Oculus nooooooooooooo!

That's what I said, isn't it?

Oops.

I think the term privacy should probably not be used in the same context as Facebook...

The problem I have with this is that all the people who helped finance the project in the first place have no say in the matter, weren't even informed. The involvement of Facebook changes things a lot imo. If I had kickstarted Oculus I'd be pissed. I see Kickstarter as a way to keep important things away from the big companies that will sacrifice everything to a little more profit.

Designed for gamers, by gamers. Then sold to the highest bidder. Because f... you, easy money!

Instagram: Basically untouched since Facebook acquired them. You don't even need a [Facebook] account.

What's App: Basically untouched, and sounds like a promise to let it continue to operate the way it wants to.

Facebook has a better track record than most companies, including Google. It's pretty easy to control your personal privacy settings on Facebook. It's also a free service, so of course an advertising model is how it's paid for, and data analytics is a critical component of that. This is how the real world works.

Why do you think we want VR in the first place?

LOL Good point, but I really don't see Facebook trying to screw that up if they can sell a billion VR sets with some apps/OS that are customized to make the most of it.

I think he made a calculated decision based on two things -

FIRST (AND FOREMOST): Facebook told him they would support him if he gave them firsthand licencing privileges, as well as their sticker on the back (front?) of the product. They also told him they'd let him do what he wanted. That is, Facebook will provide support, Oculus will do what they will to make their product a good product. Checkmark one.

SECOND: The monies. I'm pretty sure he needed them in some capacity. Heck, the company needed them. They might not publicize it. But I bet that was a driving reason. (Also, two BILLION. Who wouldn't sell your baby and soul to a corporation when they offer you that kind of cash AND the privilege to still raise it as your own? I know I would. )

And I think this will force other big-name companies to not scoff at new VR tech and start making their own products. Competition is key for a healthy economy and a happy people. More choices, better products, better prices.

Capitalism folks. It works wonders.

Hopefully this will help to generate more competition in the VR market.
Oculus, Sony, and InfinitEye are just the first of hopefully many.
And all this competition will drive down prices, and increase integration into games.

Still looking forward to Fallout 4 being VR compatible. That would be awesome.

I will say, several people at my University have Oculus Rift devkits, and they're predominantly used to watch movies without distraction.

Still looking forward to Fallout 4 being announced. That would be awesome.

Its under works, apparently going to be set in Boston.

http://kotaku.com/leaked-documents-reveal-that-fallout-4-is-real-set-in-1481322956

The experience of good VR is something you can't really fathom until you've actually, well, experienced it. If you know someone who has an Oculus Rift dev kit and thought it sucked, that's because it does. The original Oculus Rift Dev Kit was not good VR. There's a reason why Oculus constantly stated this was a device suitable for developers only, and why the "vr theater" is one of the most popular apps.

It's hard to conceptual separate the theoretical experience of something like what the retail Oculus Rift will be from a 3d movie or 3d tv gaming. The experiences are not analogous no matter how much 3d movie creators have tried to sell you on the idea that they are. All those ridiculous things they said about 3d tv like "it feels like you're really there"... well it's really true for VR.

I don't really think of the Oculus as being expensive. Compared to what any other display costs, they're pretty cheap. The quality of the display required for a VR display to work correctly is significantly higher than even your average $300 24" monitor or TV.

On the topic of motion sickness, this is kind of what the first Oculus Rift was created to figure out. What causes motion sickness, why, and what do they need to do to solve it. The Oculus Rift DevKit 2 goes a significant way in resolving these; to the best of my knowledge I don't know of anyone who's used the DK2 and had any issues with motion sickness at all. The retail one will only be better.

I'd also say it's a little silly to say "why would someone make this when I don't even want it." I know we all do it, but new innovations tend to be things no one wants to begin with. Eventually they can become something we can't live without.

I want it. I just won' t pay that much for it. It's just not worth that much to me.

This, was my wondering. Sad how that was the idea, just for it to turn into this thing everyone is worried about.

Best case scenario, is Facebook understands that generically making a game by company profit data charts generally forks shtuff up, circa EA, and funds the project to be lead dutifully by it's own people to simply reap the profits upon its natural creation.

Worse case scenario, kickstarter backers should fight this due to the fact they aquired a list of promises via kickstarter which they vaguely protect, and possibly get a class action fired up where facebook either has to release the IP or refund kickstarter. Then, at least facebook gets their just deserts.

If they are just trying to get their own things supported by rift, I am not too upset. If they are trying to hog or **** up the development of it, then I hope by the end of my life I see their company declare foreclosure, we could live with less EA's. I HATE every time a good game development idea gets messed up by someone who I am thoroughly convinced doesn't know first hand what a video game is. How can people make so many choices against proper video game design if they did know what a video game is, don't they ever think to themselves "this would be fun" or "this would be something nobodys done before" or "if I were to play it I would want to play this here" or also even test their own product to see if they are able to coherently play it without problem?

ALSO, AS FAR AS WANTING IT, I never used much xbox kinect, but the idea is useful and the entertainment value is there, reguardless of who denies it. You might not go-first to it, but if you were to use it you would be biased if you said it wasn't even fun. Like jbeetle said above, its fun but not for it's price, which differs for different people and goes down as mass production goes up. No real biggie in the grand scheme of things, I won't initially purchase, but I will both back their development and look forward to one day playing "slenderman" on one lol. (i foresee horror games being big on it, hope they make another "fatal frame" game for it)

Just rumours. Nothing official.

I found this while reading Fallout 4 from above.

http://kotaku.com/oculus-kickstarter-backers-are-demanding-refunds-1552041702

Kickstarter donors are actually demanding refunds. Well, I suppose it makes sense, you can either choose to obtain funding through Kickstarter, or a big publisher, not both. Or, you at least have to show creative division from the publisher. If the publisher actually owns you, you risk them running the course of EA and for some godaweful reason buying you, liquidating you, and terminating all development and the product never being seen again and humankind going without it's creation.

I mean, I think at this state it is overreaction until it's actually broken. I hope facebook, as the new owners of occulus, is in fact sued should they go as far as ruining this. If they physically help it's natural development, then really they are accomplishing the kickstarter, so besides tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists who think candy crush is some kind of mind control device, who cares?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-24-games-of-2013-candy-crush-saga

I'd love to hear a better explanation.

That was the better explanation. Or at least, it isn't inhereintly wrong for any larger company to design or assume control over design of something.

It is wrong for them to **** it up. Especially if it was ran by someone else fine, in one direction, and they buy it out to take it entirely somewhere else and completely destroy and rebuild its design to not function at all, thus ******* it up.

As long as they don't do that, its fine. Facebook hasn't done anything too terrible besides try to monetize absolutely everything. The occulus is technically sellable, they wouldn't need to advertize on it, and they have Facebook so they could advertize sales for it on there. Technically, they could succeed in not ******* up the thing and just building it the way it was meant without bending it to abuse and wrecking its purpose.

The first thing I thought when I heard this.