all serial founders) negotiated the Facebook acquisition. Palmer was pushed out first after acquisition. He's a nice marketing story (nerdy young white boy reinvents VR) but he wasn't the driving force behind the business success (Brendan and Nate) or technical success (Carmack, Antonov, Abrash and many others like Dean Beeler and Volga Askoy).

We're also in a world where all the founders of Oculus have quit and no longer have a say in decisions like this. Facebook foundational employees and recent hires are running the show and the end game for Oculus is to give Facebook a platform that they control that is as pervasive as iOS or Android (or at least Xbox or PlayStation).

As a former Oculus and Facebook employee I'm torn by this. I always understood how a none trivial portion of the Oculus user base is extremely anti-Facebook, or even how people with Facebook accounts didn't want their Facebook account tied to Oculus. At the same time it would seriously reduce technical friction around using Facebook backend features in Oculus products. I know some folks would see this as a complete negative and I understand where you are coming from, but there are some interesting positive use cases as well.

TaupeRanger• 6 years ago

He absolutely knew that this was a very real possibility and made the statements anyways to save face at the time. He was probably hoping no one would care when it eventually happened.

TedShiller2• 6 years ago

Just make a fake FB account exclusively for this purpose. If you're forced to use a FB account at least don't link it to your actual profile. I have a separate fake FB account for every service that requires FB.

OkGoDoIt2• 6 years ago

This is great advice until Facebook blocks your secondary accounts, which might end up costing you access to any data/saves/content tied to your oculus or whatever linked services. Just look at how much destruction Google causes people and businesses by closing down all of their accounts for even accidental associations with flagged accounts.

stinky613• 6 years ago

I tried doing that just moments ago and it wouldn't let me proceed without providing a phone number.

legulere2• 6 years ago

Better send it back and ask for a refund. They intentionally broke something they advertised with.

cdubzzz2• 6 years ago

What phone number do you use for each account you create?

woeirua2• 6 years ago

Until they make you download the FB app to use it, and then they get access to everything you do on your phone and follow you around the internet. So sacrifice your privacy, or sacrifice the Oculus. I know which one I'm going to choose.

flanbiscuit• 6 years ago

also interesting from that reddit thread were these comments:

I'm mostly surprised that they haven't done this with Whatsapp or Instagram thus far, but they are doing it for Oculus accounts.
> As of a few days ago, they're starting the process of moving Instagram DMs to Messenger, requiring a FB account. So, they are.
> > The people I know in product at Facebook are certain it is an inevitability for their entire portfolio. That's second-party hearsay, so take it as you will, but it's my operating understanding that is their long term (multi-year) goal.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/ic4ye1/new_oculus_u...

cpeterso• 6 years ago

Hopefully Palmer Luckey has more foresight into how technology can be used in unintended ways now that he is building autonomous defense and surveillance system at Anduril Industries.

jacquesm19• 6 years ago

My preliminary and not very careful analysis reveals that he doesn't give a fuck about anybody except for #1.

staplung• 6 years ago

I don't know enough about Palmer Luckey to make any kind of statement about him or his decisions but as Upton Sinclair said:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his [possible billions] depends upon his not understanding it.

aeturnum• 6 years ago

What are we looking for from CEOs? I feel like, if a CEO had made such flatly incorrect promises about something with direct financial implications (sales, costs, the industry in general) they would be seen as failing at their job. Luckey seems comfortable simply pointing out that he didn't make the mistake people have accused him of. It's enough to say he made another (perhaps lesser) mistake. There's nothing in the statement that reckons with his previous understanding of FB or Occulus and what else he might have gotten wrong. It feels disappointing to me.

subsubzero• 6 years ago

These same type of statements were made by the whatsapp founders regarding ads on whatsapp(they said they will never happen etc.)[1]

All that went out the window once the company was bought for 19B, sure both founders left a few years later, but their statements were false after the sale.

fiatjaf• 6 years ago

That kind of promise from Facebook should be enforceable on court.

If it is not it's only because the current government judicial system is so full of spam-cases and it is so inefficient that it doesn't have room for these things.

Mindwipe3• 6 years ago

Honestly, it might well be actionable for purchasers of existing hardware. They can legitimately point towards a public statement made by a company agent authorised by his employer and that they bought the device on that basis.

The problem is that if Facebook had to pay out $20 million to make this go away they'd consider that to be entirely a cost worth paying.

kmonsen3• 6 years ago

Palmer is a first class jerk and other things I would maybe get banned for saying, but this is as good and honest an apology as I think he can give. Things change, and it has been many years since he said this.

hn_throwaway_99• 6 years ago

Things change.

That's kind of the whole point. Unless there is some sort of legally binding contract that says things won't change, and that contract can't be changed without consent of all parties, whatever BS comes out of some exec's mouth should just be completely ignored. All you should look at are the underlying incentives, and it was always clear that Oculus would be fully assimilated into FB.

aHorseNamedSeve• 6 years ago

A lot of people forget just how young Palmer Lucky is.

I absolutely believe his post here. He was young and naive and believed the lies from the Facebook executives. Completely understandable and I hope this doesn't make people think he's a liar.

jacobwilliamroy3• 6 years ago

Don't people realize they're complaining at a billionare and have basically no leverage at all? This backlash should have come BEFORE Palmer got PAID, not YEARS LATER. I don't think Palmer even goes on reddit anymore.

jahlove2• 6 years ago

he seems to quite regularly https://reddit.com/user/palmerluckey/

bambax• 6 years ago

He was lying then. He's lying now.

AaronFriel2• 6 years ago

To the extent that Facebook made those promises to someone authorized to disseminate them, I wonder if they've opened themselves up to refund claims well beyond original purchase dates.

If anyone purchased the device relying upon Palmer Luckey's promises, that could be promissory estoppel.

(Not a lawyer, etc etc.)

dylan6044• 6 years ago

Did you click "Agree" to the new ToS? We told you of the changes and you agreed. Go fly a kite! --Facebook

sukilot4• 6 years ago

Class action lawsuit ending in a $20 coupon for next Oculus purchase.

Finnucane• 6 years ago

Practically every corporate acquisition in the history of ever goes something like: day 1: "Nothing will change." Six months later: "All you knew is gone."

FPGAhacker• 6 years ago

Six years in this case. Not too shabby really.

tomc1985• 6 years ago

Never trust your acquirer farther than you can throw them

ando9527• 6 years ago

so is this the start of virtual world deeply integration to facebook society?

29athrowaway• 6 years ago

Perhaps it also went like this:

    [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
    Zuck: I don't know why.
    Zuck: They "trust me"
    Zuck: Dumb fucks

mlang233• 6 years ago

Well, almost everyone who starts a sentence with "I guarantee that" is bound to turn up as a failure.

InsomniacL• 6 years ago

"I guarantee...." Time to pay up

john4532452• 6 years ago

Could this be the reason for John Carmack leaving facebook

Havoc• 6 years ago

Sounds like the promise was at least made in good faith which counts for something.

teekert• 6 years ago

Yeah like when the promised not to use any WhatsApp data. And here we are, I give it 1 year before we see commercials and deep integration with FB messenger. Who believes anything they say anymore?

Baeocystin• 6 years ago

Pretty much exactly what I was afraid of when they were first acquired, and what they initially promised they wouldn't do. Looks like the success of the Quest has emboldened the reinholders. That as of this posting, 100% of the comments are a variation of 'WTF', it's pretty telling they felt they could get away with it regardless.

zelphirkalt2• 6 years ago

How to immediately lose a segment of your customers? Hmmm ah yes, require FB for login! Way to go!

rapnie• 6 years ago

Guess the extra PII + the ad space are more valuable to them than a slight decrease in hardware sales.

baby6• 6 years ago

Serious question: do you really think that someone who is enthusiastic about VR would refuse to get the best headset out there because they would have to create an account on some service online? I can’t fathom how that would stop anyone who is truly interested about playing VR. It’s like telling someone they will need a PS account to play the playstation or a Xbox account to play the xbox, they’d probably be fine with that.

techer5• 6 years ago

I wouldn’t have bought one. At least I get two years use.

thecatspaw• 6 years ago

Is the Quest really better than the Vive pro? or the Valve index?

Tepix2• 6 years ago

I currently own a HTC Vive (+wireless) and the Oculus Go. I was planning to sell both and buy the new Oculus Quest 2. I will not do this now. Bummer.

zelphirkalt2• 6 years ago

So, just to understand what you say correctly, I will ask: Do you think it is ethically tenable to require these VR interested, enthusiastic people to sign up to FB (known to be privacy nightmare), so that they are able to use the product they spent lots of money on? Is it acceptable to force them to do this, just because they are sufficiently interested in VR? Is it in general OK to force people to connect with a third party, which has nothing to do with the actual product?

I am not sure whether you are trying to justify this move, or whether you are questioning that it will have an economic impact or really what the point is.

Lycake4• 6 years ago

Serious question: do you really think that someone who is enthusiastic about VR would refuse to get the best headset out there because they would have to create an account on some service online?

As someone who had to make this exact decision. Yes. So there definitely are "someone"s who'd do exactly this.

But if you are asking if the average consumer would do so? Unfortunately the answer is they probably don't mind using Facebook.

voppe• 6 years ago

I understand what you're saying, but with Facebook it's different, because it's tied to your real identity, which changes the context a lot compared to other services.

In my case, because of that, getting a Facebook account is hard, if not impossible, because those "real identity" checks are obscure: I attempted twice to sign up for work-related reasons, and I failed both times despite providing IDs and pestering support. I have literally NO idea why I cannot have a FB account.

However, even if I could, I hate Facebook so goddamn much that if this was my only option I would rather not use VR altogether. And I love my Oculus Rift, especially for game development.

I am royally pissed off, and I will gladly go forward with a class action lawsuit.

yial• 6 years ago

Well, as someone who has been social media free since 2015 this really just encourages my feeling that I must not need one. (Even though I want some VR setup )

grillvogel2• 6 years ago

you are literally posting on social media right now

slenk• 6 years ago

Welp...I now have an Oculus Rift S for sale.

eugeniub• 6 years ago

Well this is horrifying. I bought a Quest for a relative. He loves it, but he doesn't have a Facebook account, and has no interest in signing up. I have a Facebook account, but I don't use it, and I certainly don't want to connect my Oculus account. I guess we'll both have to sell our Quests. That means we'll lose all of our game purchases.

I came to Oculus with eyes wide open knowing it was a Facebook company, but this news still sucks.

tobrien6• 6 years ago

Just make a burner Facebook account. You can do so with a burner email. Annoying, but not horrifying.

Alupis3• 6 years ago

Sometimes Facebook requires a photo ID to be submitted before "approving" a new account. Seems to happen when they suspect the person isn't real (fake name, or whatever).

verbatim• 6 years ago

You can make a burner email account that doesn't track you around the web, and other places.

Is it possible to do that with a Facebook account?

vmception7• 6 years ago

When you make a facebook account disconnected from a social graph (new email, or unused phone number) facebook shuts down the account.

Their position is clear. They’re fucking creeps masquerading any user experience they create as anti-spam.

em-bee• 6 years ago

not good enough. maybe if you only play solo games, but once you play with others facebook will get enough data to get an idea, if not identify who you really are. you may get tagged by your friends or family, connected to a location, etc, many ways to leak personal information. the only way to stay safe is to not log in to facebook

encom• 6 years ago

Not possible. I tried doing that once, and Facebook demanded I give them my phone number, which I obviously denied.

soulofmischief10• 6 years ago

No. I'm not going to give them what they want. There needs to be a lawsuit.

data4lyfe• 6 years ago

I'm interested in buying it from you if this is actually the case.

wlesieutre8• 6 years ago

If you make a Facebook account and never touch the Facebook aspect of it, is there any material difference between that and an Oculus account?

codezero3• 6 years ago

I'm sure this just changes which pipe usage data goes down, but this means Facebook directly gets to use your VR usage/purchases to market to you, and they will follow you around the web, because they know. I think that's the main reason folks generally dislike FB connect in the first place, but I don't want to speak for everyone :)

e12e2• 6 years ago

I'm not sure if you mean "an oculus account owned by Facebook anyway" - but in general terms I'd be somewhat surprised if a "real" game/software/service company (eg: Nintendo, gog.com) kept quasi-/il-legal shadow profiles that they actively tried to pair with your account.

Funes-4• 6 years ago

Forcing users to violate their personal moral principles, upon which the decision of never using anything related to Facebook rests, is a big enough difference for many--myself included.

EDIT: I didn't know that Facebook bought Oculus some time ago, back in 2014--for some reason I thought it happened far more recently. I would make the case above for someone who had bought an Oculus device before Facebook's acquisition and now would be forced to use its platform, then. I don't have anything to do with Facebook, personally. I don't even use WhatsApp, so there's that for my moral integrity.

acdha• 6 years ago

Can you do so without accepting their terms of service? They use every data source they can to build profiles for people so accepting the ToS is going to approve use of your information for as much as they can get away with.

Fjolsvith• 6 years ago

What if you are not allowed to make a FB account due to their TOS? Not everyone can be on FB.

saxonww3• 6 years ago

A better question: why does a VR headset require an account at all? Should my monitor require an account? Should my keyboard?

It's a peripheral, not a platform.

Aeolun• 6 years ago

I do not like the idea that I need a social media account to use a VR headset, regardless of the realities of using the oculus account data still ending up with facebook.

Nition• 6 years ago

On Facebook you're required to use your real name. I don't know if the same is true of an Oculus account, but that's a major difference if not. Of course you can create a Facebook account with a fake name, but then you risk getting banned.

senectus12• 6 years ago

because every action you perform within the account that signs into the FB account becomes a parcel of information you're giving to FB.

If you sign in to one of their accounts, you are functionally signing into the facebook website.

rolph• 6 years ago

so here i am wondering if facebook would be challenged by a constant flood of anonymous [off graph] accounts constantly flooding in. how many 3card monte accounts per second would be required to keep the account verifier demon flooded

Akronymus• 6 years ago

... but he doesn't have a Facebook account,...

Not that he knows. https://theconversation.com/shadow-profiles-facebook-knows-a...

bencollier49• 6 years ago

If you're in a country with half-decent consumer protections, you ought to be able to return the device, as it no longer functions as sold.

gentleman11• 6 years ago

Which country is that?

swimfar• 6 years ago

Or, if you bought it with a credit card, you can request a charge back. Depending on the card, doing that even 12 months after purchase is possible.

52-6F-622• 6 years ago

I've had a Rift for several years now. I haven't had a Facebook account in far longer.

I've also spent a bit of money on Rift games. This is angering.

jhomedall• 6 years ago

I'm in a similar boat. I purchase a Quest a while back (unaware of the Facebook affiliation), and really enjoy it. I can't see myself using it again after this, however.

dylan6044• 6 years ago

Do we expect Joey Beercan to know who the explicit owner of any company selling us a product? Is it their fault for not knowing? Is that really fair if that is the expectation?

The parent's downvotes makes it seem like HN expects the purchaser to know about the FB affiliation

ozten2• 6 years ago

It may not take effect until 2023.

atonalfreerider• 6 years ago

As a VR developer I'm really sad to hear this news. I've always been against the walled garden approach. I feel like it's only a matter of time before they block SideQuest.

However - supposedly your oculus account will be valid until the end of 2022 [0]. At that point you could change to a newer hardware platform from another manufacturer.

[0] https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-facebook-account-required-ne...

RealStickman_2• 6 years ago

He'll still lose access to all games he owns on the Oculus store.

ccktlmazeltov14• 6 years ago

How hard is it to create a facebook account?

quinndiggity3• 6 years ago

It's literally impossible, in case you haven't tried recently.

If you don't want to send them a government issued photo ID, you can make a new account that lasts 10 minutes and then is locked on you and holds any accounts linked to it hostage as you can't sign in.

RealStickman_2• 6 years ago

That's exactly why I went for the Rift S instead and bought all my games through Steam. So I can sell that piece of plastic and get something not feom Oculus.

jedberg• 6 years ago

You don't have any contact info in your profile, but if you're serious, I already have a Facebook account that I use daily so I don't care much.

I'll buy one of them from you for $300 or the pair for $500. That seems like the going price? Contact is in my profile, let me know.

StavrosK5• 6 years ago

$300? Damn, why did I just buy a new one for $600 :(

EDIT: Oh, it's $399 retail in the US. Damn Europe.

vernie• 6 years ago

A tad hyperbolic, don't you think?

senectus12• 6 years ago

nope.

FB can not be trusted. I'd argue they should be dismantled.

Time after time they have not only expressed views that are downright alarming but they have been actively repeatedly caught out deliberately flaunting the law and fucking their customers. (not to mention their Russian connections and their part in the election tampering in the US).

Google are a naught boy compared to the actively evil FB org.

jugg1es• 6 years ago

The comments on the original article seem to indicate that only facebook thought this was a good change haha.

apazzolini3• 6 years ago

I'm tired of saying fuck Facebook on HN threads, but man, fuck Facebook.

If I ever move my racing sim rig to VR, it's definitely not going to be an Oculus.

halfFact• 6 years ago

This really is no surprise. So many threads on the front page shocked at the evils of Facebook and Apple.

All were predicted given their past record.

Don't buy from bad companies and this isn't an issue.

Ace17• 6 years ago

... except when the non-bad company you bought your DK-1 from gets bought by a bad company.

ccktlmazeltov14• 6 years ago

I'm tired of reading these type of comments. Do you enjoy VR? Just create a facebook account, that's not a big deal. There's nothing evil there, people are just grasping for straws.

apazzolini3• 6 years ago

I deleted my FB account over 5 years ago. A few years after that, I tried creating a new one to sell something on Marketplace, and they closed my account, saying I needed to provide a driver's license due to fraud. I'm not giving FB my driver's license to sell something online, and I'm certainly not going to do it to play a video game in VR.

commandertso• 6 years ago

I -just- decoupled Facebook from my Oculus account in preparation for deleting Facebook. I guess in two years I make a throw-away account, or better yet, move to Valve's current offering.

I'm super done with this company.

tasssko• 6 years ago

Valves VR looks awesome!

sharken4• 6 years ago

Good move, Valve are gamers at heart while Facebook is out to get your data and make as much money possible from it.

AlexandrB3• 6 years ago

Valve is also private. Theoretically they have more leeway to make short-term unprofitable decisions without having to answer to public shareholders.

olex• 6 years ago

Same plan here. The Quest I got earlier this year is my first and will be my last Oculus device. Hopefully someone else makes a comparable headset soon (comparable = full wireless PCVR capability, like what the Quest + Virtual Desktop offers), ideally at a comparable price point as well... how hard can it be, the Quest is 1.5 years old by now, there's gotta be something at least similar in the works somewhere.

mikenew• 6 years ago

I'm able to play Half Life: Alyx natively on Linux with my Valve Index, as well as other games running through Proton. Not only does Valve support Linux natively; they've been funding development on GFX drivers and things like DXVK. Unfortunately OpenHMD (which would let you use the headset completely decoupled from Steam) doesn't support the Index yet, but it has been worked on and it looks like it just needs someone to finish up that work. Not that you necessarily care about Linux support, but it gives you an idea of how they feel about their products and their community.

The headset itself is expensive but it's the best consumer headset in existence right now. I can play for hours (depending on the game) without feeling like I need to stop. There's no single thing that's dramatically better than other headsets, but just about everything about it is at least somewhat better. Comfort, tracking, visuals, adjustability, and so on.

Anyway, Valve is just night-and-day different from Facebook. In fact they're the ones maintaining support for the Rift on Steam, not the other way around. Valve wants VR to be an open platform, and Facebook wants it to be a part of Facebook, entirely owned and controlled by them.

KingOfCoders• 6 years ago

Have a Rift S, left FB several years ago, now forced to go back in the future. I hate you FB. Will not buy Oculus again.

kostadin• 6 years ago

Great, I can now attempt to sell my Vive Pro because this will surely drive up demand for it.

phone86753095• 6 years ago

I guess I know what company to not buy any VR hardware from.

Keverw4• 6 years ago

What happens if you were banned from Facebook (for example political censorship or other possible reasons I can't think of off the top of my head)? Is your Oculus device bricked and useless? I'm a fan of Oculus, but this is a bit of a turn off. But I guess if Apple makes their own VR headset, they probably require an Apple account but Apple isn't really a social network so feel less of a risk, same for Microsoft's Mixed Reality headsets too I'd imagine.

Then your purchases and stuff are lost too, I guess as WebXR matures though maybe there will be some great apps you can just pay directly for on the web, but I feel like if rumors of Apple making a headset they'll just skip WebXR and force the app store... I know other headsets including the Oculus supports WebXR but sorta feels like it's a conflict of interest to their own stores to me so wonder how much more advanced it'll get.

cma• 6 years ago

Apple is now using the notarization system on desktop to ban apps from companies that broke iOS App Store rules, so you could for instance get your drone strike death toll app that was making a political statement taken down and lose your desktop notarization (which was supposed to be about security only) on a totally unrelated app in retaliation.

Keverw4• 6 years ago

Yeah seen that Apple is doing that for Epic's Fortnight. Won't be able to sign for Mac, but people could still install it if they turn off gatekeeper which I doubt many people would mess with, been a while since I've done that myself since I use dev tools. I think now on Catalina and newer Mac versions even more steps. Used to be a checkbox, but I think you have to use the terminal now?

Never really worked with Unreal but wonder if this will affect other games using their engine, not sure if there's like signed dylibs and stuff.

All this security stuff is cool but in a way more control. It's like you paid all this money for something but in a way you don't really own it. Like some graphic card company sells graphic cards including server graphic cards, but their driver's EULA doesn't allow you to use your desktop cards for server use. I guess the hardware being used 24/7 wasn't designed for that, but sounds like they should deny your warranty then instead of turning it into a copyright issue. Some game streaming company ran into this problem.

soulofmischief10• 6 years ago

This creates a chilling effect which puts my first ammendment rights at risk as an American, and it should be (and probably is if anyone actually bothered to correctly interpret the law anymore) illegal.

coldpie3• 6 years ago

Facebook is a private corporation. The first amendment has no bearing on how Facebook decides to operate their business.

stjohnswarts6• 6 years ago

This has zero to do with the 1st amendment. That is between you and the government. You have not such 1st amendment rights when dealing with a private company. All you can do with facebook is either do as they tell you, or drop them. There's not much middle ground.

gfxgirl3• 6 years ago

VR adult games is a growing genre. These are real time games and as the tech gets better they can be much more engaging than a static video.

If Apple's device can't run them will that be significant in their adoption?

On topic, it's a reason not to own an FB VR device as I really don't want FB knowing which apps I run (nor do I want Apple knowing which apps I run for that matter)

Keverw4• 6 years ago

oh yeah heard VR Porn is a thing haha, never looked into it. Then remember hearing that the VCR won because the porn industry liked it more. I got a feeling Apple will ban those sort of apps unless they support WebXR... but kinda like with iOS PWA and other APIs support is lacking a bit in Safari compared to Android or Chrome. I know there's concerns Apple will dump WebGL since they deprecated OpenGL, but they should be able to create a shim on top of the metal APIs, since that was done for DirectX on Windows.

EmilioMartinez3• 6 years ago

What happens if you were banned from Facebook

Your social credit goes down, of course

xwdv• 6 years ago

People will bitch and complain, but at the end of the day, there’s no better device for untethered VR that you can take and setup anywhere.

Aerroon2• 6 years ago

That just means there is no device for untethered VR. I think this is more likely to just limit VR adoption more than anything else.

shadowgovt3• 6 years ago

I don't think it'll have a meaningful adoption-limiting effect, and honestly, this is the most interesting dynamic of technology right now.

Voice recognition is an extremely solved problem. A lot of the hard part of the AI---the stuff that appeared impossible in the '80s---works consistently on Google, Alexa, and Siri. It just needs to know enough about you to make intelligent guesses at your intent.

... which means it needs access to all that big data the big company collected on you and users like you.

There are technologies that are owned by big companies that will leverage them for ecosystem lock-in. Want a neat personal assistant? Sure; just use your Google account. Want some untethered VR? No problem; just login via Facebook. And that's generally how things will be; you don't have to use it, but you'll be off the cutting edge if you don't.

Because ecosystems are where the money is, and cutting-edge tech costs money. That's the iron law of capitalism and technological progress.

(I'm still waiting for my Linux phone. Thought it might be shipped to me in 2020, but with COVID slowing down production, 2021 looks more likely. But at least I'll feel some moral superiority once I have the thing in my hands that other people already have if they just give up and buy into a big-data vendor's ecosystem. ;) )

mynameisvlad• 6 years ago

The general public doesn't give two shits about privacy and the amount of data that Facebook collects. They'll gladly go along with this to continue playing their games.

What this really means is that there is no untethered VR device for privacy-minded folks which make up a tiny portion of the overall VR users.

liability2• 6 years ago

untethered

Tethered to Zuckerberg.

ocdtrekkie2• 6 years ago

Honestly, the number of times an acquiring company has promised "we'll never do this" and then "done this" is so staggering, I think any acquisition promises should be codified with the FTC during the acquisition process as consent decrees or the like, and it should require regulatory permission to roll back. And then anything claimed not listed as such should just be assumed to be a lie.

ahartmetz2• 6 years ago

Yeah, like the last time Facebook "did that"! Merging data from WhatsApp and Facebook in that case. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_...

Santosh83• 6 years ago

The larger point here is that there needs to be sensible limits on how many markets or products a single company or group can operate in (among many other regulations). Otherwise the endless acquisitions by the global behemoths will continue right into techno-fascism of one kind or another.

DannyB22• 6 years ago

I never have nor never will have a Facebook or Twitter account. Probably not other social media either.

It's bad enough having a Google account and all that encompasses.

It is astonishing that another company would require an account on some other system. Now I don't have a problem with allowing using your Google, Facebook, etc. account as a convenience to authenticate your account on some other service.

delecti• 6 years ago

HN is social media.

DannyB22• 6 years ago

I suppose you could say that about any online forum.

There is a qualitative difference between HN and Facebook or Twitter. One of these doesn't try to pry its tentacles into every aspect of your life while trying to capture every possible scrap of information about you known and unknown.

peanut_worm• 6 years ago

How much longer until we need to login to use create-react-app

shadowgovt3• 6 years ago

That would be difficult to enforce, since React is open-source. It'd take ten seconds for someone to fork it.

atoav• 6 years ago

I recently gave a seminar about how to use Oculus devices in combination with Unity at university. Oculus produces great devices, but man is the software a convoluted nightmare.

A (very patient) student of mine tried to install the oculsu software on a current thinkpad for 4 days in a row. It always failed for various reasons. She used a current Windows 10 and her computer definitly has the specs. She even reinstalled windows. In the end there was an electron error, which we sent to the support - we never got a reply.

If you can avoid Oculus, do so at all cost.

apta• 6 years ago

What are viable alternatives?

britmob• 6 years ago

The entire SteamVR ecosystem or WMR.

mlindner6• 6 years ago

Vive would be the immediate thought. There's also the pretty expensive Valve Index which is pretty much the best VR system you can buy right now.

q3k• 6 years ago

SteamVR/OpenVR. It's fantastic.

GloriousKoji• 6 years ago

Valve, HTC and HP.

forcedsignup• 6 years ago

HP Reverb G2 seems the be the most competitive so far. It's still in pre-order so its not battle-tested yet, but its 600$ and has comparable hardware to the valve index ($1000). Still 200$ more than oculus headsets, but that gap is much better than the 600$ from oculus to valve headset

ogurechny3• 6 years ago

Not wasting your only life on standing with a piece of plastic on your head? Seems pretty viable to me.

cwkoss2• 6 years ago

I love the valve index controllers - top of class imo.

twox2• 6 years ago

I just changed my mind about getting an Oculus.

dreen• 6 years ago

I already had to tie it to a Facebook account in order to record video on Quest, unfortunately.

Quest is a great device, but I don't think my next VR headset will be an Oculus.

techer5• 6 years ago

It’s a super device but I’ll never recommend it again.

mabbo• 6 years ago

I just bought a new gaming PC powerful to be usable with an Oculus. I have some cash handy from a stock sale as well. I was really considering one.

That's never going to happen now.

oxymoran• 6 years ago

Death to Facebook

Shorel• 6 years ago

When will Carmack jump ships and go to join Valve?

sharken4• 6 years ago

It seems he will not if this article from 2018 is to be believed. But he is also a Gamer and a reasonable guy, so he might have a change heart.

Link: https://uploadvr.com/john-carmack-i-intend-to-stay-at-facebo...

criddell• 6 years ago

I thought he was working on AI now?

soulofmischief10• 6 years ago

https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-13-john-carmack-agi.html

he's just a consultant now but you can bet he's been disillusioned by all of this.

evo_92• 6 years ago

This was the reason I bought an HTC Vive instead of a Rift; I never trusted that this would hold. I recently considered buying a Quest. I won't ever consider that again.

Don't support Facebook ever, they don't deserve it.

Incidentally here is a comment I made recently about the bullshit they pulled on my wife and I relating to creating a business listing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23959088

ehsankia3• 6 years ago

The SteamVR ecosystem is just so much nicer. I trust them far more than any of the alternatives. OpenVR for example has lead to many fantastic tools.

evo_92• 6 years ago

I didn't know much about Steam before I bought the VIVE and yes, it's actually a very nice platform. One thing that isn't apparent - you can return any game for a full refund within a certain (fair) amount of time owned and/ or you don't exceed some (also fair) time-of-play amount.

It makes me more likely to try a game on a whim knowing and if it's not for me I can refund it without hassle. Great way to handle it, I currently own close to 100 VR titles and have refunded at least 20+ that just weren't for me.

ASlave2Gravity• 6 years ago

I've only completed a few projects with Steam/Open VR and the Vive, and found it a little harder to deal with. It's mostly wrapping input APIs, and different friends / invite systems.

But Vive don't have anything on the quest to the best of my knowledge. We ship a lot of stuff on Quests and dev on them is really quite nice (with Unity).

The worst part was having to make a workspace Facebook account or whatever that thing was called, right as the Quest was just coming out. All the docs were hosted behind a login. Nightmare.

I don't know if Oculus could have done it without Facebook money though. It seems to me the world at large wasn't giving VR enough attention. We're finally seeing proper B2B adoption now and shit like this with Facebook accounts is going to make things a lot harder. It's kinda tricky sometimes getting hardware into banks or the NHS or any place that has funky or strict hardware procurement. This is just another barrier for all that.

I've not read the dev emails that have come from Oculus yet. But Oculus are meant to be rolling out their new 'Business' backend for remote deployments soon. Hopefully this isn't B2B side too.

saos3• 6 years ago

This looks promising. Thanks

saos3• 6 years ago

Talking of login. I’ve just tried to login to EBay app using Google authentication. I have 2 step verification turned on. It now specifically requires gmail app to access the verification code. It no longer supports Apple mail app. Is this a sick joke?

The only way around it was to send the verification code via tex. I'm so concerned now that Google will only send verification codes to Android device in the future.

mlindner6• 6 years ago

I recently switched from using Chrome to Firefox. Next on my list is probably to try to wean myself off of using Google search. Getting my email off gmail is going to be harder and not sure what the best way to do that is.

kube-system2• 6 years ago

Get a second email -- potentially at your own domain so you are never again locked to any particular service -- and use it in conjunction with gmail. Sign up any new accounts to your new email, and slowly migrate others as you see fit. After a year or two, your gmail will only receive spam, and anything important will be in your new account.

dhagz• 6 years ago

There's lots of alternatives out there, but the good ones aren't free - ProtonMail is one, FastMail is another. There's others as well, but those are the one's I'd recommend. There's also Hey, but I'm still not sold on that one.

saos3• 6 years ago

yes, since this problem I have actively tried to think of some alternative to use. I'm heavily invested in gmail and Google search

electrondood2• 6 years ago

Making a lot of expensive bricks just like that.

electrondood2• 6 years ago

Cool, so your existing Oculus device is guaranteed to be an expensive brick 2 years from now if you value privacy in any way.

danShumway4• 6 years ago

A very brief history of Facebook's involvement with Oculus and how this has shaped up, just from quickly searching HN previous posts:

- (2014) Facebook acquires Oculus: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469115, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469237

- (2016) Oculus's privacy policy sparks concern: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11410809

Oculus responds to privacy concerns about user tracking (https://uploadvr.com/facebook-oculus-privacy/) saying

Facebook owns Oculus and helps run some Oculus services, such as elements of our infrastructure, but we’re not sharing information with Facebook at this time. We don’t have advertising yet and Facebook is not using Oculus data for advertising – though these are things we may consider in the future.

- (2019) If logged into Facebook, Oculus data may be used for ads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21770752

From their official statement:

If you choose not to log into Facebook on Oculus, we won’t share data with Facebook to allow third parties to target advertisements to you based on your use of the Oculus Platform.

- (2020): Facebook accounts are now required.

None of this is particularly surprising, lots of people (even in the press) were calling out how this was going to evolve. But it's still interesting to look back 6 years and see what the initial reactions were and what people were most concerned about.

The takeaways:

- data silos are always temporary

- companies think on a larger timeline than just 2 years in advance

- this kind of thing nearly always gets executed as a slow boil. Facebook didn't buy Oculus and immediately require an account and start advertising to users. But I don't believe for one second that Mark wasn't thinking it at the time.

umvi• 6 years ago

But did Facebook add any value (i.e. engineering money/hours) to improve the device? What you've listed are all negatives, but there have to be at least a few positives to come out of it.

nerdponx• 6 years ago

there have to be at least a few positives to come out of it.

Why does this have to be true at all? Let bad things be bad, and deal with them. Don't try to rationalize away problems.

danShumway4• 6 years ago

I suppose.

But at the same time, for any new users who value their own privacy the device is now pretty useless, and for any existing users who value their privacy but also want to be up-to-date and get new features, they're also probably going to be locked out in future updates.

So you kind of have to excuse them for focusing on the negatives, because they don't get to enjoy the positives. It's kind of a moot point for them what Facebook brought to the table.

This is always the concern with these kinds of purchases, and I think this was a big part of the concern back in 2014. I was never worried that Facebook wouldn't invest in Oculus, as a consumer I was worried that it would ruin the Oculus ecosystem and shove dystopian adware onto the devices.

unionpivo• 6 years ago

Sure there are, for Facebook shareholders.

shazow3• 6 years ago

But did Facebook add any value (i.e. engineering money/hours) to improve the device? What you've listed are all negatives, but there have to be at least a few positives to come out of it.

Can't help but think of this comic: https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

ggreer2• 6 years ago

Without Facebook's capital and Zuckerberg's commitment to VR, I doubt the Quest would exist. That project was announced in 2016 and was likely in development for a couple of years before that. Still it took until mid-2019 to be released to the public. IIRC, Carmack said that development on the Go was started after the Quest, yet the Go went to market a year sooner. I can only imagine what kind of hell it was to get a 2016 phone SoC to do VR with 6DOF inside-out tracking.

legulere2• 6 years ago

Of course you first need to fatten an animal before you slaughter it.

rbecker• 6 years ago

Those positives turn to negatives if you care about privacy - they help Oculus muscle privacy-respecting alternatives out of the market.

jayd166• 6 years ago

I think Facebook worked as a king maker, giving Oculus enough financial backing to be a trusted (ironic) platform. Were they the only option? No idea.

GuB-42• 6 years ago

I don't have the financials, but I expect that after spending $2 billion for the acquisition, they didn't live them alone.

One notable thing is that Oculus hired Michael Abrash just following the announcement of the acquisition. With John Carmack, who was already there, they are among the most (if not the most) prominent developers in the field. Even though Carmack stepped down as a CTO, both are still there. I have stopped following VR news but Oculus had pretty nice prototypes a few years ago which combined eye tracking, foveated rendering and varifocal lenses, all addressing fundamental problems with the current generation of headsets.

Also, even though I am not sure about Facebook involvement, they financed some of the best VR games at the time. Lone Echo is one of them. Ready At Dawn, the developer is now part of Oculus Studio, a branch of Oculus focused on making VR content. Note that having good VR content is extremely important, even more so than the devices themselves. I mean, you are not going to spend hundreds of dollars just to slash cubes, or maybe you do, can't blame you ;)

ccktlmazeltov14• 6 years ago

That's one side of the story, the Quest wouldn't exist without Facebook

geoelectric• 6 years ago

Sure, it'd be called something different and would be made by someone else. It's not like FB started Oculus from scratch. Worst case it would've just taken a little longer while some other player with the capital got around to being interested.

The use case drove the tech, not the company, and so far the tech is being used for exactly what it was used for before FB bought it (just better as computers, motion sensors, and cameras got better). There was nothing transformative there.

I don't think FB deserves any credit other than being in the right place at the right time. Now they're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Props for wireless 6DOF before anyone else, and I love my Quest, but now that the trail is blazed and they aren't being maintaining their (yes, their--Palmer worked for them too) promises to the community, they can sit down.

danShumway4• 6 years ago

Both can be true.

It can be true that Facebook heavily invested into the Quest and it can be true that their user-hostile moves over the past 6 years were all utterly predictable, even though company heads ran around telling their critics that they were being unreasonable and paranoid.

This is true for many tech products and industries.

Apple and Google have both invested huge amounts of money and resources into building voice assistants into general consumer services. They deserve credit for that. They also deserve criticism for stifling the markets around voice assistants, building walled gardens that hamper innovation in the space, and for general privacy violations along the way. And it is, once again, completely predictable what the end goals are for companies like Google in regards to voice assistants and augmented reality -- regardless of what their company spokespeople might be saying today.

It can be true that Chrome unambiguously moved the web forward as a platform, and that without Google's involvement the modern web would not have the potential that it has today. And it can simultaneously be true that Google's long-term corporate vision for the web is toxic, and that there are serious concerns to be had about Chrome continuing to maintain a dominant browser position.

The point is, I don't think acknowledging Facebook's investment in the Oculus means that it's good to ignore the obvious downsides of their involvement. I think it's good to look at what people were worried would happen, and to see that it did happen. That doesn't mean you need to disregard Facebook's investment, and it doesn't mean that Oculus shouldn't exist -- it's just giving you a broader perspective that sometimes these positive investments also come with serious tradeoffs that aren't always acknowledged up-front.

ehnto2• 6 years ago

I don't understand what value FB gets from VR device data. I have never understood the acquisition, but that point in particular has never been clear.

Or is it just that the end goal is to advertise in VR, and the acquisition was a grasp at a dystopian daydream?

IanSanders3• 6 years ago

My guess is elevated application running on the PC. If they could push a desktop facebook client with admin permissions, they would in a heartbeat

Tepix2• 6 years ago

VR has the potential to reveal more about you than normal browsing history. The device knows what you are looking at (sometimes including eye tracking) and for how long. This is extremely valuable.

martindale• 6 years ago

Why do I need to log in to my display device?

laichzeit0• 6 years ago

You made the mistake of thinking it's your device. It's Facebook's device, you just payed to use it.

azifalix• 6 years ago

No Facebook, and therefore no oculus needed..

nbrempel• 6 years ago

I've been really interested in purchasing a VR platform but Oculus' Facebook integration has always been a dealbreaker for me.

What are the alternatives for a self-contained VR system? I don't want to have to plug into a PC.

koalaman• 6 years ago

Don't you need to be at least 13 years of age to register a Facebook account?

soulofmischief10• 6 years ago

I believe Oculus' TOS also "requires" you to be 13 or older. Stares at VR Chat

kmfrk• 6 years ago

What a trip this has been from the Kickstarter to its acquisition to this situation.

Bhilai• 6 years ago

I think there is a lot of benefit from unifying various identities and identity stacks. You can put all the investment in improving one identity platform instead of trying to maintain a user identity for every acquisition you make.

mensetmanusman4• 6 years ago

‘ Please log in to your national ID account before turning on your vehicle. ‘

mensetmanusman4• 6 years ago

This is in jest, but we all know this is what the future holds. Isn’t it interesting how inevitable this all is/seems?

Yhippa• 6 years ago

More like "please drink a verification can".

genpfault• 6 years ago

Classic![1]

[1] https://i.imgur.com/dgGvgKF.png

mensetmanusman4• 6 years ago

Because there are multiple VR headsets, the only charitable argument for doing this is to market:

‘the occulus is for jumping in a facebook world to visit your family’

I can buy that, if they refund current owners who don’t want that...

freejak• 6 years ago

Here comes the walled garden. I don't have an Oculus HMD but took the risk of purchasing exclusives from their store and running it via Revive. Looks like those days may be over soon.

shoulderfake• 6 years ago

I was considering buying a VR headset,Oculus just dropped their name out of the hat

52-6F-622• 6 years ago

I've owned the first Rift kit for a couple of years. I'll either stop using it by the time 2023 rolls around or be looking for new offerings.

One of the things that pleased me about it is that it hasn't already been rendered obsolete. Well I guess FB has set a date on that now for no good reason on the user end.

I'm curious to see what might be coming around hardware-wise in that time.

pornel3• 6 years ago

HP Reverb G2 is coming out next month, and reviews are amazing.

soulofmischief10• 6 years ago

So how do I get my money back, since my Oculus Rift is now completely useless to me unless I allow myself to be spied on?

I purchased these devices with the promise that I would not need a Facebook account, and I do not have one..

tgsovlerkhgsel• 6 years ago

You can't, because you can continue to use your device without a Facebook account for two years... which just so happens to be the statutory warranty period in the EU.

soulofmischief10• 6 years ago

How convenient... At least I made it a point to only purchase VR games from Steam.

bane• 6 years ago

I'm reminded of this blog post from 2014. The predictions made here so far have basically all held true 6 years later.

http://assayviaessay.blogspot.com/2014/03/virtual-spaces-rea...

This action feels really connected to the coming Horizon virtual world thing -- which coincidentally is also predicted in the blog post linked above.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/25/facebook-horizon/

antonf• 6 years ago

Just ordered my Oculus Quest from Costco a week ago, and it's scheduled for delivery today. And I have no problem using Facebook account. Yeah, my data will be used for ads, so what? How is that such a big deal for some people to sell the device they otherwise enjoy?

Kapura• 6 years ago

Incredible. I deleted my facebook account earlier this year, and I've been looking to get a VR headset. This sort of forces me into the Vive camp, I suppose.

jandrese• 6 years ago

The most annoying part to me is that the only reason Facebook should have had any interest in Oculus (apart from the money of course) is to create a VR/AR social network. Yet here we are 6 years later and no Metaverse.

wnevets• 6 years ago

So glad I never bought an oculus. Is anyone really suprised?

LeicaLatte• 6 years ago

I assumed Facebook had already done this. Users are so naive for assuming it would never happen.

surfsvammel• 6 years ago

I don’t have a Facebook account. My birthday wishlist just got one item shorter :(

OkGoDoIt2• 6 years ago

I’ve been wanting to buy an Oculus Quest since lockdown started, but I’ve been having trouble finding one in stock for a reasonable price. I guess I’m glad I didn’t succeed in purchasing one, and now I won’t be buying one at all.

baby6• 6 years ago

I’m moving out and selling mine if you’re in the bay

ipsin• 6 years ago

I'm curious -- I have a Facebook account, but I have the app platform disabled.

It seems that the app platform may be used for managing logins on third party sites. Are they likely to require it for Oculus devices?

k__• 6 years ago

"If you are an existing user and choose not to merge your accounts, you can continue using your Oculus account for two years."

Phew

bussierem• 6 years ago

As someone noted above -- that 2 years is the statutory warranty period for the EU.

They are setting that time limit so existing users can't call to return Oculus saying "I don't agree to these terms" because _they aren't terms yet_ for that user. But by the time they finally require you to log in with the account, it will be impossible to refund because you are outside the legal warranty period for both US and EU.

It's planned exactly to trap people who already bought so that some percentage will "give in" and just log into Facebook so that they don't suddenly have a VR device (and VR library) that's not worth anything to them anymore.

There are far more people who will do this than those that won't, and that's a portion that COULD have returned it if Facebook was allowing them to.

robert_tweed• 6 years ago

It's worth noting that the statutory warranty period in the UK is 5-6 years (depending on which country), not 2 years as is the minimum required by the EU.

So it might be interesting to see how this plays out here, although I'm not holding out a lot of hope for a positive result.

silentsea90• 6 years ago

I don't get what people over here expected when Facebook acquired Oculus, and also don't get why it is so hard to create a throwaway facebook account. No condescension. Just not sure what I am missing in the extreme positions here

baby6• 6 years ago

Same here. It feels like an overreaction.

techer5• 6 years ago

I will use mine for 2 years but I have zero need for social.

cranium• 6 years ago

I think this is due to Facebook stance to disallow these kind of accounts without a real name. They can block your account if they think you aren't using your real name and have you submit an official ID card or driving license to unlock, process that may take weeks.

Also, forcing people for no real reason to create (or use) an account on a platform they hate is revolting. No everybody wants to use a social network to share with "friends" their gaming habits, or to play local games.

monadic24• 6 years ago

Are the devices any good?

john45342432• 6 years ago

I have invested heavily learning react and react native and i don't have(or want) facebook account. I will remind this incident in the future before investing time in any thing related to facebook.

stjohnswarts6• 6 years ago

Isn't react open source though? Why would you care about the source of it if it serves your purpose? Facebook doesn't make any money off react or as far as I know use it for political leverage. Can you point out why you'd quit using a technology because the person/company behind it is "bad" ? The Nazis improved rocket technology tremendously during WW2 and we didn't toss that knowledge because the Nazis invented it.

dTal• 6 years ago

The analogy would work better if the Nazis were still around and handing out rockets for free, to make it easier for them to hire engineers who know about rockets, so that they can launch better rockets at people.

john45342432• 6 years ago

Its not just about the react being opensource. Its the philosophy that drives the ecosystem. Facebook can come up with a react component for VR on the browser which work's really well only with facebook account.

benbristow• 6 years ago

I'm amazed so many people care. Not having a Facebook account for me is social suicide. Helps that Messenger is a very good messaging app and Facebook the main site is a good timewaster. Make a throwaway one if you really despise Facebook so much.

C19is20• 6 years ago

No.

hans_castorp2• 6 years ago

Absolutely not.

asldkjaslkdj• 6 years ago

I was starting to look into VR and I guess this crosses Oculus off the list. I don't intend to ever have a Facebook account.

djsumdog• 6 years ago

I have an Oculus Go and pretty much only use it for Skybox and nothing else. I hope I can just disable all updates and keep using it without connecting it to a FB account. I haven't even bought anything on the store.

I guess it might be time to look at FOSS alternatives for these devices, just to keep basic functionality. I wonder if the bootloaders are locked.

downshun• 6 years ago

Well. Another lost customer here.

james_s_tayler• 6 years ago

Need to log in to Facebook to use VR.

It just doesn't even make sense.

FB is too entrenched in our lives. And for what?

droopyEyelids• 6 years ago

Anyone remember the site https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com/ - it records all the startup acquisition letters.

There should be a sister site that records all the post-acquisition promises that get nuked

redbeed• 6 years ago

Good that i bought a index.

cosmojg• 6 years ago

Fortunately, OpenHMD exists: http://www.openhmd.net/

ozten2• 6 years ago

This looks like a great opportunity for pine64 to make a wireless 6DOF headset (Quest clone)

They already ship a mobile phone. https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/

croes• 6 years ago

That kills the possibility of selling your account.

outworlder• 6 years ago

We will take steps to allow you to keep using content you have purchased, though we expect some games and apps may no longer work.

Complain as much as you want about Steam, at least they are a games store and store only.

I don't know why anyone would buy games from the Oculus store.

wpdev_63• 6 years ago

They probably want to cut down on people reselling their accounts with the games in them. That's what I did when I sold my oculus during the quarantine. Why shouldn't I be able to resell my games just because they're digital now?

xg153• 6 years ago

This is something that still completely baffles me about the "IoT"/"smart devices"/"connected devices"/"whatever you want to call it" space.

If someone advertised a device as capable of doing X without it in fact being able to do X, they'd be liable for false advertising.

If someone sold you a device, then took it back or destroyed it, they'd be liable for theft or destruction of property.

Nevertheless, if someone sells you a connected device and then completely alters the rules by which the device operates at an arbitrary point in time after the sell, that's perfectly fine.

Have we really given up basic consumer rights that easily?

ccktlmazeltov14• 6 years ago

You need internet to download games to your oculus quest, so it makes sense to have an account to keep track of what games you own no? I still don't understand what people have against this change. You needed an oculus account prior to this, now it's a facebook account, what's the big deal?

achr2• 6 years ago

Really? I have never and will never have a facebook account, so this expensive device is now a paper weight..

antihero2• 6 years ago

Facebook account bans are often for absurd reasons and there is basically zero accountability. Post a pic that an algorithm flagged as a nude? No Oculus for 30 days and needing to send them a passport scan!

paulnechifor2• 6 years ago

You need internet to download games to your oculus quest, so it makes sense to have an account to keep track of what games you own no?

Not really. If they're downloaded, why would you need to look up remotely what you have locally.

quinndiggity3• 6 years ago

Yeah, I thought the same thing too, in order to give the fake like/follow some artists require before making their music available to download; took 10 minutes, my account was banned for "suspicious activity" (meaning I didn't start posting pictures of myself like a pleb), and a government issued ID demanded of me. Fuck that

EmilioMartinez3• 6 years ago

it makes sense to have an account to keep track of what games you own no?

Not in the least

JMTQp8lwXL• 6 years ago

Consumer protection laws generally lag behind these problems, so it might be premature to say we've given up. We have to know the problem exists, and then we have to go through the (slow) legislative process.

throwaway0a5e2• 6 years ago

In a democracy laws always lag whatever the opinion of the majority is on the issue.

amelius• 6 years ago

I think the problem is that the "masses" would still buy the Oculus product as if nothing was wrong with it. From there, it's pretty difficult to convince people (e.g. a regulator or a judge) that your item is of no use to you anymore.

thephyber• 6 years ago

That's moving forward. This problem has as much to do with past expectations that changed as it does current expectations for the future.

javajosh• 6 years ago

Have we really given up basic consumer rights that easily?

Well, yes. I don't know if you've noticed, but short-term convenience trumps all other concerns. The market can't really deal with these issues, because they are too subtle and expensive for individuals to work out for themselves. We really do need collective action, by way of regulation, similar to how we recognized as a society that workplace safety laws were not something private businesses were ever going to compete on, and we just needed to force them to comply. And no doubt the same howls of protest let loose then, too, about how "the extra costs will put me out of business", etc. It was then, as it is now, hogwash.

And in fact I would argue this kind of regulation not only important for consumers, but for national security. As more and more individuals lives become dependent on centralized information infrastructure, the more damage espionage (foreign or domestic) can do, not to mention the effect of wide-scale DoS attacks. Imagine a world where all smart devices are bricked...so much of the old infrastructure is gone - phones, phone books, maps, manuals. In some cases you might not even be able to vacuum your house (Roomba owners), or make a POTS phone call.

So yeah, its bad on multiple fronts, and I fear that the correcting event will be catastrophic (like, supply chain catastrophic, leading to starvation).

ooobit2• 6 years ago

We're seeing this right now with Epic's Tim Sweeney suing Apple for its mandatory cut on all digital goods. Yet a large number of people, people who claim to be pro-99%, anti-technocracy, anti-corporatism, are shilling the rhetoric that "it's Apple's platform" and "Epic knew what the terms were."

Well, yes, but that's exactly what SV activists and social activists are claiming has to stop. It's absurd that these same people are willing to defend the iPhone/iOS/Apple Services pipeline of proprietary anticompetitive dependencies.

I hope Epic wins this case against Apple. It's a precedent that needs to be set for limiting anticompetitive business and manufactured monopolies. Nothing Apple has in its portfolio is absent a perfect substitute in the very same market Apple is selling their products. But Apple has used proprietary inputs as a gatekeeper for their revenue. No one should have to buy a $49 dongle to plug an HDMI cable into their iPhone when every Android/Windows/Linux-based device has built-in support within the device. And if someone tries to push a "Lightning" to HDMI cable, Apple detects and deliberately locks off device content.

Too many big, beloved logos are built on anti-free market tactics, both by lobbying policy and private act. The sheer volume of this that Steve Jobs did in his lifetime made it hard for me to feel anything when he died. I genuinely felt relieved that this tyrant in technology, a man whose every product idea was just enough of a change of someone else's existing work product, slapped with intentional proprietary inputs to limit competition within the Apple eco-system, was finally gone. And then Tim Cook sashay'd on in.

Hnrobert422• 6 years ago

In the US, we need collective action by way of class action lawsuits. Unfortunately, almost all terms of service now require you tp waive that right.

The change needed is a law that prevents waiving the right to class action. Such a law would be considered highly unfavorable to business and would not pass under a Republican majority/presidency. Consider who you vote for accordingly.

throwaway0a5e2• 6 years ago

similar to how we recognized as a society that workplace safety laws were not something private businesses were ever going to compete on,

Democratic-ish societies get laws AFTER society is mostly in agreement on something. We got workplace safety laws because most workplaces had already started to care and the point of the laws were to force low margin industries and other hold-outs to get on board.

I mostly agree with the rest of your comment but your order of operations is simply backwards.

latenightcoding• 6 years ago

It baffles me too. My Samsung smart tv started showing me ads in the control panel/home screen. I paid full price for it, why am I seeing ads. I wish I could return it, but the snakes waited until the return period was over.

Maha-pudma• 6 years ago

This happened to me to. It now is not connected to the internet and never will be again. It's also the crappest TV I've ever owned. My old dumb TV is better.

WrtCdEvrydy4• 6 years ago

This is some bullshit. I would blackhole whatever fucking API they are using... just limit the incoming, but allow outgoing so their ad networks begin counting it as a non-shown ad.

glandium• 6 years ago

My Panasonic smart TV used to have an app for Hulu. It doesn't anymore. Same for a bunch of other apps. The app list is full of holes now.

mlboss• 6 years ago

Better to have a dumb TV with chromecast.

mdorazio• 6 years ago

In the case of the smart tv it's actually because you didn't really pay the full price of the tv. The manufacturer counts on the revenue from those ads to boost the tv profit margin to an acceptable level, otherwise they would have to charge you more for the tv initially.

If you don't believe me, look up the price of a "commercial display" comparable to your tv. And before anyone asks, the majority of customers would rather have a cheaper tv with ads in the menus than a more expensive one without.

climb_stealth• 6 years ago

I can recommend the Nvidia Shield [0] as an alternative to dealing with the Samsung firmware. I bought it after seeing it recommended here on HN. It's snappy, it has the apps that I care about (Plex, Youtube, and various Australian public on-demand channels). Also it pretty much just works. It turns on together with the tv and you basically don't have to deal with anything Samsung at all anymore. It has some gaming capabilities but I never tried those and don't care.

[0] https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/shield/

robmsmt• 6 years ago

It turns out I am not the only one who does not want a smart TV. The benefit for me is practically zero. All I need is a dumb TV/monitor/projector and the ability to plug it into a chromecast type of device/laptop.

cel1ne2• 6 years ago

I use an AppleTV connected to a 43-inch 4k monitor [1]. No crappy TV-software and it's a proper screen, with proper response-time to use for the laptop as well.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Philips-Monitor-Bdm4350uc-42-5in-3840...

nomorealoha• 6 years ago

Have we really given up basic consumer rights that easily?

Is there anything I can do as a mere consumer to lobby for my rights?

maerF0x0• 6 years ago

then completely alters the rules by which the device operates at an arbitrary point in time after the sell

You usually agree to a EULA that allows them to do that. If you cannot agree to the EULA then you return the product.

Now, I will give full credit that no one reads those, but Legality doesn't care if you fail to do due diligence.

Dahoon• 6 years ago

You have some basic rights and an EULA, TOS or a contract cannot take those away (at least not in the EU). So no, that wouldn't cover a situation where a device is crippled later on. You'd have a right to get your money back.

xg153• 6 years ago

I mean, then the easiest thing for companies to do would be to write "You agree that we can do anything we want with the device" into the EULA. As long as they behave reasonable in the near term and only go crazy after public attention has moved on, they'd probably get few customers to notice.

charles_f• 6 years ago

Good point, that being said market pressure can sometimes influence that.

Sonos was a hair short of bricking their old devices a few months ago, then backtracked after getting a lot of fire from their customers.

I'm wondering if this would be true for larger companies / acquisitions though. Would they have done the same if purchased by Google or Facebook?

grillvogel2• 6 years ago

PKD predicted this 50 years ago https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7444685-the-door-refused-to...

awinter-py• 6 years ago

it's a different world

sometimes things get bricked, other times they get new features for free

teslas couldn't self-drive and then, one OTA update later, they could

companies release security updates

society doesn't know how to regulate OTA; change is sometimes bad for users but not always.

markdog12• 6 years ago

I've always thought it was odd how they can advertise Google Assistant, Siri, etc.., as if it's some magical thing that understands everything you say, but in practice it's worse than useless. It gives you hope that it works, but it never does, it only frustrates you. In my experience, anyway.

fizzled3• 6 years ago

Rights are something you need to constantly fight for, otherwise they absolutely will go away. Portland isn't just bored, they're ahead of the curve.

noduerme2• 6 years ago

As someone who lives in PDX, owns an Oculus Rift and has always refused to have a Facebook account, I can only say that mass bitching appears to have done very little to change anything. Civil lawsuits are a better approach.

shrimpx• 6 years ago

What’s the context of the Portland reference?

127• 6 years ago

It's not just that, it's also the store. If you choose not to log with the Facebook ID, do I also lose access to all of my purchases? It seems extra scummy.

bserge• 6 years ago

Nah, this is how laws are made. Someone keeps pushing the limits of what they can do to other people, then enough people have enough of it and push back, companies are fined, legislation is created, bs stops happening for a while. Same shit, different day (at least until we change the shit out of the climate/environment, heh).

EmilioMartinez3• 6 years ago

How do we create laws for these contingencies? Should we list all the possible manners in which consumers shouldn't be screwed? Should we provide flexible guidelines?

It risks becoming a regulatory hell too for small developers to navigate. If regulation is weak, it risks becoming some pointless step in the way (a minor point in an EULA, or cookies-like popup) that people would ignore anyways. One way or the other, it's easy to spin as a feature: "Our VR set has a social focus (eg. we post your daily usage). For this, login in to you account is necessity". There. Now not only you need to log in, you are also publicly shamed for your usage just for them to save face.

Sadly, it boils down to human decency to make a human product.

Mandatum4• 6 years ago

In Australia after some "on the box" features were no longer applicable to the product I bought, I was able to refund the product.

This has worked for;

- Consumer devices (cloud support dropped within the lifetime of the device, features dropped likely as a cost saving measure to the manufacturer)

- Software (features removed or culled after buying)

- Smart TVs (claiming support for different platforms)

- Gaming consoles (OtherOS on PS3)

This usually hurts the retailer - they don't want to risk going after the manufacturer because they want to sell their products. I've been banned from buying from one store after returning a product and then posting about it publicly, many others returned as well when they realised it was possible - I can assume some took advantage of this fact as a "I paid full price for this 1.5 years ago, it's now worth 50% less, I can return it and buy a better model from somewhere else" endeavour.

ViViDboarder• 6 years ago

This same thing just happened to Belkin WeMo. Looking forward to the class action.

I bought a bunch of switches because the offered local control and no account needed, now an account is required to set up anything new and local control is apparently going away. I’m now wary of anything that needs a proprietary app at all which would give them the ability to do this in the first place.

StavrosK5• 6 years ago

I can recommend Sonoff switches and any bulb that runs ESP8266, you can usually easily flash those with open source firmware. I do it when I receive them, and they've been rock solid.

ksrm• 6 years ago

Sounds like something the EU will look at in the future if they aren't already.

rcarmo• 6 years ago

OK. I had planned to get an Oculus Quest for Christmas (since it is reasonably accessible, flexible and probably the best all-around headset out there right now), and how my gut feeling is... No. Just no. I don't want to have Facebook on anything.

I might consider creating a brand new, singleton account to use it, but to be honest my gut reaction is that if they do not have a non-Facebook login, I will just _not_ use it.

whywhywhywhy6• 6 years ago

Genuinely think VR would be dead by now and considered a flash in the pan fad if it wasn't for the software and hardware Oculus has done. Valve and HTC just really didn't invest the time and money seriously in the platform and think HL:Alyx only shipped because Oculus dragged the format forward and showed the potential.

Just don't get why they're doing this at this point, I'd understand if they had iPhone level sales but although the Quest is selling great it's not there yet and it seems a misstep to push everyone into FB from it so soon lots of people will be turned off by the idea. Forcing the tens of thousand Oculus holdouts and saving a handful of engineering salaries surely can 't be worth the bad press and harm to the growing platform

Hope the 4 people who bought Quests after playing mine don’t whinge to me about this.

CobrastanJorji• 6 years ago

When the actor seems irrational, you should step back and ask "who is the actor and what are their motivations?"

This doesn't feel like an act of Facebook as a whole. They should be thinking long term, big picture. Zuckerberg seems to have an image of Neuromancer's Matrix in his head, and we ain't there yet. He'd definitely take this step but I wouldn't think he'd do it until he more solidly owns VR.

What I see here is a senior manager type, maybe a VP or a bit below it, who needs numbers that go dramatically up and to the right in the short term and is thinking about their own personal success. They'd be the ones to say "how do we turn this acquisition into Facebook-measurable success metrics so we can prove that we're worth all this spending? Ah, yes, mandate Facebook logins, great idea, do it."

whywhywhywhy6• 6 years ago

Think you're spot on, makes a lot of sense of this move that doesn't really make sense.

md5person• 6 years ago

"What I see here is a senior manager type, maybe a VP or a bit below it, who needs numbers that go dramatically up and to the right in the short term and is thinking about their own personal success."

I mean, there are plenty of other ways to demonstrate value without forcing people to login with a Facebook account to use their Oculus devices. In-fact, I'm not sure what added value this requirement demonstrates in the first place?

People already pay for the hardware, servicing, apps/games, and upgrades.

damnyou• 6 years ago

Correct. The VP is also the person who wrote the "Ugly" memo that was leaked: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/growth-at-any-c...

Hardly a surprise.

cwkoss2• 6 years ago

Is this a non-sarcastic comment?

Valve and HTC VR are far superior. Quest is selling great because it's a standalone, but the resolution is poor and it's pretty buggy. Mine crashes at some point in about 33% of sessions. Oculus store has a very limited selection of games, and their recommendation engine is laughably bad ("Did you like Beatsaber? maybe you'll like a roller coaster simulator"). Casting from the Quest barely functions and disconnects frequently. Thank god for Sidequest, or I'd already have upgraded to Valve Index.

In what way do you think Oculus is superior?

Cynosaur• 6 years ago

What makes me angry is that people won't learn anything from this. The next time something like this happens, people will defend it to the end and call people who warn about it "paranoid" or "cynical".

Corporations are not your friends. Unless it is set in legal writing you can't take their promises at heart value. Even if they set it in legal writing it might mean nothing since they always find a way to worm around it. Their ultimate goal is to fuck you over. Their pricing and profit margin are "take as much as possible without them complaining". Games will get more expensive and it has nothing to do with development costs, it has everything to do "because they can so why wouldn't they".

Corporations are not idiots and they know how to do something subversively and over a long period of time so people don't notice the changes. Look at how microtransactions in games became almost a norm nowadays and future generations won't even see anything wrong with it. Look at how using FOMO and other psychological tricks are actually a "good retention method" now instead of being unethical, people don't even complain against it any more, they complain if it is badly implemented and they don't get enough of it. Companies selling your data are getting less and less backlash over it with people using arguments as "oh well they know everything already, I don't care".

I really hate all of this.

coldwaraaron• 6 years ago

Alright, then I’ll be selling this Rift S and getting an Index after all. Fuck Facebook.

carabiner• 6 years ago

@dang, fix typo in headline? Faceboook.

dang• 6 years ago

Whoa, how'd we miss that? Fixed noow.

pratio• 6 years ago

Sometimes I wish Facebook should at-least try to prove us wrong. These are trying times with everyone being paranoid about how their data is mishandled, shared, used and for good reason. What is so difficult in giving users the option to connect their Facebook accounts if they wish because lets be honest so users might just want to but making it mandatory is only going to hurt the gaming community.

ravroid• 6 years ago

Saw that coming. As a user of the original Oculus Rift headset, I will definitely be upgrading to a non-Oculus headset within the next 2 years (before Facebook accounts become mandatory).

romille• 6 years ago

Software is soft

mark_l_watson• 6 years ago

I have a different opinion than most comments here. I love the Oculus Quest. I don’t suggest that anyone waste their time in FB, but needing a FB account to buy VR experiences for the Quest us all right with me.

Off topic, but my favorites are the Star Wars Vader Immortal Trilogy, Racket Ball, and Ping Pong.

pugworthy• 6 years ago

Some shade from HP's Joanna Popper on r/HPReverb...

"The HP Reverb G2 does not require a Facebook account today or in 2023."

https://www.reddit.com/r/HPReverb/comments/ic93cn/for_anyone...

antihero2• 6 years ago

Amazing, so if you get banned from Facebook due to one of their dumb rules or algorithms, I'm assuming you can sue them for the value of the device they've just taken from you?

2fast4you• 6 years ago

As soon as I needed a Facebook account to use the social features, I bailed. Thankfully I was fortunate enough to buy a Valve Index. SteamVR is a much nicer platform anyways

ylee• 6 years ago

I would appreciate suggestions on how to regain my Facebook account, shut down without explanation a year ago. Despite its age (15 years) I barely used it, let alone for anything "controversial", but did regularly log into it. I have repeatedly tried to verify my identity by submitting an image of my driver's license, without any response.

I don't want to create a fake Facebook account. I want my own back.

dilly_bar• 6 years ago

Zero chance I'd buy an Oculus now.

detaro• 6 years ago

Not going to repeat the general criticism covered in other comments, but how is that going to work with professional users? Using employees private Facebook accounts in a work setting is somewhere between a really bad idea and impossible.

dathinab• 6 years ago

Hy if someone from Oculus reads this requiring a Facebook (or Google) account for login means I will never buy your products.

I also now many other people who think the same.

Goodby, I'm happy I hadn't yet time to but an Oculus product.

yalogin• 6 years ago

Ha this is inevitable. Facebook would not leave the device alone obviously. Oculus opens ups brand new data set and user base to sell ads. Not just that facebook has done something that google couldn't do, they created another successful product beyond their cash cow.

ccvannorman• 6 years ago

Any news on jailbreaking Oculus devices so that I don't have to play this silly game with hardware I own?

tiagobraw• 6 years ago

yeap, there goes my changes of having an Oculus (never had a facebook account and won't)... Guess one less option then...

0xBeefFed• 6 years ago

I guess now is the time to look into how to root the console and install a custom ROM in a similar fashion to de-Googling your android phone. There is already enough support in the community for side-loading APKs and the like. Does anyone know of any ways to achieve this?

ohyes• 6 years ago

Quelle surprise, a big tech company making a big tech company move to drive users into their embattled flagship.

I take this as a negative indicator of how things are going for Facebook. I don’t see any synergy with oculus other than that both products have users. Maybe that is enough from a business standpoint, but I feel forcing login to Facebook is going to kill oculus adoption, it isn’t like 6 years ago, there are viable alternatives if you want a VR rig. It just looks and feels desperate to me.

Lycake4• 6 years ago

I feel forcing login to Facebook is going to kill oculus adoption

I'm hoping you are right, but I feel like the average consumer is not so privacy aware and wouldn't mind using Facebook as their login. It's probably even more convenient since they already have a Facebook account and don't need to create an additional account for Oculus.

Carmack772• 6 years ago

Andrew Reisse is rolling in his grave right now. This is disgusting and not what he wanted and disrespectful to everything he worked toward. I am ashamed of Oculus.

donohoe• 6 years ago

TLDR;

Facebook to Oculus Users: Go f* yourself.

jiofih3• 6 years ago

Good thing the Reverb G2 is right around the corner!

UMetaGOMS• 6 years ago

I very nearly bought an Oculus Quest recently due to some glowing reviews, despite my strong anti-FB feelings. So very glad I hesitated.

zmmmmm2• 6 years ago

This is very saddening.

The fact that Facebook had not made this move actually had a significant impact on me in assessing their overall "evil" factor for other services. Now that they have, I'm left owning a Quest and looking for another platform to move to over the next few years. I hope the competition steps up because the Quest has really nailed everything important about VR.

joshspankit• 6 years ago

Facebook is dangerously close to collapsing the whole VR industry with this.

mazatta• 6 years ago

I knew this was coming eventually, but I am definitely selling my Rift after this announcement.

eggy• 6 years ago

Glad I bought my HTC Vive Cosmos. I was going to wait for the Oculus to be back in stock, but I didn't. I gave up FB 6 years ago.

troydavis2• 6 years ago

This seems to mean that Facebook's account review/policy process and lack of customer service - basically, that you're the product - now decides who can use Oculus.

A week ago, I tried to sign up for Facebook in order to buy some ads[1]. With nothing remarkable about the account or metadata[2], the first page I saw after the signup form was

Your Account Has Been Disabled. You can't use Facebook because your account, or activity on it, didn't follow our Community Standards.

That page was shown immediately after the signup form. I jumped through their hoops of providing an SMS-able phone number, then a photo, and a few days later got this final result:

Your Account Has Been Disabled. You can't use Facebook because your account, or activity on it, didn't follow our Community Standards. We have already reviewed this decision and it can't be reversed."

Again, there's no activity on the account because I never saw any FB pages, let alone used it. I'm not concerned - I cancelled my personal account back in 2013 and never looked back, and other than wanting to buy some public-service ads, I still have no interest in it. I sure would care if I had an Oculus, though.

[1]: Because Twitter prohibits or applies extra terms to many types of issue/advocacy ads, and while I applaud their approach, those of us running public-service campaigns get stuck in unpredictable policy enforcement.

[2]: Signing up from a residential Comcast US IP that I'm the only user/client on, using an email address at a domain I own, am the only user on, has been registered for 10+ years, etc.

acp2020• 6 years ago

I had the same experience yesterday. Tried to setup a personal account to access a group and next time I logged in I got the same message about not following their "Community Standards". How is that possible? I didn't even do anything yet! Continued for them to review the ban but I had to stop on the very first step where they asked my phone number since I'll never give them such an information. Now the whole shit is stuck and I cannot even remove my account without giving them my number.

Isn't this just a phishing scam? This should be illegal.

stuartd• 6 years ago

Please excuse my lame pun:

foc-u-lus

a_zaydak• 6 years ago

This will probably be when I stop using my Oculus. When I first got my Rift I was super excited about the technology and it generally did not disappoint! I have never been much of a gamer but love the idea of VR. I, however, deleted my facebook account back in 2012 when I realized that it did not contribute anything to my life. Over the years I have had to make the decision between not being able to use a product or creating a facebook account just to use them. Most of those products were mobile apps that required facebook logins. I have always chosen to not use the products and will do so again.

troydavis2• 6 years ago

Anyone care to guess how long before this happens to Instagram and/or Whatsapp accounts? Could be a year or could be 5 years -- it's not if, just when.

barnabee• 6 years ago

Cool, this makes choosing my next VR headset upgrade easier: not Oculus.

broknbottle• 6 years ago

Welp I won’t be buying any future Oculus devices. I’ve got a Rift and enjoy it but I have no intentions of creating a Facebook account. I deleted mine back in like 2010-2011 and haven’t looked back.

laksdjfkasljdf• 6 years ago

Honest question: you bought a device that depends on an "app store" to work. What exactly did you expect?

-- from someone waiting for VR to become a commodity hardware, like a monitor.

fomine35• 6 years ago

It's completely expected since acquisition but FUCK. The problem is that there's little competitor for standalone VR and platform's openess.

3pt14159• 6 years ago

If you want to make promises to a community about what will happen to your company after its acquired, tie them to a contract. "If you make Facebook login required for Oculus within the next 20 years you owe me personally an additional $10B." Then you can tell everyone about the line item in the contract and vow to donate half of it to the EFF or rescue.org or whatever floats your boat. Don't make promises your ass can't cash.

CarbyAu2• 6 years ago

Kid who didn't know better changes mind when new information is realised.

Not worth vilifying. Not worth accolades for basic rational thought.

Palmer is meh. As other comments have pointed out, don't waste energy on the scapegoat.

Complain about the people in control - Facebook.

superkuh• 6 years ago

I'm shocked that anyone is surprised by this. It was immediately obvious that this move was the only reason for Facebook to buy Oculus in 2014. If you fell for promises, well, hopefully this has been a learning experience.

StillBored• 6 years ago

Yah, guess i'm going to be selling my rift, or at least re-purposing it. Not that it matters much, i'm already unsupported as I refused to upgrade to win10 on the machine it was attached to.

PS, oculus has been the only piece of hardware I've purchased in the past few years where the drivers caused a blue screen. Thats ignoring all the other bullshit problems with the driver stack they have that can't even consistently enable a pile of USB devices.

Razengan4• 6 years ago

Why? Even Apple doesn't require an Apple ID to use their devices.

ChrisMarshallNY• 6 years ago

I'm actually surprised this wasn't a requirement before now. I'd always assumed that Oculus was really just a new way to "onboard users."

techer5• 6 years ago

Required for arena before - I would not buy one if this was mandatory to turn it on.

fizzled3• 6 years ago

This is my biggest fear: no longer being able to create individual accounts that are not Oauth'd through social media. I don't think my bank will require facebook any time soon, but I hope laws are in place to prevent it when the time comes. Sen. Wyden, I hope you're listening.

jojobas3• 6 years ago

Why do you even need an account? It's a display after all, I don't need an account to use my external monitor, keyboard or anything else.

pornel3• 6 years ago

Oculus has an app store, and Quest is a standalone device (mobile phone hardware on your face).

It's understandable to need an account for these things, but of course this being an FB account is creepy.

tacotacotaco• 6 years ago

This is effectively ransomware. If you do not agree with the new eula Facebook will deactivate your otherwise working hardware.

arbirk• 6 years ago

Damn. Best alternative to the Rift S?

techer5• 6 years ago

I have been recommending the Quest but that’s all over.

Animats• 6 years ago

I was expecting Facebook to sell off their VR operations, since they're not scaling up much. Zuckerberg says he's not interested in any business with less than a billion users. Facebook Spaces was a bust. Facebook Horizon didn't even launch. John Carmack went off to work on AI.

If anything, Facebook's VR effort is just there in case someone else comes up with a VR or AR threat to Facebook.

baby6• 6 years ago

Who says horizon won’t get released? Also Carmack is one person. You’re judging a product due to one person leaving?

IAmGraydon• 6 years ago

I was looking forward to purchasing the next generation of Oculus gear. Oh well.

joenathanone• 6 years ago

I am going to sell my Rift and buy a Vive, HTC from here out!

Mandatum4• 6 years ago

If you're in Australia: Refund your Oculus. If you aren't able to use the product without agreeing to new terms, conditions of licensing agreements - you are within your rights to return your product. Sorry to those who already invested in developing for this platform. Amazon is the main supplier, and they're usually very good for returns.

dannykwells• 6 years ago

Everyone, I think it's time that we acknowledge that Facebook may have a slight tendency to deceptively invade users privacy and never ever keep any promise it makes. Nothing to worry about but just ya know, good to be aware of. /s

asiachick• 6 years ago

This is a been a problem with Rift from the start. Of course it's 100x worse to require an FB account but regardless, a record is kept of everything you do with the device. VR-Chat 2 hrs day? Virt-A-Mate every night? Using that video app from pornhub? All recorded and sent to facebook.

butterisgood• 6 years ago

And? Did you think Facebook bought them cuz they thought VR was cool.

dschuetz• 6 years ago

Was there any doubt that this would happen? I mean, it's always the same game: naïve developers with an outstanding product, huge company willing to buy-out technology while lying through their teeth making promises. It's Edison scams Nikola Tesla all over again. I'm baffled that technology pioneers and makers make the same naïve mistakes again and again for over 2 centuries now.

I'm sorry for the following statement. Deal with it. You want shiny new products and technology. You develop new magical technology. You write insightful and groundbreaking scientific papers. Why are you dependent on investors, publishers and giant tech-firms? They exist because of you, because you need them. And they know that. So, please, rid yourself of the illusion that your product/paper can only survive if you give it away to someone with power and influence. You give away power, for money, that's why Facebook, Apple, Google got so powerful in the first place. It's your fault. Deal with it, you can do better than that.

jerianasmith01• 6 years ago

Nice information

hans_castorp2• 6 years ago

I wonder if this is even legal in the EU, given the GDPR laws that prohibit sending customer data to the USA.

shmerl• 6 years ago

Hardware tied to some account is ridiculous. Good thing there are projects like OpenHMD and Monado, that aim to implement open runtime for VR and AR devices.

* http://www.openhmd.net/index.php/devices/

* https://www.collabora.com/news-and-blog/news-and-events/ligh...

monadic24• 6 years ago

Is this a surprise to literally anyone? If you buy into a corporate platform you get a corporate platform.

leafboi• 6 years ago

Make fake facebook account. All problems solved.

perlgeek• 6 years ago

The notion that you need a cloud login for a piece of computer periphery to work is just unacceptable to me.

"Want to print a page on your locally, USB-Connected printer? Log in at hp.com".

numlock86• 6 years ago

I just bought an Oculus Quest and now feel bad about it. Sadly there are no real alternatives.

craftoman• 6 years ago

Last time I created a fresh account I got banned. Didn't use any VPN, my email was a fresh Gmail address and I didn't use any fake picture or send any friend request.

benecollyridam• 6 years ago

I don't know if I think it will work, but it is at least worth it to vote here to remove the FB login: https://oculus.uservoice.com/forums/921937-oculus-quest/sugg...

ninkendo2• 6 years ago

I don't know anything about uservoice.com, but are they even affiliated with facebook in any way? Why would facebook even care what happens on that site?

daveoc642• 6 years ago

UserVoice is basically just a platform that companies (like Oculus) can use to manage customer requests.

If Oculus didn't want UserVoice, they wouldn't have signed up for it.

Nginx4872• 6 years ago

Fun fact: most of the people need neither Facebook nor Oculus.

fsflover• 6 years ago

Also, most of the people do not need freedom of speech directly, but rely on it without knowing. Similar story here. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Nginx4872• 6 years ago

Sure we need. That's why boycotting products of the violator, nevermind Facebook or China, is one of the easiest and efficient forms of protesting and opposing violations.

sharpneli• 6 years ago

The FAQ had nothing about developing for the device.

Facebook TOS prohibits making multiple personal accounts. So one might assume company one works for then provides a company account as using the civilian account is not really a good thing.

If they mandate using the real civilian one then it’s maybe a good reason to finally ”close” it by removing all friends and photos. It’s just a dev account for oculus then.

Rounin2• 6 years ago

Call me old-fashioned, but does anyone else find it a bit strange that one needs to log in in order to use a display device?

That Oculus had better have some pretty special pixels, if they need a network connection to even be visible.

marcan_42• 6 years ago

This is largely about the Oculus Quest, which is a self contained device (i.e. a smartphone in a VR headset)

I'm assume their tethered display devices will still work without an account, assuming you don't want to use their store/apps.

Rounin2• 6 years ago

Your assumption would certainly be a reasonable one, though in today's world, who knows? Many mobile phones, for instance, now try to introduce additional "terms and conditions" before they're willing to work. Who wants to buy a whole Oculus in order to find out whether it feels like working or not?

gfxgirl3• 6 years ago

Why would you assume that? The Oculus system software requires you to login. Without it running no apps run, even 3rd party apps.

zmmmmm2• 6 years ago

A lot of justified outrage here but I would make a separate point: I think Facebook has made a terrible decision here in terms of their platform play. They legitimately had a chance here to own the future of not just consumer but business computing. The apps now coming on the scene for virtual workspaces still have limitations but it is utterly clear to me that this will become a major mode of work and collaboration in the business world at some point in the future. But requiring facebook logins just threw a huge hurdle in front of that. There is no way I am going to suggest our workplace purchase these and then have everybody logging in with personal facebook accounts. And I can't imagine workplaces mandating people have or use facebook accounts.

I guess we will wait to see what Apple and Microsoft now do in the space since Facebook and Google both seem to have (inexplicably) bowed out of the race.

jobigoud• 6 years ago

It's also a terrible decision for the other uses of VR, escapism, porn, games… For escapism, you don't want to be constantly reminded of the real world. For the other uses you don't want your real life friends and family to know how much time you spend on that…

knolax• 6 years ago

A little misleading since apparently the Facebook account is only acting as a replacement for an Oculus account. It's not like they're forcing Facebook logins on a device that required no logins.

leshenka• 6 years ago

That's wonderful. I tried to create an account on FB last week. I don't know why, but it got suspended immediately. Tried again with different info - suspended.

I didn't even wanted a FB account in the first place, but now I wonder why I can't do that

jokoon• 6 years ago

I still have a hard time understanding what kind of value can be extracted from user data.

Who uses this data? For what purpose? How can this data give an edge to make money elsewhere?

Is there a real relationship between data collection and ability to sell more things and increase profits? I'm not seeing it.

throwaway287391• 6 years ago

I haven't used FB in a while, but are there any real barriers stopping people from making fake/alt FB accounts for this purpose? If not, that seems like a pretty easy way to just not care about any of this to me. (Or was there a theory that FB wasn't already logging everything you did on an Oculus before they started making logins mandatory?)

jansan• 6 years ago

This was not required before? When I got my Oculus Quest a at the end of June I found no other way to log in but create a facebook account. This account is now only used for the Oculus Quest.

zajio1am• 6 years ago

What this even mean? Oculus device is a hardware, has some drivers, supporting software, and applications. What exactly requires user to login in order to work? Drivers?

ulzeraj• 6 years ago

What do they mean by this?

Using a VR profile that is backed by a Facebook account and authentic identity helps us protect our community and makes it possible to offer additional integrity tools. For example, instead of having a separate Oculus Code of Conduct, we will adopt Facebook’s Community Standards as well as a new additional VR-focused policy. This will allow us to continue to take the unique considerations of VR into account while offering a more consistent way to report bad behavior, hold people accountable, and help create a more welcoming environment across our platforms. And as Facebook adds new privacy and safety tools, Oculus can adopt and benefit from them too.

Isn't oculus just some kind of display device? Last time I've checked LG and Samsung doesn't really policy what kind of content I'm using their monitors for.

sigwinch28• 6 years ago

They're trying to retcon something that sounds ever-so-slightly reasonable into a slimy business decision.

bookofjoe• 6 years ago

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Palmer Luckey hadn't persevered and created the Oculus.

gd2• 6 years ago

Don't like

ninkendo2• 6 years ago

Why do I need to "Log in" to a VR headset?

The tech industry has gotten rather silly.

tracker1• 6 years ago

I know this is a little off... but what would happen if say Alex Jones bought an Oculus device? I mean, they've banned a number of people from the platform.. and if the devices won't work without it, would that be breach of contract/sale?

AltruisticGap2• 6 years ago

It's good to know before the updated Oculus Quest comes out.

Personally it doesn't bother me immensely... however it's annoying that I'd have to review, check and double check all the privacy settings before using the device as I don't expect any of the defaults to keep my activity private.

I'll probably opt for using my Oculus account another 2 years, at which point I'll likely have bought another headset.

xadhominemx• 6 years ago

Who cares?

neycoda• 6 years ago

Sounds like Facebook doesn't know how to make money with Oculus unless they require people to log into Facebook to use it.

danboarder• 6 years ago

I see a VR headset is primarily a piece of hardware. Think of it as a next-gen computer monitor. Users like me expect it to work with any computer or ecosystem (Steam, Windows, Mac, Linux, etc). Thus the outrage..

libraryatnight• 6 years ago

I was waffling between VR setups, looks like I can take Oculus off the list.

makecheck• 6 years ago

I’m not sure how we’ve learned to accept “I am altering the deal” from tech companies just because they have the ability to change things remotely.

I mean, what if a furniture company just decided to break into your house, reupholster your couch and remove some of the pillows? (Or I suppose, install a recording device on the bottom?)

realistcake• 6 years ago

I don't see what the fuss is about. Why shouldn't Facebook try to provide the best user experience possible? We live in an increasingly connected world, so this tight integration between different products is absolutely critical to a positive user experience. Would people complain if any other company added Facebook login to their product? No!

makach• 6 years ago

Wait.. Some games are rated 7 years, my kid is old enough to play the games and currently has his own account but he is not allowed to be on Facebook. How will this work?

Next VR headset will not be Oculus.

daveoc642• 6 years ago

Most of the major VR headset companies (Oculus, HTC, Sony) do not advise that children under 13 use VR. You have to be 13 to sign up for a Facebook account - although I'm not sure if you meant "not allowed" in the sense that you won't let him sign up for an account.

A game's age rating only covers the suitability of the content in the game in terms of things like violence, strong language etc. It does not imply that the game is aimed at or would be enjoyed by a particular age range. There is no special consideration for VR in terms of age ratings.

lbj• 6 years ago

Guess I have 2 years until my Rift goes in the bin. Hopefully there'll be something even nicer out by then.

phendrenad2• 6 years ago

As companies grow, they lose touch with smaller market segments. I see that Facebook has grown to the point that it has lost touch with it's ENTIRE oculus market. (Who buys Oculus? Cutting-edge techheads, who often don't like social media). I expect that Oculus will die a slow death unless some exec sees some important metric going down and tries to save it. But Facebook is huge, so saving Oculus is unlikely to make a dent in financials.

Facebook account now required to login to Oculus devices

Related Stories