Oculus Rift over 100k DevKits sold -is ISI going to support with rf2 integration ??

This procedure is already known and public. It was in the news for some time but people didn't really care or didn't even read it. Facebook isn't the only company doing this. When it comes to web tracking, Google should also be mentioned (amongst others of course ... data is where the money is at today).

If you want to inform people, try to get them to read stuff about web tracking in general and on how to avoid it. Don't rage about Facebook or people won't listen anymore because then you are a Facebook "hater".

 

First of all.
Does The Guardian have an "official opinion" about Facebook bying Occulus? Lol, that would be some overkill of the role of a newspaper.
Furthermore, it is clear that a newspaper article, mirrors the views of the reporter that wrote it and not the views of all people there.

Anyway I used the article to show that Facebook gulping Occulus is not a matter of discussion only in our little company of posters here.

But since you say your opinion about it, I think Im entitled too.
Besides what Sony or anybody will do, they didnt boast about their integrity as Palmer did, using the kickstarter funds to provide the public with an affordable tool as he repeatedly said, and then sell the damn thing without even finishing it at the first flash of money in front of him.

There is a thing called ethics you know.

 

There are some things you can't spot now which can be a problem later. Here is a somewhat funny example (#1):

 

I can only come to the conclusion that it's the general opinion that companies like Facebook are bad because users feel as though they are having their privacy compromised & people are irritated that Facebook are perhaps being quietly smart at using technology to take advantage of their user base in a way that seems manipulative.

or

a lot of others are using the net for the exchange of critically sensitive top secret information, I think more so the above, I am surprised though that many people see things this way, I didn't realise previously.

the more I think about facebooks involvement with oculus the more I think it's a great situation for us the consumer.


crz, yes a funny & thought provoking list

 

What astounds me the most is that most of you are trying to make something out of nothing here. Unless we hear anything from the horse's mouths (so to speak) then everything else is just opinion and conjecture! Unless Palmer or Mark Z release statements, I wouldn't trust the internet page that an article is written on!

There is such a thing called defamation of character.... probably not quite the same here but...

I am sure you all have witnessed before that it doesn't take much to start rumours before others jump on the bandwagon when they feel it is safe enough (safety in anonymity and in numbers). Which is why Reddit nearly combusted with all the negative downvoting for something as simple as the actual person who did this deal and their explanation of it! Some people in this world have a gripe and this to me is their perfect opportunity to use it to full effect.

Many would be in Microsoft's pocket when they have released something new, but then do a 180 when it suits them, ready to hurl abuse at an idea or person they have a problem with.

This rumour train will run and run till the CK1 is released I reckon.

I remember a certain situation with a company called Papyrus... suddenly they became someone new, created F1rst, then iRacing. I haven't forgotten the backlash they received when they dared to charge for their cars and tracks. This was even before people had sampled the sim, or seen it in motion. Then suddenly these people fell silent as slipped in the backdoor and started to play. Familiar faces started to reappear... those that were ready to BOYCOTT IRACING!!11 Funny isn't it how not much changes in gaming huh?

How many of you read through my entire post before commenting?

 

a rough visual indication DK1 vs DK2 .....I think box-in-box bottom right is best indication
(obviously not to actual quality)

 

The fact that you didn't realize the resentment and also didn't notice the ads everywhere and have no qualms about who collects your data, sells it, manipulates it, and can't see how that might be somehow detrimental in the future to you Adrian makes you the absolute perfect target. It isn't a criticism btw, I wish I could be so blase about it, my life would be less complex. If you have ever been involved in sales or marketing you will know the whole thing is about manipulating peoples senses to influence their decision making process. I found it repulsive and couldn't be involved for long.

Here's a question.
If you were a visitor to a website concerning health matters, maybe even put in a possible symptom you might be experiencing. Later on you apply for medical insurance and find out nobody will cover you for that thing you were concerned about. It might not even be you but somebody related to you who visits the website but the insurance company knows that a hereditary disease is a bad risk. Wouldn't be so pleased you traced your family tree and posted it online then, would you?
This is just one small example and we have no idea where it could lead in the end. Cookies, data mining, guaranteed future ****storm.
Technology was supposed to enhance our world not make it like the Truman show.

 

murtaya

I think your view is a tad paranoid, I own a marketing business (not internet marketing) & I'm mainly a sales guy, maybe this is why I don't really notice the ads -I actually to a certain degree expect them although I'd prefer them not to be there but I fully understand why they are & how it serves me (keeping something free) , the company lets say Facebook/YouTube & maybe the company which the ad is advertising (assuming others notice them)

on the example of insurance, if I were browsing something of a sensitive nature I'd simply switch off cookies or use a proxy -but most lightly wouldn't bother, I really don't have any problems of an insurance company factoring in cooking info into their prices if that's how they really want to run their business I'm not sure how consistent their quotes would be ( I'd get a few quotes lol), I see the point of your example but it really dosnt bother me at all,
overall I actually like the technology & see it in a more positive & helpful light ( no doubt there could be a few negatives like pretty much anything else).

 

I will concede to being paranoid. I've seen stuff.

 

Here's my issue with people reacting to FB buying Oculus in such a negative way: What does any of this have to do with VR, specifically, though? In what way does VR change this experience? What information are they actually gaining with a VR headset that they can't already get?

People are imagining ads flying at you in full 3D virtual reality. They could easily currently be flashing full-screen ads that make it near impossible to get rid of right now...but they don't. So why would you expect they would create an even WORSE experience just because: Oculus?

What people are pissed about is that Oculus Rift was like the uber product for geeks; that it was theirs...and now with Facebook coming in, it's no longer JUST theirs anymore (as if it ever actually was). Sooner people realize that fact and don't let their emotions get in the way, the sooner they'll realize that this is a good thing for the time being. It gives us a better experience, sooner.

Let's also not forget that Zuckerberg does know not to ruin something that's cool--anyone who's seen The Social Network should know that . He knew that FB was cool, and that monetizing it would kill it. Eventually, it grew so big that he couldn't ignore monetizing it anymore. I think we'll see the same with Oculus. It'll still be cool and "unmonetized" for a while. Eventually, it'll have to be monetized, of course, but we don't know what way that will be. Plus, by that point, there will likely be other VR options on the market. So, I say reap the benefits in the mean time, and wait until there IS an issue before you start crying wolf, and then deal with the issue at that point.

Besides, do you think that games are completely innocent in all of this? All of the big game companies are collecting information on you; like it or not. Unless you only play small indie games, your data is out there--VR or not.

 

Exactly! That is what I think the angst is most about. As soon as a niche product is not so small any more... it becomes too big to feel an ownership of.

 

+1 blakboks

Sorry nikos, only just saw your post a moment ago.

Yeah i saw this in the news feed yesterday and after reading it i thought what a load of tripe and dribble from the guardian. "What about Econimic justice" for the kickstarter backers??? I couldn't believe what i was reading. Oculus or any company in the kartstarter and crowdfunding business do not owe jack to their backers outside of their pledge/backing agreement. Unless is was specifically stipulated that the backers would get shares, refunds for the backing or anything else in the pledge agreement. The whole article carried that same sense of nonsensical logic as suggesting backers possibly deservering shares in the company.

It's just a piece of sensational journalism.

 

Facebook or not, I won't be able to afford the Occulus unless they sell them for 50 bucks or less. So, basically I don't give a rats ass.

 

Firstly i'd like to say i'm not a fan of FB and we all know what there about . I cant see the problem with them investing in Occulus and why a lot here have an issue .

Google as far as I know does basicly the same and look at some of the amazing things they have invested in .

Also if your going to boycott a product simply because you don't like FB seems silly .

I wonder how many of you have super annuation that still invest in cigarette company's or oil company's that pollute the sea and drug companies and others that still test on animals and lets not forget power companies that pollute the air . I hope you boycott these also , or is it fine as long as you've got a good retirement .

 

I didn't think it was particularly sensationalist (the guardian), just putting some words to some peoples sentiment over this. No there was never any shares for crowdfunders. There was definitely like the article says, the impression that the geek gamer people helped build the indie dream. These same people may have liked facebook once but not after Zuckerberg rang the bell in the stock exchange, and certainly not after the Snowden leak, that is the moment it became uncool and evil, not what geek gamer people want, or are about generally. I think they thought Palmer felt the same way. I think Carmack being onboard reinforced that.

Not having a problem with whose money is being used for what, and how they got the money is basically unethical and immoral. But very modern.

 

I'm sorry Murtaya but the impression doesn't matter....backing a company with complete risk like any and all crowdfunding is all one big giant gamble in the first place. But it's not "like" the backers helped build the indie team....the backers DID help build the indie team. But that's about as far as it goes.

I backed Interstellar Marines some years ago on the promise they made for this and that and that it wouldn't be long....bla-bla-bla promises and whilst they were looking promising with what little they had made and released, nothing much has come from it and i reckon at this point i won't ever see a product or if i do it will have been too little too late and in hind sight was not worth it. Do they owe me my money back? No. It was my choice, my gamble and no certainties attached only my desire and hope that it would succeed.

 

Agree.

This acquisition by facebook only will be good in a short term. In long term Oculus Rift will loose for competitors because they are not aiming in VR but in people minds.
If i´m pissed of about this transaction only because i bought DK1 (which i sold before facebook acquisition), imagine if i was one of the crowdfunders. Imagine companies which put big money in their hands.... I know: donation is donation but the word "crowdfunder" gives an impression of being responsible for what they achieve.

But, still waiting for Vittorio´s opinion here. The developer side (not anyone i don´t know from OR forums). I´d like to know if Oculus Rift will become like smartphones with apps stores or something. I´d like to hear his opinion what may happen in long term.

 

No need to apologize, as you can imagine I am often disagreed with. But unless I wrote the article (I didn't) there must be other people who kind of feel the same. Rightly or wrongly people feel misled by Palmers price for "selling out" that's all.
It slightly scared me before Facebook got involved but at the same time I wanted it since about 1988. It is clearly a very big thing, not just a "freaking monitor", check the money being thrown down at this stage to see how big. This could change a lot of things, it would be better if a lot of people were emotionally involved than it become a profit machine. As soon as profit becomes the main goal things become soulless.

 

I empathise your concern should it head in that direction but in the meantime we have no evidential reason to believe that it will be the case. It's just bewildering to me how so many (even supposedly reputable news articles) are acting and saying things to the contrary.

hahaha...nice pun.

 

No everything is not driven by profit, that is the world "the Man" wants. It leads to a very dark place, over and over. We will as a species conquer it or perish. There is no profit in love. Love actually exists, it is a thing and it cannot be bought.

Please like my post, I'll pay you.