Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I honestly wouldn't buy even a non-crap ware filled initial OR from Facebook - given what they might start to do with it later on down the line especially.
What do you mean? The initial Rift is just display hardware, there is nothing for them to change. It's not like they can remotely patch the device to lock it to a Facebook network or something - there's nothing to patch.
It's not impossible that future versions will feature a Facebook network of some kind built in, but that has no bearing on any device you've already bought.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited March 2014
I am just going by the general sentiment across most websites that I visit at least and it's much more overwhelmingly negative than say, as a point of comparison, people were about how Sim City or Battlefield 4 were turning out.
By a long way in fact.
Obviously we'll see in the long term if this works out, but I suspect the OR guys have firmly lost the core/enthusiast audience here or driven them to Sony/Microsofts offerings (or whoever else is working on this). Unlike some, I am really not convinced that VR is going to catch on with the general casual consumer audience, who will be dying to play Facebooks VR Farmville or whatever they are going to try to market to these people. Espeially given how often Facebook generally craps all over its users with unwanted updates, changing privacy options at their whim making personal information exposed and similar shenanigans.
There is just no way I want to pay for anything Facebook makes, I only barely tolerate Facebook (the site) because it is free and even then I have been contemplating removing myself from it for some time.
Edit: Also confident statements about what the initial consumer version of the OR put out under Facebook is are asinine arguments until they announce something. There is no release date on anything. There is no indication of what the consumer model under Facebook looks like. Being 100% confident it will be utterly fine is not a sure bet and I wish we would stop pretending this is an answer to peoples worries, when there is absolutely indication of when it will be coming out and how it will operate compared to the dev kits so far. We could still be over a year away from an actual consumer release as they stick it back to R&D for an example.
In related news (heh), my local news, traffic, and weather radio station had a 5-minute or so piece this evening, as part of their financial news, on the buyout of Oculus and what FB's plans could be. They repeatedly described the tech itself as "amazing," "mind-blowing," "immersive," "for more experiences than just gaming," etc.
And FB's stock price is down on the news, naturally.
“We have more resources to make steps that we wouldn’t make [if] left to our own,” he said during a panel at the event. “For people playing games, the [ZeniMax acquisition] is such a pure win. There’s no downside to this at all. We are still down here in Texas, they are leaving us alone, we are still building our products here.”
That's was in 2009.
I was going to bring this up, but we've really haven't seen a lot of id under Zenimax. Rage was mostly done prior to that and id was kinda aimless before then, so the current aimlessness may not be a symptom of being purchased.
Unrelated, but a lot of the aimlessness of id during and after Rage is Hollenshed's fault
There is no indication of what the consumer model under Facebook looks like.
Exactly. There is no indication of what the consumer model under Facebook looks like. But there is indication of what it looks like under Oculus. In the absence of evidence that they plan to change it, it's irrational paranoia to believe that they will. At the bare minimum, make no commitment either way until we actually know more. It's not even been 48 hours since the announcement.
+3
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
In related news (heh), my local news, traffic, and weather radio station had a 5-minute or so piece this evening, as part of their financial news, on the buyout of Oculus and what FB's plans could be. They repeatedly described the tech itself as "amazing," "mind-blowing," "immersive," "for more experiences than just gaming," etc.
And FB's stock price is down on the news, naturally.
And this is where the massive benefits start to show themselves.
In related news (heh), my local news, traffic, and weather radio station had a 5-minute or so piece this evening, as part of their financial news, on the buyout of Oculus and what FB's plans could be. They repeatedly described the tech itself as "amazing," "mind-blowing," "immersive," "for more experiences than just gaming," etc.
And FB's stock price is down on the news, naturally.
FB's stock went down because it's kind of a baffling decision for FB to make. As far as I'm aware, FB doesn't have own any other hardware developers. And everything they've been talking about is software solutions (which Oculus has a fairly good crew of, admittedly, but isn't their main function). And Wall Street isn't looking at the potential coolness of the hardware, they're looking at what kind of return on investment FB is going to get from Oculus over what period of time. And in that regard, it's not a terribly great investment for FB.
In related news (heh), my local news, traffic, and weather radio station had a 5-minute or so piece this evening, as part of their financial news, on the buyout of Oculus and what FB's plans could be. They repeatedly described the tech itself as "amazing," "mind-blowing," "immersive," "for more experiences than just gaming," etc.
And FB's stock price is down on the news, naturally.
I imagine top level investors are confused about the prospects of what this can do for Facebook. Which is a pretty good question actually. What exactly is going to be worth two billion dollars - ESPECIALLY in the mid-term, since stock is all about "make me rich now."
This adds an alternate layer to the skepticism / worry of this buyout - what if nothing can be done for corporate level financial benefit and Facebook decides to can the Oculus?
+1
Options
jeffinvaKooglercoming this summerRegistered Userregular
edited March 2014
Hmm. Regardless of what Kickstarter is and represents as an investment (or non-investment), I think most people who donated had a very clear narrative they bought into. There was a spirit to the giving, an ideal everyone seemed to be working together towards in one way or another. In my opinion the creator basically stood on those donations and promises, spoken and unspoken, and cashed out. I doubt very seriously Carmack or even the core Rift founders will still be around in a year. I don't think Facebook buying this to exploit as a marketing and sales platform will lead to a happy ending, and while it gets tied up by Facebook execs and can't attract visionary talent because of it, it will end up an expensive also ran to whatever VR solution does win out - probably Sony's.
Just my opinion. And after giving it some thought, what it means that they sold to Facebook and what that entails, I'm now done with even wanting to read or hear anything about the Rift. Crazy how I went from enthusiastic to apathetic.
jeffinva on
+3
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
At best, this will make the Rift the best VR device ever due to mammoth resources.
At worst, the Rift fails horribly, Facebook ruins it completely, but VR is a much much bigger industry thanks to massive awareness in mainstream markets.
In related news (heh), my local news, traffic, and weather radio station had a 5-minute or so piece this evening, as part of their financial news, on the buyout of Oculus and what FB's plans could be. They repeatedly described the tech itself as "amazing," "mind-blowing," "immersive," "for more experiences than just gaming," etc.
And FB's stock price is down on the news, naturally.
FB's stock went down because it's kind of a baffling decision for FB to make.
Oh, yeah - I wasn't saying that their stock dropping because of this was unexpected. Rather, I was amused at how well it fit the normal narrative.
Basically, investors don't like radical changes, and whenever a company does something new, the stock price drops as people panic a little bit and get out while they still can, etc. Then it either rebounds as people realize that doom isn't happening, or drops further as the bet turns out to have been bad, or whatever.
But that initial sell-off is almost one of life's little guarantees.
Is it just me or is the source of the backlash rooted not in facebook itself, but rather the shift from the Rift perceived as being a cool tech that gamers could greedily call their own, to it being a mass-market product that is developed for all people instead of just the gaming community. Sure, the Rift is going to be awesome to play games with, but it has so much more potential than that. With facebook supporting it financially, it has a much better chance of achieving that.
Is it just me or is the source of the backlash rooted not in facebook itself, but rather the shift from the Rift perceived as being a cool tech that gamers could greedily call their own, to it being a mass-market product that is developed for all people instead of just the gaming community. Sure, the Rift is going to be awesome to play games with, but it has so much more potential than that. With facebook supporting it financially, it has a much better chance of achieving that.
B... b... but facebook
0
Options
Ov3rchargeR.I.P. Mass EffectYou were dead to me for yearsRegistered Userregular
Is it just me or is the source of the backlash rooted not in facebook itself, but rather the shift from the Rift perceived as being a cool tech that gamers could greedily call their own, to it being a mass-market product that is developed for all people instead of just the gaming community. Sure, the Rift is going to be awesome to play games with, but it has so much more potential than that. With facebook supporting it financially, it has a much better chance of achieving that.
I think that's an unfair analysis. From my perspective the appeal of VR is to completely immerse myself in the world in which I am playing, and if there is one thing that will kill that feeling completely it's a little pop-up that reads "Hey, that was a nice kill, do you want to post that to your wall?"
Now I just pulled that out of my ass and there's no evidence that points to that being a thing, but it's just my gut telling me that something may be amiss.
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
This acquisition, as I've said multiple times, will be nothing but good for the VR industry as a whole.
It has the potential for fucking up the Rift, because Facebook MIGHT decide to do something stupid with it.
And if you specifically really want the Rift and only the Rift to succeed, then you should definitely feel a bit worried about anything Facebook might do.
But no matter what they do, this acquisition will catapult the current generation of VR devices into the mainstream spotlight. When a big company spends 2 billion on another company, the activites of that other company become very interesting to a LOT of people. When that happens, the VR industry is going to grow a thousandfold over the next few years. 75,000 people bought the devkit 1 from Oculus. Even if each of those people were SUPER enthusiastic about it and demo'd it every chance they got, that's maybe 5-10 people per person (40-50 if you're crazy like me and @TheSonicRetard). Compare that to the hundreds and hundreds of millions who will be aware of what this tech can do as a result of Facebook acquiring it, and you start to talk about a very significant increase in the size of the industry.
And that means that you get more companies entering the space to offer their own products, and the more competition there is, the more we win.
So yeah, Facebook might fuck up the Rift. They probably won't, but they might. But even if they do, they can't fuck up the whole VR industry, which will gain so much from the exposure this acquisition is creating.
But social pop-ups could add so much to the OR experience
+7
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
The reasons I detest Facebook buying the Rift are: a) the entire Facebook business model is sleazy, b) Facebook doesn't know jack shit about hardware products, and c) Facebook only bought the Rift because the way they "adapt" is to buy something somebody creative makes and smash it into pieces to make it work with the Facebook model.
Yeah, I hate Facebook as a company, but if they were a company that knew how to take good things and keep them good, I, and most people here, wouldn't have much of a problem with the Rift going to them. It's entirely the fact that Facebook screws up bunches of stuff to get that one thing that works out well for them that people are irritated by this move.
Is it just me or is the source of the backlash rooted not in facebook itself, but rather the shift from the Rift perceived as being a cool tech that gamers could greedily call their own, to it being a mass-market product that is developed for all people instead of just the gaming community. Sure, the Rift is going to be awesome to play games with, but it has so much more potential than that. With facebook supporting it financially, it has a much better chance of achieving that.
I think that's an unfair analysis. From my perspective the appeal of VR is to completely immerse myself in the world in which I am playing, and if there is one thing that will kill that feeling completely it's a little pop-up that reads "Hey, that was a nice kill, do you want to post that to your wall?"
Now I just pulled that out of my ass and there's no evidence that points to that being a thing, but it's just my gut telling me that something may be amiss.
That's just not going to happen without you specifically consenting to it. I think people are misunderstanding what the Rift is and how software is published for it. Unless Facebook starts buying up the rights to all the indie games and forcing Facebook integration into them, or adds to the hardware of the Rift something that will brick it unless used with some sort of proprietary driver (which absolutely will not happen unless they want their investment dead in the water), there is no way you're going to get Facebook up in your junk without you wanting it there.
Yeah, I hate Facebook as a company, but if they were a company that knew how to take good things and keep them good, I, and most people here, wouldn't have much of a problem with the Rift going to them. It's entirely the fact that Facebook screws up bunches of stuff to get that one thing that works out well for them that people are irritated by this move.
Umm, facebook is no worse than any other large tech company in this respect. Also, since this is their first foray into hardware, I can't imagine that they will meddle all that much. Look at the first xbox for example-- it didn't have any microsoft software cross-pollination at all. Of course, no one knows what the future will hold, but I firmly believe that at least in the short term, this will be good for the Rift, and will definitely be good for VR tech in the long term. I highly recommend reading this article on giant bomb; I think it gives the most balanced and fair view of this situation that I've seen.
Yeah, I hate Facebook as a company, but if they were a company that knew how to take good things and keep them good, I, and most people here, wouldn't have much of a problem with the Rift going to them. It's entirely the fact that Facebook screws up bunches of stuff to get that one thing that works out well for them that people are irritated by this move.
Umm, facebook is no worse than any other large tech company in this respect. Also, since this is their first foray into hardware, I can't imagine that they will meddle all that much. Look at the first xbox for example-- it didn't have any microsoft software cross-pollination at all. Of course, no one knows what the future will hold, but I firmly believe that at least in the short term, this will be good for the Rift, and will definitely be good for VR tech in the long term. I highly recommend reading this article on giant bomb; I think it gives the most balanced and fair view of this situation that I've seen.
Actually don't look at the first xbox as an example.
It's entirely in Facebook's best interest to help Oculus achieve their goals. Facebook's long-term goal here is for VR to become a mainstream thing in which they have a presence as a VR social platform. Making sure Oculus gets the best possible product out with CV1 and then promoting the shit out of it is what they're going to do. As for keeping them good, who knows. But by that point, VR should be pretty mainstream and we won't be reliant on them anymore, anyway.
This has less to do with Occulus being bought and more to do with it being friggen FACEBOOK.
Had it been, like, Toshiba or Sony, I'd probably be okay with it so long as they were still going to make it available on PC.
Hell, had it been Valve, I'd think it'd be super cool.
Facebook, on the other hand, is a company I do not like who makes a product I do not like.
+2
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited March 2014
Chris Plante @plante
OcuBook is just another reminder that the middle class has enough money to pre-order $300 toys but not enough money to properly invest
Dhalphir on
+3
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
This has less to do with Occulus being bought and more to do with it being friggen FACEBOOK.
Had it been, like, Toshiba or Sony, I'd probably be okay with it so long as they were still going to make it available on PC.
Hell, had it been Valve, I'd think it'd be super cool.
Facebook, on the other hand, is a company I do not like who makes a product I do not like.
Sorry, what don't you like about Facebook? The fact that it's free and the company makes its money through ads? And it uses the information people willingly give to it to target those ads to make more money?
Like, what are you accusing Facebook of, here?
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I've just gone through and read the entire Criticism of Facebook article on wikipedia. Very well-sourced article, and an interesting read.
However, I wasn't able to find anything referencing any concrete evidence that Facebook gathers any data without consent.
There is certainly ample evidence that they are a bit too careless with the information their users provide them, but at the end of the day, that provided information is the only information they seem to have.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
It really seems to me like Facebook is doing nothing more than diversifying themselves to become more than just the operators of a social network, just the way Google did fifteen years ago when they diversified from being merely a search engine into selling advertising keywords and beyond.
Please, keep telling us how we're all stupid and wrong.
Is it too much to ask for people to wait until Facebook starts actually dicking with the Rift's development to go all RUINED FOREVER about it?
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Please, keep telling us how we're all stupid and wrong.
I haven't said people are stupid and wrong, I'm disagreeing with their opinions and explaining the reasons why I disagree. Generally, that's how conflicting opinions are discussed.
Particularly in this case, because I'm curious what exact actions facebook takes that people have a problem with. Like I said, I've read up on the most common criticisms of Facebook, and while there's plenty surrounding Facebook's social impact and the privacy concerns over what they do with profile information users submit, there doesn't seem to be any substantiated occurrences of Facebook actually taking data without consent, and given that the primary thing people seem to be worried about is the Rift being changed into something more than merely display hardware and being used to datamine information, well - there just isn't any precedence for Facebook even doing that with their network currently, let alone whether they intend to do it with the Rift.
I didn't accuse them of anything, I said I don't like the company or their product.
Okay, fair enough, but as above - why? A lot of people in this thread have made references to disliking Facebook, but precious little reference has been made as to specifics.
That's exactly my beef with this. So far I've heard little that's concrete about why this is so horrible, and the concrete fears also tend to be batshit crazy. There's definitely reason to be wary, but when I hear about the hardcore gamer audience going, "Oh, they've gotten in bed with the devil, I'm gonna wait for big companies Sony or Microsoft (yes, the ones I usually keep spelling with an $) to present their pristine, pure product!" I can only roll my eyes.
There are things that can be criticised about this, but if everything is on a vague, emotional level there's simply not much discussion to be had.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I didn't accuse them of anything, I said I don't like the company or their product.
Okay, fair enough, but as above - why? A lot of people in this thread have made references to disliking Facebook, but precious little reference has been made as to specifics.
Do you need to know why? I was responding to cpugeek13's statement that people are complaining because of "the shift from the Rift perceived as being a cool tech that gamers could greedily call their own, to it being a mass-market product that is developed for all people instead of just the gaming community."
That said
-I don't like their software because it contributes to the continued erosion of what people consider acceptable when it comes to privacy.
-I don't like the company because it profits from and thereby is encouraged to facilitate said erosion.
The less money I give to Facebook in the long run, the better, IMO.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I didn't accuse them of anything, I said I don't like the company or their product.
Okay, fair enough, but as above - why? A lot of people in this thread have made references to disliking Facebook, but precious little reference has been made as to specifics.
Do you need to know why? I was responding to cpugeek13's statement that people are complaining because of "the shift from the Rift perceived as being a cool tech that gamers could greedily call their own, to it being a mass-market product that is developed for all people instead of just the gaming community."
That said
-I don't like their software because it contributes to the continued erosion of what people consider acceptable when it comes to privacy.
-I don't like the company because it profits from and thereby is encouraged to facilitate said erosion.
The less money I give to Facebook in the long run, the better, IMO.
So essentially you feel that if the Oculus Rift turns out to be a great piece of hardware that does everything Oculus promises, you won't want to support it due to not wanting to support Facebook? That's fair enough, and an admirable sentiment! It's somewhat similar to the situation with my local medical center. They are a good medical center, with good doctors. But within the building they have clinics for other kinds of "medicine", and I don't agree with that on an ethical level, so I go elsewhere.
I understand your position a bit more when I look at it like that.
I didn't accuse them of anything, I said I don't like the company or their product.
Okay, fair enough, but as above - why? A lot of people in this thread have made references to disliking Facebook, but precious little reference has been made as to specifics.
Do you need to know why? I was responding to cpugeek13's statement that people are complaining because of "the shift from the Rift perceived as being a cool tech that gamers could greedily call their own, to it being a mass-market product that is developed for all people instead of just the gaming community."
That said
-I don't like their software because it contributes to the continued erosion of what people consider acceptable when it comes to privacy.
-I don't like the company because it profits from and thereby is encouraged to facilitate said erosion.
The less money I give to Facebook in the long run, the better, IMO.
What you consider to be the 'continued erosion of what people consider to be privacy' could be summed up in one word: the internet. Advertising is the only via business model for free online services. The data usage that facebook gathers lets them charge more money for ads, which in turn lets them improve their services. It is the cost that everyone must pay to use them. There are no free lunches.
It's not about needing to know, and it's not about you having to justify yourself - it's about having a basis for an actual discussion. Therefore, thanks for writing a bit more about where you're coming from.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
It's not about needing to know, and it's not about you having to justify yourself - it's about having a basis for an actual discussion. Therefore, thanks for writing a bit more about where you're coming from.
That statement wasn't intended to be read alone. You cut off the second part of it
I was responding to cpugeek13's statement that people are complaining because of "the shift from the Rift perceived as being a cool tech that gamers could greedily call their own, to it being a mass-market product that is developed for all people instead of just the gaming community."
My initial post was never intended as a discussion point into the good or evil of Facebook; just that, yes, people can dislike Facebook buying Occulus for reasons other than being techno-hipsters.
I didn't accuse them of anything, I said I don't like the company or their product.
Okay, fair enough, but as above - why? A lot of people in this thread have made references to disliking Facebook, but precious little reference has been made as to specifics.
Do you need to know why? I was responding to cpugeek13's statement that people are complaining because of "the shift from the Rift perceived as being a cool tech that gamers could greedily call their own, to it being a mass-market product that is developed for all people instead of just the gaming community."
That said
-I don't like their software because it contributes to the continued erosion of what people consider acceptable when it comes to privacy.
-I don't like the company because it profits from and thereby is encouraged to facilitate said erosion.
The less money I give to Facebook in the long run, the better, IMO.
What you consider to be the 'continued erosion of what people consider to be privacy' could be summed up in one word: the internet.
There are plenty of websites on the internet that don't mine aggregate user data like Facebook does, and thus have no interest in getting people to give them user data like Facebook does. Facebook is a huge contributor and is right at the front line of this phenomena.
Additionally, being only one of several agencies doing something I dislike doesn't suddenly mean I no longer dislike them.
Advertising is the only via business model for free online services.
The data usage that facebook gathers lets them charge more money for ads, which in turn lets them improve their services. It is the cost that everyone must pay to use them. There are no free lunches.
Yes, you are indeed correct.
I, however, personally have no vested interest in Facebook supporting itself as free software. It could go behind a paywell, or just go away entirely and I would not be the slightest bit put out.
Undead Scottsman on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited March 2014
Sorry, in what way does Facebook mine user data? The only data they have is what is submitted by users themselves. Aggregating data that users submit themselves is not data mining, it's marketing analysis and every company in the world does it with every bit of information you give them.
I really think you're blaming the wrong people here. Facebook can and certainly should be held accountable for who has access to the data they gather, but providing it to advertisers so that they can make money as a business doesn't seem so wrong, in and of itself.
Sorry, in what way does Facebook mine user data? The only data they have is what is submitted by users themselves. Aggregating data that users submit themselves is not data mining, it's marketing analysis and every company in the world does it with every bit of information you give them.
It appears I used words poorly. I'll adjust my post. I didn't realize data mining referred to something more nefarious.
I really think you're blaming the wrong people here. Facebook can and certainly should be held accountable for who has access to the data they gather, but providing it to advertisers doesn't seem so wrong.
Suit yourself; I'd prefer to keep my info to myself. But I'm sure in 10-20 years I'm just going to be that old guy yelling at whippersnappers for giving away private information so freely.
EDIT: Annnd I fucked up that edit attempt, so I guess this is just a second post. Woo..
Undead Scottsman on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Okay, but now that you've changed your words, your sentence no longer is true. Every single free service on the Internet supports itself through advertisements, and the best way to make more money out of those advertisements is to target them as effectively as possible. You do that by gathering any and all data you have on users and providing that to your advertisers.
Sure, Facebook has more data about users to aggregate than most such companies, but they run a social network where people WANT to share as much about themselves with other people as possible - that's kind of the point of a social network, and the fact that Facebook gathers more data as a result means that they have a successful business model, not some nefarious desires. If they were using user information to go around stealing people's identities, or contacting people directly, whatever, big deal.
But the net result of all of their aggregating data is that if you tend to post a lot of status updates suggesting that you enjoy snowboarding, you might see snowboarding ads in your sidebar. That really isn't a big deal. Hell, I'd rather have targeted ads than generic stuff, I might learn about a useful product!
And this still doesn't explain what you are so afraid they're going to do with the Oculus Rift. The Rift is not a social network or even any sort of stand alone device (It's no more than a glorified desktop monitor, when you look at it this way) and people will not be submitting their data to it, so what nefarious purposes do you suppose it could be used for?
Posts
What do you mean? The initial Rift is just display hardware, there is nothing for them to change. It's not like they can remotely patch the device to lock it to a Facebook network or something - there's nothing to patch.
It's not impossible that future versions will feature a Facebook network of some kind built in, but that has no bearing on any device you've already bought.
By a long way in fact.
Obviously we'll see in the long term if this works out, but I suspect the OR guys have firmly lost the core/enthusiast audience here or driven them to Sony/Microsofts offerings (or whoever else is working on this). Unlike some, I am really not convinced that VR is going to catch on with the general casual consumer audience, who will be dying to play Facebooks VR Farmville or whatever they are going to try to market to these people. Espeially given how often Facebook generally craps all over its users with unwanted updates, changing privacy options at their whim making personal information exposed and similar shenanigans.
There is just no way I want to pay for anything Facebook makes, I only barely tolerate Facebook (the site) because it is free and even then I have been contemplating removing myself from it for some time.
Edit: Also confident statements about what the initial consumer version of the OR put out under Facebook is are asinine arguments until they announce something. There is no release date on anything. There is no indication of what the consumer model under Facebook looks like. Being 100% confident it will be utterly fine is not a sure bet and I wish we would stop pretending this is an answer to peoples worries, when there is absolutely indication of when it will be coming out and how it will operate compared to the dev kits so far. We could still be over a year away from an actual consumer release as they stick it back to R&D for an example.
And FB's stock price is down on the news, naturally.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Unrelated, but a lot of the aimlessness of id during and after Rage is Hollenshed's fault
STEAM!
Exactly. There is no indication of what the consumer model under Facebook looks like. But there is indication of what it looks like under Oculus. In the absence of evidence that they plan to change it, it's irrational paranoia to believe that they will. At the bare minimum, make no commitment either way until we actually know more. It's not even been 48 hours since the announcement.
And this is where the massive benefits start to show themselves.
FB's stock went down because it's kind of a baffling decision for FB to make. As far as I'm aware, FB doesn't have own any other hardware developers. And everything they've been talking about is software solutions (which Oculus has a fairly good crew of, admittedly, but isn't their main function). And Wall Street isn't looking at the potential coolness of the hardware, they're looking at what kind of return on investment FB is going to get from Oculus over what period of time. And in that regard, it's not a terribly great investment for FB.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/facebook-biggest-venture-capitalist-game
I imagine top level investors are confused about the prospects of what this can do for Facebook. Which is a pretty good question actually. What exactly is going to be worth two billion dollars - ESPECIALLY in the mid-term, since stock is all about "make me rich now."
This adds an alternate layer to the skepticism / worry of this buyout - what if nothing can be done for corporate level financial benefit and Facebook decides to can the Oculus?
Just my opinion. And after giving it some thought, what it means that they sold to Facebook and what that entails, I'm now done with even wanting to read or hear anything about the Rift. Crazy how I went from enthusiastic to apathetic.
At worst, the Rift fails horribly, Facebook ruins it completely, but VR is a much much bigger industry thanks to massive awareness in mainstream markets.
Oh, yeah - I wasn't saying that their stock dropping because of this was unexpected. Rather, I was amused at how well it fit the normal narrative.
Basically, investors don't like radical changes, and whenever a company does something new, the stock price drops as people panic a little bit and get out while they still can, etc. Then it either rebounds as people realize that doom isn't happening, or drops further as the bet turns out to have been bad, or whatever.
But that initial sell-off is almost one of life's little guarantees.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
My board games -->http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/cpugeek13
My BGG wishlist --> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wishlist/cpugeek13
B... b... but facebook
I think that's an unfair analysis. From my perspective the appeal of VR is to completely immerse myself in the world in which I am playing, and if there is one thing that will kill that feeling completely it's a little pop-up that reads "Hey, that was a nice kill, do you want to post that to your wall?"
Now I just pulled that out of my ass and there's no evidence that points to that being a thing, but it's just my gut telling me that something may be amiss.
It has the potential for fucking up the Rift, because Facebook MIGHT decide to do something stupid with it.
And if you specifically really want the Rift and only the Rift to succeed, then you should definitely feel a bit worried about anything Facebook might do.
But no matter what they do, this acquisition will catapult the current generation of VR devices into the mainstream spotlight. When a big company spends 2 billion on another company, the activites of that other company become very interesting to a LOT of people. When that happens, the VR industry is going to grow a thousandfold over the next few years. 75,000 people bought the devkit 1 from Oculus. Even if each of those people were SUPER enthusiastic about it and demo'd it every chance they got, that's maybe 5-10 people per person (40-50 if you're crazy like me and @TheSonicRetard). Compare that to the hundreds and hundreds of millions who will be aware of what this tech can do as a result of Facebook acquiring it, and you start to talk about a very significant increase in the size of the industry.
And that means that you get more companies entering the space to offer their own products, and the more competition there is, the more we win.
So yeah, Facebook might fuck up the Rift. They probably won't, but they might. But even if they do, they can't fuck up the whole VR industry, which will gain so much from the exposure this acquisition is creating.
Yeah, I hate Facebook as a company, but if they were a company that knew how to take good things and keep them good, I, and most people here, wouldn't have much of a problem with the Rift going to them. It's entirely the fact that Facebook screws up bunches of stuff to get that one thing that works out well for them that people are irritated by this move.
That's just not going to happen without you specifically consenting to it. I think people are misunderstanding what the Rift is and how software is published for it. Unless Facebook starts buying up the rights to all the indie games and forcing Facebook integration into them, or adds to the hardware of the Rift something that will brick it unless used with some sort of proprietary driver (which absolutely will not happen unless they want their investment dead in the water), there is no way you're going to get Facebook up in your junk without you wanting it there.
Umm, facebook is no worse than any other large tech company in this respect. Also, since this is their first foray into hardware, I can't imagine that they will meddle all that much. Look at the first xbox for example-- it didn't have any microsoft software cross-pollination at all. Of course, no one knows what the future will hold, but I firmly believe that at least in the short term, this will be good for the Rift, and will definitely be good for VR tech in the long term. I highly recommend reading this article on giant bomb; I think it gives the most balanced and fair view of this situation that I've seen.
My board games -->http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/cpugeek13
My BGG wishlist --> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wishlist/cpugeek13
Actually don't look at the first xbox as an example.
The rift is not the xbox in that analogy
The rift would the tv the xbox was hooked up to
Had it been, like, Toshiba or Sony, I'd probably be okay with it so long as they were still going to make it available on PC.
Hell, had it been Valve, I'd think it'd be super cool.
Facebook, on the other hand, is a company I do not like who makes a product I do not like.
Sorry, what don't you like about Facebook? The fact that it's free and the company makes its money through ads? And it uses the information people willingly give to it to target those ads to make more money?
Like, what are you accusing Facebook of, here?
However, I wasn't able to find anything referencing any concrete evidence that Facebook gathers any data without consent.
There is certainly ample evidence that they are a bit too careless with the information their users provide them, but at the end of the day, that provided information is the only information they seem to have.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
I didn't accuse them of anything, I said I don't like the company or their product.
I haven't said people are stupid and wrong, I'm disagreeing with their opinions and explaining the reasons why I disagree. Generally, that's how conflicting opinions are discussed.
Particularly in this case, because I'm curious what exact actions facebook takes that people have a problem with. Like I said, I've read up on the most common criticisms of Facebook, and while there's plenty surrounding Facebook's social impact and the privacy concerns over what they do with profile information users submit, there doesn't seem to be any substantiated occurrences of Facebook actually taking data without consent, and given that the primary thing people seem to be worried about is the Rift being changed into something more than merely display hardware and being used to datamine information, well - there just isn't any precedence for Facebook even doing that with their network currently, let alone whether they intend to do it with the Rift.
Okay, fair enough, but as above - why? A lot of people in this thread have made references to disliking Facebook, but precious little reference has been made as to specifics.
There are things that can be criticised about this, but if everything is on a vague, emotional level there's simply not much discussion to be had.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Do you need to know why? I was responding to cpugeek13's statement that people are complaining because of "the shift from the Rift perceived as being a cool tech that gamers could greedily call their own, to it being a mass-market product that is developed for all people instead of just the gaming community."
That said
-I don't like their software because it contributes to the continued erosion of what people consider acceptable when it comes to privacy.
-I don't like the company because it profits from and thereby is encouraged to facilitate said erosion.
The less money I give to Facebook in the long run, the better, IMO.
So essentially you feel that if the Oculus Rift turns out to be a great piece of hardware that does everything Oculus promises, you won't want to support it due to not wanting to support Facebook? That's fair enough, and an admirable sentiment! It's somewhat similar to the situation with my local medical center. They are a good medical center, with good doctors. But within the building they have clinics for other kinds of "medicine", and I don't agree with that on an ethical level, so I go elsewhere.
I understand your position a bit more when I look at it like that.
What you consider to be the 'continued erosion of what people consider to be privacy' could be summed up in one word: the internet. Advertising is the only via business model for free online services. The data usage that facebook gathers lets them charge more money for ads, which in turn lets them improve their services. It is the cost that everyone must pay to use them. There are no free lunches.
My board games -->http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/cpugeek13
My BGG wishlist --> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wishlist/cpugeek13
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
That statement wasn't intended to be read alone. You cut off the second part of it
My initial post was never intended as a discussion point into the good or evil of Facebook; just that, yes, people can dislike Facebook buying Occulus for reasons other than being techno-hipsters.
There are plenty of websites on the internet that don't mine aggregate user data like Facebook does, and thus have no interest in getting people to give them user data like Facebook does. Facebook is a huge contributor and is right at the front line of this phenomena.
Additionally, being only one of several agencies doing something I dislike doesn't suddenly mean I no longer dislike them.
Yes, you are indeed correct.
I, however, personally have no vested interest in Facebook supporting itself as free software. It could go behind a paywell, or just go away entirely and I would not be the slightest bit put out.
I really think you're blaming the wrong people here. Facebook can and certainly should be held accountable for who has access to the data they gather, but providing it to advertisers so that they can make money as a business doesn't seem so wrong, in and of itself.
It appears I used words poorly. I'll adjust my post. I didn't realize data mining referred to something more nefarious.
Suit yourself; I'd prefer to keep my info to myself. But I'm sure in 10-20 years I'm just going to be that old guy yelling at whippersnappers for giving away private information so freely.
EDIT: Annnd I fucked up that edit attempt, so I guess this is just a second post. Woo..
Sure, Facebook has more data about users to aggregate than most such companies, but they run a social network where people WANT to share as much about themselves with other people as possible - that's kind of the point of a social network, and the fact that Facebook gathers more data as a result means that they have a successful business model, not some nefarious desires. If they were using user information to go around stealing people's identities, or contacting people directly, whatever, big deal.
But the net result of all of their aggregating data is that if you tend to post a lot of status updates suggesting that you enjoy snowboarding, you might see snowboarding ads in your sidebar. That really isn't a big deal. Hell, I'd rather have targeted ads than generic stuff, I might learn about a useful product!
And this still doesn't explain what you are so afraid they're going to do with the Oculus Rift. The Rift is not a social network or even any sort of stand alone device (It's no more than a glorified desktop monitor, when you look at it this way) and people will not be submitting their data to it, so what nefarious purposes do you suppose it could be used for?