Early Supporters of Oculus VR Denounce Facebook Buyout

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/early-supporters-of-oculus-vr-unnerved-upset-by-facebook-purchase/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=technology&_r=0

by RougeFemme • 12 years ago

43 50 12 years ago

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

not_paul_graham• 12 years ago

Isn't this article stating what is an obvious conclusion from a ton of other links currently on the HN homepage?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469115

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470097

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469237

bhouston• 12 years ago

This is a weird situation. Sometimes when a product goes ultra-mainstream as FB is likely trying to do with Oculus Rift, it doesn't matter a huge amount if it losses its first supporters.

But Oculus Rift is losing the core of the gaming community here. And that is its target demographic for both early and medium term adoption, it isn't a small fringe community. (It isn't just early supporters who are mad, it is the core of the gaming community that was excited about this.) If I was in management at FB or Oculus Rift and cared about its future, I would be freaking out and trying to figure out damage control strategy (which I haven't yet seem arise, although maybe I have missed it so far.)

This really open up the space for competitors to take a large bit out of what seemed to be a clear leader.

stormcrowsx3• 12 years ago

I don't see why gamers would care who owns it. I'm interested in the Oculus Rift and I don't care if it was McDonald's that made it, if it works good they'll get my business.

noonespecial• 12 years ago

It doesn't matter at all if gamers care or not. Game devlopers on the other hand...

If Oculus misses out (or even arrives late) to the "Doom of VR"), they are, well, doomed.

shubb2• 12 years ago

Gamers do care about that kind of thing - they have a personal relationship with brands like Sony, Microsoft, and the major game studios. They have a history, as a group, of getting cartoonishly upset with those brands.

Rift is going into competition against entrenched gaming brands like Sony. I believe that Sony is too risk averse to invent something like Oculus, but they are certainly skilled enough to clone it but better, rapidly.

If Oculus is launching a second best product against companies that already own the market, they need to be percieved as David vs Goliath. Now they are not.

Morgawr• 12 years ago

Gamers are very sensitive to this type of stuff. There has been previous malcontent in the gaming scene about major corporations like EA or Activision acquiring smaller independent studios. There's a general trend of criticism towards "casual" games, especially from the core "old school" gamers, there's constant bickering between PC and Console world, and even intra-wars between various consoles and fans.

It's a very active and rebellious scene and gamers enjoy direct relationships with studios like Valve, CDProjekt, Mojang, etc etc, those "big" studios who still operate independently and directly listen to their audience and target instead of trying to monetize everything to maximize income.

marknutter7• 12 years ago

The reaction by the community is completely irrational. Facebook has largely left Parse, Instagram, and WhatsApp alone. It hasn't required people to use Facebook to log into those services nor has it shoved ads in Parse developers' faces. By all accounts, they simply seem to be buying companies with great products and potential and just giving them the resources to continue to grow and improve.

It makes absolutely zero sense for Facebook to meddle with Oculus by pursuing any of the ridiculous paths people are worried about like trying to integrate the Rift into the Facebook platform or turn away from the gaming community or charge for the SDK or any other tinfoil scenarios people are assuming Facebook will pursue.

The truth is, the Sony announcement was a significant shot across the bow at Oculus. From all accounts their headset is already on par with the rift, plus they have a massive built in user base. Oculus may have had the support and interest of a subset of hardcore gamers behind them but that's small potatoes compared to the console market. With Facebook, they may actually have a fighting chance to retain their position as the leader in VR.

On the upside, however, everyone is canceling their DK2 orders which should allow me to get mine earlier :)

Riesling• 12 years ago

The reaction by the community is completely irrational.

I think you are missing the big picture because you are not realizing the potential of this technology (Mark probably has, that's why he bought Oculus). VR will absolutely change the way we interact with each other in the future. This is not about gaming at all. This is about people wearing VR headsets (which will probably look like sunglasses) in everyday situations (augmented reality). Oculus is the leader in this area and Facebook is in control now. For many people a possible utopia has turned into a dystopia over night.

panacea2• 12 years ago

And I think you're wearing virtual-virtual goggles.

"VR will absolutely change the way we interact with each other in the future."

Probably... but OR was solving hardware/society challenges, and those challenges can't be solved by handing the reins to the masters of the fucked-up dystopia that is Facebook.

AUmrysh• 12 years ago

Oculus may be the leader, but they're certainly not the only game in town.

Jeri Ellsworth (Technical Illusions) with the CastAR, Sony has one, GameFace Labs, Durovis, etc. are all competitors.

Even if Oculus is the best thing out there, their advances will quickly spread to the community. With the competition we're seeing in the area, it's going to be very crowded, I don't think Oculus being bought by Facebook is bad for consumers. It could be bad for Oculus, but it's not like Facebook is against open source (just look at their github), so I don't think we need to worry about them trying to squirrel away every advancement they make behind a patent or anything.

marknutter7• 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure everybody who's even remotely interested in VR tech understands the potential it has to change the way we communicate and interact with us. But that's certainly not the only application, and I highly doubt Facebook will pursue that angle to the detriment of every other possibly application for VR, including gaming. If I were Mark, I would have bought Oculus, too. Not because it fits well with Facebook the product, but because VR is going to be amazing. The only thing I would have done differently than Mark is buy Oculus earlier.

rm999• 12 years ago

Honestly, I think you're the one missing the bigger picture. Look forward a few years; do you really think oculus is going to be the only player in VR? There are already several companies seriously working on VR, and many more will follow soon. Oculus is ahead of a new entrant in the industry by at most ~1-2 years, but probably less because they've done a lot of the hard work that can copied quickly.

Virtual reality goggles/glasses/whatever will probably be a lot like computer monitors: dumb, commodity devices that you can shop for at best buy. Saying that facebook is in control of VR is misunderstanding the situation - it would be like saying google is in control of mobile phones. Facebook won't be in control of VR, they're just ahead of the curve a little so they can help define what VR will be (instead of reacting to what it will become, like they did with mobile).

edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to make my main point: with facebook's resources, the entire field of VR will be pushed ahead by at least a few months. Oculus likely has the "right" vision of how to move forward with VR but didn't have the resources to fully execute it. The innovation that will funded by facebook will help the rift, which will "inspire" competitors.

sbarron• 12 years ago

It seems unlikely that Facebook will mess Oculus in any significant way, and I agree a lot of the sky is falling reactions are irrational. However, a lot of people just don't trust Facebook, for rational reasons. It comes down to this: if one doesn't trust Facebook, why would one want to give their money to Facebook?

dclowd9901• 12 years ago

The Morpheus makes one wonder if Sony attempted to talk Oculus into making the device platform-exclusive and failed. This is all very Sony/Nintendo-ey circa PSX/N64...

jzelinskie• 12 years ago

I don't think this is the case. Sony's VR R&D has been in motion since 2010 and John Carmack initially tried to get them to hire Palmer Luckey before the founding of Oculus[0]. According to leaks, the model they showed off this year was nearly identical to one that they almost showed off around the PS4's launch[1]. Sony have been working on this a long time and, just like Oculus, have been trying to make sure they don't somehow ruin the market like past VR products have. VR for consoles is a very different product than VR for high performance computers; Sony has to make many more compromises to run on the PS4 hardware.

[0] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/446122463747776512 [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/20vzid/massive_infor...

anon4• 12 years ago

Your post is completely irrational. What sense does it make to be a facebook apologist? Why would you defend a company? Companies aren't people, being nice to one doesn't make it like you and treat you well.

Facebook is a company. Facebook is also evil. The decision to immediately drop OculusVR like a hot potato the moment they got acquired by Facebook is a completely sound one.

marknutter7• 12 years ago

I would agree with you if Facebook actually demonstrated a history of meddling with products the acquire but so far it doesn't appear they are inclined to do that. When Facebook bought Parse I had the same trepidation people are having about the Oculus acquisition (although with 80% less nerd-rage). To my delight, they have let Parse operate completely autonomously and the platform continues to grow and improve. By all accounts they have also given Instagram and Whatsapp the same autonomy. So why not wait and see instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, if you want to cancel your DK2 order that would make me very happy, especially if you ordered yours before me.

xmonkee• 12 years ago

So anyone ever defending any company ever is an irrational apologist? He at least gave some points. You just sounded like an angry teenager. And I'm not even a Facebook user, let alone fan.

pfraze5• 12 years ago

You have to keep in mind how many of us saw this as a hacking and as a business opportunity to develop exactly what Facebook is now going to develop: VRUI platforms. That will still be possible, but this announcement means that there's a software player attached to the hardware, and they will try to maintain their platform position with it.

On top of that, a lot of us are actively hoping to see the death of Facebook- I personally am, because I think they've acted unethically. (It's the job of IT professionals to protect users, not mine them.) Tying Facebook to the Rift means that the Rift is, well, part of that thing that I/we want to die.

It makes absolutely zero sense for Facebook to meddle with Oculus
With Facebook, they may actually have a fighting chance to retain their position as the leader in VR.

How does Oculus get access to Facebook's builtin userbase, as Sony has, without having Facebook's software get involved? The only optimistic answer is that the purchase is an financial boost, but it didn't seem necessary. The Rift's strength was that it was purely PC - untied to any platform. They alienated the developer market they were cultivating by doing this.

I've thought through the financial angles, I've thought through the "Sony and Valve were gonna beat them" angles, and I still think they're weak arguments. I think this is about Oculus building the software platform, and Facebook taking part in that.

marknutter7• 12 years ago

On top of that, a lot of us are actively hoping to see the death of Facebook- I personally am, because I think they've acted unethically.

And this is really at the heart of all the nerd-rage. None of the responses I've seen are based on any kind of logic. They are completely emotional based on people's biases (justified or not) against Facebook the Product. If you look at Facebook's actions when it comes to their major acquisitions, ignoring all the controversy around Facebook the Product, you will see that they've been pretty good stewards of acquired tech so far. I was certainly impressed with their handling of Parse thus far.

The way I see it, Facebook has been having a hard time coming up with their second act. Pretty much every new Facebook related feature or product has been a flop. So they are wisely looking to acquire rising stars rather than engineer them internally.

Argorak2• 12 years ago

Yes, people _are_ irrational, especially the gaming community, that is largely driven by emotions.

Also, Facebook gaming is seen as a huge danger for many "core gamers", so it isn't just anyone buying their stuff.

marknutter7• 12 years ago

Facebook didn't create any of those games, though. Companies like Zinga did. Facebook provided the users and the platform, yes, but they have never been a games company. It's silly to conflate Zinga and Facebook/

grovulent• 12 years ago

And facebook always makes good decisions right? Look at how they interpreted mobile. It's a device which is multi-faceted, multi-purpose... and they turn it into a bloody facebook window (facebook home) - getting in the way of how most people actually interact with their phone.

If you think they are going to let Oculus develop freely without their completely self-absorbed facebook centric mindset, you're kidding yourself.

patrickk• 12 years ago

From all accounts their headset is already on par with the rift...

From what I've read this isn't true at all.

Have a read of this excellent Valve slide deck on VR, which touches on the technical challenges: http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2013/MAbrashGDC2013...

My understanding is that the vision that Oculus has for their consumer product is x2 1080p screens (at a minimum, ideally x2 4K screens or even higher, if the supply chain was ready), one for each eye, to eliminate the screen door effect and deliver true immersion. Supporting x2 1080p screens (or above) requires serious graphical horsepower as you can imagine.

The PS4 has nowhere near that ability for graphics. I saw a comment saying the "PS4 is a mid level gaming PC", so do you think that the PS4 will deliver the jaw dropping visuals and immersion required to blow away consumers on their first VR experience and change gaming forever?

I suspect the PS4 might only be capable of supporting x2 720p screens (based on what I've read about the PS4), which would deliver a hugely compromised vision of what VR could be compared to what Oculus' original vision was/is. It would be even more disappointing if Sony had a compromised product that made loads of money, as this would send the signal to VR companies that it's ok to not shoot for the stars with a consumer VR product.

Oculus stated all along that they wont release consumer product until its ready, which was credible as they had to answer to no one (except if you count the hopes and dreams of backers that had no equity, and VCs that bought into their vision.) Now there is huge uncertainty with this bolt from the blue acquisition.

People here defending Facebook are comparing the acquisition to Instagram and WhatsApp. Those companies may have a lot of users, but they don't fundamentally promise to make a massive leap forward into a virtual universe, a kind of a leap forward not seen since Carmack implemented 3D graphics in the original Doom. No nerds here give a fuck about photo sharing with filters, or SMS over the web. Those aren't exciting leaps, they can be cloned easily, there aren't the same technical challenges to be overcome. Facebook is welcome to buy those types of companies. VR, however, with the team Oculus has, had the potential to do something great, with zero compromises or outside pressure. Now all that has been thrown into doubt.

I'd sum up the reaction here as:

- those who are annoyed that Oculus' independence is compromised by a company with long history of privacy abuse

- disbelief that those who chipped in good faith now have contributed to another way for Facebook to mine users for data and stick ads in front of their eyeballs

- For those who chipped in on kickstarter: they added value to a company with a long history of privacy abuse instead of ultimately funding what they thought would be an independent entity with amazing technical talent and vision

If Oculus felt that threatened by Sony, I'm sure they could raise tens of millions on very favourable terms, in very short space of time. I'm so disappointed that there is a risk of the original vision being compromised, I hope Valve or someone else picks up where Oculus left off if there is indeed a comprise because of this acquisition.

potatolicious• 12 years ago

"The PS4 has nowhere near that ability for graphics."

Neither do most gaming PCs today, but of course that comes with many caveats. The PS4 (and most modern gaming rigs) don't have the ability to run Crysis 3, at max settings, across two 1080p displays, sure.

But it isn't Crysis 3 on max or the highway. There is a lot of middle ground to be had. Naturally, even most PCs today can't run Crysis 3 on max and maintain 60fps, unless we're talking purpose-built high-end gaming rigs.

The two big things you can't lose in VR is latency and framerate, without these two factors the whole experience just sucks profoundly. The resolution is more negotiable.

The problem with the Oculus DK1 and its low-res screen isn't that it's low-res, it's that it has huge pixels, and the gap between each pixel on the LCD is plainly visible to the user. This is the infamous "screen door". A higher density/resolution screen that's upscaling from a lower-resolution signal would not suffer from the screen door effect. Upscaling is totally a viable option.

Beyond that, the PS4 absolutely has the ability to push 2x1080px60Hz, it just can't do it with enormously complex graphics. This may mean we'll have to settle for stylized graphics instead of photo-real, but such is the reality of ultra high-res gaming in 2014 (whether it's a single 4K screen or multiple combined smaller screens).

Let's be honest, if the base requirement for effective VR experiences was a quad-core with SLI GTX TITANs, the Oculus Rift would've made a loud thump in the market as it hit the ground. To stand any real chance at success Oculus, and everyone else, has to include "mid level gaming PCs" in its target demographic, whether it comes in the form of an Xbox One, a PS4, or a Windows PC.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very disappointed that Oculus got acquired by Facebook, but Sony's product is far from DOA, especially not on account of the PS4's graphical horsepower.

Executor• 12 years ago

The issue is that Facebook has control over this technology and gives it more monopoly power. To decentralize the market Oculus shouldn't have sold out. Facebook is an unethical company that data mines its users. Facebook's treatment of its bought companies is irrelavent since it has ownership/control. You are the one without logic.

stickydink• 12 years ago

As a reasonably active member of the subreddit, which is (or was, it seems) reasonably rational and mature, there seems to be quite a lot of anti-fanboy sort of behavior going on here.

Amongst the mountains of screams and cries, this is a good place to get Palmer's point of view on it.

http://www.reddit.com/user/palmerluckey

I got a DK1 through kickstarter, and I had my DK2 on order within minutes of the reddit pre-announcement. So I'm a big fan. As many have said, I'm waiting to see if the likes of Carmack stick around -- though from his Twitter feed it seems he's fairly comfortable with the deal. I'm reasonably excited about all this, to be honest.

mathattack2• 12 years ago

The real question is what this will do to other Kickstarter campaigns. It highlights that you are not buying a share in a company. The savvy early adopters should realize as soon as outside money comes in, the company is headed to the highest value exit no matter what.

maxerickson• 12 years ago

The message that you should be (at least somewhat) skeptical of the motivations of the project and not really expect to get anything is probably healthy for Kickstarter.

People that ask themselves "Am I comfortable with this money being used in an unexpected way?" before they pay a Kickstarter are less likely to be upset when the money is used in an unexpected way (or when they don't get anything or whatever).

ingenieros• 12 years ago

There are many well funded companies taking advantage of the Kicstarter platform to run their product/market fit experiments and generating media buzz while they are it. If you think about it it's actually really smart on their part, but shady nonetheless. Reading some of their backer reactions on Kickstarter and all across the interwebz one gets the feeling that this will most certainly have a negative impact in the short term, but hopefully these same backers will start doing more research into the people unscrupulously soliciting money when in fact they don't really need it at all.

ubercore• 12 years ago

It doesn't feel shady to me, as long as one remembers you're _buying just that particular product_. I'm really happy to have the chance to support even a major company experimenting if it provides a product more suited to me than they could have done without crowdfunding.

The real tension in my eyes is that the most effective kickstarters seem to be ones that get people emotionally involved or attached some way. Joining a "revolution", or playing on nostalgia or a sense of community. It makes an effective kickstarter, but can lead to trouble in cases like Oculus where (even though they didn't and never did), people felt like they owned a small part of Oculus for kickstarting it.

thenmar2• 12 years ago

I don't get it... how else do they think a consumer version would ever be manufactured? I imagine manufacturing thousands of consumer grade custom tiny high definition displays would approach a billion dollars alone. What did these guys expect, another kickstarter? If anything, Facebook has just created the best chance yet that their dreams will come true.

pfraze5• 12 years ago

The $76MM series B, plus the pedigree gained by Carmack, seemed to suggest capital wasn't impossible to get.

marknutter7• 12 years ago

$76M is a bit short of $2B. Also, Oculus now has access to word class legal, PR, and marketing teams via Facebook. A lot of the money that would have been sunk into basic administrative expenses can now go directly toward product engineering.

fooqux• 12 years ago

Just like every other consumer device?

1) Loans 2) Personal cash (last I know, Carmack was loaded) 3) Investment (Kickstarter / preorders being one form of this)

Or some combination thereof. Surely you didn't think every single new device comes from a extremely large corporation.

thenmar2• 12 years ago

Loans or personal cash are orders of magnitude away from the necessary funds. The only option was investment. Oculus needed at least hundreds of millions of dollars to make a consumer version happen any time soon. Companies like Uber, Pinterest, and Spotify can raise that kind of VC money. Hardware startups banking on an uncertain revolution in video gaming and depending on unproven developer & console company support cannot.

nilkn• 12 years ago

I like Notch's post on reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/21cy9n/the_future_of...):

You got my respect before I met you. You kept it when I met you. I understand that this happened because people with investments in the company saw big sacks of dollar bills. I understand you're probably under a big NDA and stuck in golden handcuffs, and that this might be a frustrating situation.

I just hope you got your fair share. VR will live on. Thank you for being part of making it finally happen.

I really wish this hadn't happened.

Early Supporters of Oculus VR Denounce Facebook Buyout

Related Stories