Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 23, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 23, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

For better or worse: Your guide to Oculus internet arguments
For better or worse: Your guide to Oculus internet arguments Exclusive
March 26, 2014 | By Leigh Alexander

Facebook's $2 billion acquisition of Oculus VR came as a shock to the industry's system, during a post-GDC week where we all expected things to be fairly quiet. A veritable tidal wave of sentiment and questions followed the news, even before we'd really gotten any statements on what the acquisition meant, or any potential roadmaps to the future.

But we all had a reaction, some fairly measured, others not. What was yours?

If you're not totally sure yet, fear not: We're here to help you argue on the internet. You can use the following points to decide how you feel about this thing we all just found out about, and then leverage them in conversations online, on Twitter and in forums, to enforce your position. Beause seeing what will happen is not really an option: You need to talk, now!

I'm unhappy about the Oculus news

You've done it, tech industry: Thanks to Kickstarter, you've found a way to make the consumer bear all the risk of funding the development of a new product, leveraged their loyalty and desire to build interest and attract talent, and then you sold the company for $2 billion.

"I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition," says Mojang's Markus Persson, explaining why the news caused him to back out of a deal that would explore bringing Minecraft to VR.

Chances are, few of the 9,522 backers who eagerly kicked in money to Oculus' "Step into the Game" Kickstarter thought they were helping build value for a Facebook acquisition. I bet that, like Notch, they thought they were building a game platform. Now the vision they invested in has gotten away from them.

When a Kickstarter fails to deliver, annoyed consumers are told, "you did not make a pre-order, you invested in an idea." Now this happens, and we hear the reverse: "You were basically pre-ordering a product, and it's going to get made, so what's the matter?" Which is it?

It's not even that hopeful backers funded an early vision that's now enriching Silicon Valley. It's not as if any of the backers received a guarantee the company would never get sold, or that they were entitled to ask for one. It's the sale to Facebook -- a company who has arguably done more harm than good to game developers, who has been making all kinds of acquisitions lately on the way to some unknown, unfocused Voltron, who has a terrible reputation when it comes to user privacy and respect for developers.

Maybe there are no ramifications at all for game development or the desired direction of the Oculus Rift. But philosophically people are shaken, and developers are backing away from the device in droves.

People feel they "wasted their time" visiting and covering the device last week during GDC, and that the biggest winner out of this announcement is Sony's Project Morpheus, and "at least there's that", if you're passionate about VR and games. Sony does seem to be on a good streak of benefiting mightily from the PR gaffes of its rivals, always emerging as the "cool uncle," as one of my colleagues put it.

I know developers who have backed Oculus, who are (or were) making games for Oculus, who are investors in the company. Until today, whenever any of them talked to me about the device, they used dreamlike language: "vision," "future," "dream." The sense of wonder they discovered inside a Rift was, many told me, the reason they'd wanted to make games ever since they were a kid.

But Facebook is creepy. Facebook knows where you live and where you were born and who your friends are and it wants to know even more. It is pressing you every day: Where do you work. How long did you work there. What is your identity? You can upload a picture of yourself and your friend and Facebook asks if it can tag your friend for you. I know who this is, whispers the service started by a college kid in order, basically, to give nerd guys some advantage over unattainable women.

Even if you believed in the bigger future of VR, the "social metaverse" -- wouldn't it be cool if VR enhanced our day-to-day interactions, if we could meet and spend time with one another virtually, if the social networking we already do could be even more immersive -- you must understand it's actually the immediacy, accessibility and instant gratification Facebook provides that helped tank the last round of metaverse fantasies at the turn of the millennium.

As recently as 2007 everyone believed interactions on the web could be more immersive, avatar-driven. That we'd live second lives in the virtual space. Virtual tours! Virtual office meetings! You'd have a second life, a virtual economy! Turns out it is easier to one-click buy something on Amazon than it is to navigate a virtual store. It's easier to "friend" someone on Facebook and chat with them, send them a couple Pusheen stickers and then go back to your life, than it is to meet them in Second Life and "hang out."

People are increasingly hungrier for simplicity, accessibility and gratification than they are for immersion. VR is naturally the enemy of the entire design philosophy of companies like Facebook and What'sApp and Instagram and everyone else Facebook has bought to try to make interaction instantaneous, viral, compulsive.

This is a gross, bad thing: Proof that Kickstarter truly is spending money on faith, and that you have no control over how your faith will be rewarded. Proof that companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft and Facebook are going to get their information-hungry tendrils into your playspaces and your hardware devices so that they can watch you shower and beam advertisements directly into your dreams. Once again, the loyalty and buying power of gamers was exploited to drive a hardware platform toward the mass market. Congratulations, suckers!

I'm happy about the Oculus news!

Let's be real: this deal with Facebook can't actually do anything to prevent Oculus from ushering in gaming's glorious virtual reality future, because it wasn't, honestly, pointing in that direction before. There's a reason VR has failed again and again since those days in the 1980s, when Nintendo tried to introduce the Virtual Boy. It costs a lot of money and a lot of time, and even the Rift's most fervent evangelists agreed there was a long, long way to go. It was possibilities they were excited about, not reality.

It takes Facebook-level money and infrastructure to finally bring VR from the realm of experimental fantasy for Snow Crash nerds and into the realm of the actually-possible. It takes a John Carmack -- a man who probably doesn't need to work again for the rest of his life, but who's choosing to be part of this.

John Carmack's working for Facebook now, you say with disdain -- yes, and so are you! You always have been. Sore about building Oculus' value, only to have the company's choices escape you? You did that for Facebook, too. And Instagram: You donated your lives, your interests, your photos, your likes and dislikes, your time and your energy to those platforms for free, and your contribution of content and your active use is what made Facebook wealthy enough that it can do these kinds of deals. Every click and every share you've ever done on Facebook or Instagram has brought us all here.

This is an intuitive marriage of resources built from the way we all use the internet these days. To play and to interact. If you really believe in VR, this is the best avenue for it: This scale of infrastructure and financial resources is basically the minimum it costs to bring an entirely new platform to life. Maybe it'll actually happen this time. If Facebook as a platform can help build Candy Crush Saga and played a crucial role in King's IPO, maybe it'll do the same for something you actually like. The sky's the limit -- do you really think that "virtual FarmVille" is where this stops? Do you believe that's in the cards at all?

Oculus' Palmer Luckey immediately took to Reddit to confront the storm head on, and made a few distinctly unambiguous statements ("If I ever need a Facebook account to develop for the Rift, I'm done", and "this deal specifically allows us to lower the price of the Rift"). The official Oculus VR company Twitter feed directed concerned fans to the Reddit thread, but bizzarely that alert got only a fraction of the shares and favorites on Twitter than this popular "Simpsons Did It" image, or even my own snarky half-thought Tweet about Kickstarter backers. No one wants to practically evaluate the market, its challenges or opportunities, they want to surf virtual-reality waves of philosophical hysteria.

We don't really know how Facebook's acquisition will affect Oculus besides the certainty that they have more money now, and that Oculus is devoted to making VR proliferate accessibly for everyone. Luckey's stated it plain: They can develop better hardware, not rely on the "scraps of the mobile phone industry." They can hire more talent. Almost anything that was too expensive before isn't, anymore.

And I hate to break it to you, but the company'd had corporate investors for some time. It had long ago migrated away from solely being a community-driven product, a starship from the civilian fleet piloted only by the whim and dream of trusted Captain Luckey. Not every sale is a sell-out.

That's the dangerous thing about open development and community funding: We have access to a product and the platform for its development, which often makes it hard to remember why we invested in these things in the first place: Because we trust that the people at the helm are probably a little smarter than we are and that they probably know what they're doing.

"We promise we won't change," says Luckey. We've believed in his promises all along -- we've joined him on an evangelical pilgrimage -- why stop now?

People who believe in virtual reality are often fantasists, conspiracy theorists, creatives, escapists. But if we're ever going to see the tech developed properly, funded thoroughly and adopted widely, we're going to need a dose of realism.

(But this is a little weird, right?)

Related Jobs

Demiurge Studios, Inc.
Demiurge Studios, Inc. — Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States

Senior Software Engineer
CCP — Newcastle, England, United Kingdom

Senior Backend Programmer
Guerrilla Games
Guerrilla Games — Amsterdam, Netherlands

Animation System Programmer
Square Enix Co., Ltd.
Square Enix Co., Ltd. — Tokyo, Japan



Joseph Garvin
profile image
One weird thing from someone outside of the OR/VR fanbase - why is OR the only route to our virtualised futures? When Sega, or Atari, or Commodore, or whoever stopped producing hardware, games hardware didn't go away. If VR is going to succeed at all, there will probably be a marketplace, and so there will be OR, Morpheus, some sort of full-face Google Glass, iEye or whatever Apple will call it.

Michael Thornberg
profile image
The main issue here is that Facebook isn't trustworthy. They share everything with NSA for one. And their models never remain static. Which to some is a good thing, except when trying to do business. How fun is it on a scale when all of a sudden your product simply doesn't work one day. Only because they decided to change something. And they do, all the time. They spy on you, they tie into everything just to be able to spy more and Oculus will certainly not be any different. Let's say they do let Oculus thrive and do exactly what it promises. You will still install a Facebook driver into your computer that will keep tabs on what you do, and when you do it. Because that is who they are. They probably won't hide it either, but make it part of their license. So later they can say: -Hey, we told you. Suit yourself. And to paraphrase Markus (Notch) words: -They creep me out. I don't trust them, never have, never will. And I will most certainly not support anything from them, no matter how shiny their product is.

Jason French
profile image
Good points. However, I have this feeling that 90% of FB/Google/Apple users don't really understand the risks of privacy. It's so easy to just trivialize someones opinion as "overreacting" when they express concerns for how their data is going to be used and monetized. I feel developers are naturally more aware of the risks especially if you've ever written an app (that collects data) like Facebook before, you know that just in the nature of writing the code, you are storing loads of data with loads of implications. However, there are also the developers that know this, but embrace it, and/or vehemently defend it. They like the data machine and want to be part of it.

And then there's all the millions of teenagers sexting on SnapChat, most of which probably don't even understand what computer code is, and how there's no such as thing as a "photo that magically deletes itself." I can almost bet you (no proof, obvi) that there is a hard drive full of racy pics at SnapChats headquarters. And it's probably justified by some "quality assurance/data integrity/blah blah blah" policy. Point is that photo may not be available to the average user, but it's available to the Company, it's Investors, and it's Hackers.

I remember when I was studying operating systems at Brown and learning how you can't really "delete" files. Hard drives are just a bunch of bytes. Deleting a file is usually just flagging something as "deleted". To really make the data "go away", you have to go through additional steps like writing over it several times with other data to make sure your "deleting" doesn't leave footprints of what you deleted. This is just one example of course.

Word is getting out though. We're seeing more articles like this everyday:

1) Google reading your email

2) Tech companies were aware of NSA/PRISM spying (
nsa-data-collection-rajesh-de )

3) Microsoft reading emails (
leak-case-raises-privacy-issues.html )

Dave Blanpied
profile image
If you're afraid of a public form, don't participate.

Shannon Rowe
profile image
My prediction is FaceBook's smartest move would be to leave standalone VR gaming untouched, with no reliance on in-game ads or micro-transactions, and instead make its money from operating a massive social infrastructure for other VR usage. It really would be a win-win. For us hardcore game devs and gamers, we'll still get the freedom to create and play our dreams. And to be realistic, if you look at the non-game potential, we are really just a small fraction of the possible market for VR. On the flip side, if FaceBook is able to facilitate better hardware and the infrastructure to fully realise the Metaverse and OASIS dreams of an awesome new social paradigm, then they could potentially create a much larger market of non-gaming use and really change the world. Exciting possibilities, and I for one would be more than happy to endure advertising or pay a subscription model to engage with that side of things as well.

Samir Sinha
profile image
I don't buy the argument that you need to be bought out by a big company to grow a product. Now famous companies acquired financial resources through angel/private/corporate investors and grew to dominance in their industries (Apple? Google? Facebook?)

If the guys at Oculus truly believed in their product and the future of VR, I would've thought they'd stay independent and build an industry from the ground up. Instead, now they're wholly owned by a single entity called Facebook. Doesn't that mean they own the patents, IP (and yes, all the responsibility if it fails?)

Josiah Manson
profile image
Thank you for this post that doesn't just bash Occulus. I personally have no involvement or particular interest in VR, and have been surprised that people who do care about the future of VR are upset about its becoming successful. Facebook isn't going to spend $2 billion on VR technology and try to sabotage its success. Even if VR primarily goes in a direction other than hard-core gaming, hard-core gaming will benefit from any technological improvements that are made.

Lee Thompson
profile image
Specific companies aside, I've never seen Big Company A buying Small Company B end up well for anyone involved with Small Company B.

Michael Herring
profile image
NeXT Computer waves hi ;)

Alan Barton
profile image
NeXT Computer isn't a good example. Sure it was a way for Steve Jobs to get back into Apple, but NeXT was still wiped out by Apple.

Declan Kolakowski
profile image
Leigh... on Leigh... what is this... dual personality?

Michael Herring
profile image
"When a Kickstarter fails to deliver, annoyed consumers are told, "you did not make a pre-order, you invested in an idea." Now this happens, and we hear the reverse: "You were basically pre-ordering a product, and it's going to get made, so what's the matter?" Which is it?"

It's both, and neither. Backers are promised literally nothing. If a KS project tanks and no one gets any rewards, much less the actual backed product...nothing happens. That's the point, you're "backing" a project, which is different from investing or pre-ordering.

Amir Barak
profile image
Yes, but you back a project on the idea that it needs you. You might not have invested money into the company but you sure as hell invested faith and good-will. When projects fail because projects do it tends to generate different responses than those which have been evasive and/or shady (the difference between "The Manse Macabre" and "The Doom That Came To Atlantic City!"). And while the Oculus Rift project hasn't failed people are feeling that trust betrayed by the change of the company's direction.

Paco Barter
profile image
Imho the point here is the way that Kickstarter defines itself: "Kickstarter is the world's largest funding platform for creative projects". They use the word "funding" so giving you the false impression that you become a "real" part of the project, that you "own" a little bit of it.

This, obviously, it's not the case. You are only giving money hoping "gifts" in return.

I think that the misconception ("funding" vs "gifts") is the source of the sense of betrayal.

Greg Scheel
profile image
Folks who buy a "Developers Kit" are purchasing access to market, the hope and bright promise of being able to make money doing what they love. The VC funding and subsequent Facebook aquisition are a betrayal of that promise, whether that promise was explicit or not.

If the backers wanted to code for Facebook, they would, and as it stands, they don't.

Wendelin Reich
profile image
Thanks for a great overview, and thanks Gamasutra (Christian etc.) for generally excellent coverage of the whole Oculus affair!

Haran Sened
profile image
Concerning the kickstarter angle:
Kickstarter is a trust based system, and as in any such system, sometimes people break your trust. When that happens you need to decide if you want to keep trusting in new people, or stop giving your trust (e.g. "All men\women\kickstarters are evil, I'm never dating\backing again"). Personally, I think that even if most crowdsourced projects will sell out in one way or another, most of them don't go as far as selling to Facebook, and the few that don't are amazing. I do expect that new kickstarters will add a Facebook-free badge to their DRM-free one...

Leevi Koskivuori
profile image
"...choices escape you? You did that for Facebook, too. And Instagram: You donated your lives, your interests, your photos, your likes and dislikes..."

It's very alienating to assume that people who see Oculus getting a steady development and funding for Rift as good news have used Facebook. Or Instagram. Otherwise, a very good read.

Leevi Koskivuori
profile image
"...choices escape you? You did that for Facebook, too. And Instagram: You donated your lives, your interests, your photos, your likes and dislikes..."

It's very alienating to assume that people who see Oculus getting a steady development and funding for Rift as good news have used Facebook. Or Instagram. Otherwise, a very good read.

Alan Barton
profile image
Over the past few days I have been finding a few developers somewhat disingenuous with their attempts to paint this as business as usual. Its very apparent some of these developers are developing their own VR games and are therefore obviously worried about undermining their business and so don't want to rock the boat, so to speak.

I don't think that is the right way to approach this. We are all worried, but VR will live on regardless of what Facebook/Oculus attempt to do. Oculus is only in the position it is because of a massive desire from many people to see VR finally become a reality. That desire still exists, for any company that wants to do VR hardware.

We all know at heart that Facebook's long term goals cannot be trusted. Their core business model is to sell people's privacy. That isn't about to change, no matter how much Oculus try to tell us its business as usual.

Oculus has without doubt now destroyed much of its early adopter support, but there are multiple companies willing to step up to make PC based VR a reality. (e.g. Valve, CastAR, RazerVR). (And we also have Sony's VR on PS4). So any company that wants to approach VR in a truly open fashion (without Facebook like Ad spyware goals) will find a massive amount of good will waiting for them, that Oculus has thrown away.

So any company that gets it right will find a lot of good will support helping them launch their product, whilst at the same time, Oculus will find it very hard to launch with so much very understandable early adopter hostility against them. That isn't a good way for any company to launch a product.

Oculus's move to Facebook is without doubt a PR disaster. We cannot paint that as business as usual and its clear from the early adopters that any attempt to paint it as ok will anger them. Oculus has made themselves a pariah with the early adopters segment of the market and we all know that's a segment vital to business success, but VR will live regardless of Facebook's spying and lock-in goals.

VR will live on.

Vincent Pride
profile image
Now waiting for MacDonalds to buy Toyota

Laura Bularca
profile image
Awesome article, Leigh, thank you! And you are right, that thing you close with really IS a little weird.

Terry Matthes
profile image
I was going to buy a dev Kit. Now I'm going to wait.

Benjamin Quintero
profile image
LMAO, I love how every small business EVER bought out always starts with, "we've been promised that nothing will change." And yet, history tells us that in less than 2 years that company will be a shell of it's former mission statement, there will likely be an explosive growth of new blood and exodus of some key engineering staff, and productivity will probably decline at least 40%. I'm pretty sure this is exactly what happened to id Software, and why Carmack isn't there anymore.

For better or worse, Oculus as we know it might as well be dead (it will be in around 2 years). So we might as well accept the new OcuBook for what it will be and look to the next big thing on the gaming horizon.

Luis Blondet
profile image
It's not that they sold out, it's who they sold out to; a company saturated in unethical practices like Facebook.

I hope there's an exodus of fanbase and the investment fails miserably, to set an example to future corporate scum sellouts.

Michael Thornberg
profile image
I agree, and would like to add a point.

I know some people look at Carmack as the canary in the mine. And I certainly don't know how he feels about this, but to me it would be a terrible position. It really seems odd to me that he didn't join Valve. At least he knows people there he worked with before. Not to mention he would do the same kind of work, or anything else for that matter he feels interesting. Deep down I hope he does move to Valve.

Alan Barton
profile image
I do wonder if the technical people were pushed aside and sidelined by new greedy directors coming into the company?. Many VCs can be very machiavelian people, with an absolutely single minded ruthless need for short term profit and they don't care about anyone else.

In hindsight I think money and greed overtook Oculus from the moment it launched on Kickstater. To a VC, so much early success by a new company looks like a huge potential for short term profit and that's exactly what they got by exploiting everyone's interest in VR. From the moment that $75M VC money came into the company, it looks like it was as case of throw some VC money into Oculus and then sell it. :(

Luis Blondet
profile image
An old programmer and entrepreneur gave me some advice in an event; he said "Never trust Venture Capitalists, because they are really vulture capitalists." He knew my game company is a labor of love first, with profits as a by-product, so i think this is why he gave me this dire warning. As a result, i stopped trying to look for VC money and to deliberately get into VC "incubators".

Alan Barton
profile image
@Luis Blondet

Yeah most of the VC's are just looking to screw people over and the more your back is against the wall financially, the more power they have to take your company from you for very little and then they make a huge profit once they have control.

Just look at Dragon's Den. If someone has another business on the side, they have no interest investing, whereas anyone who is dependent on them for money, gives them power over that person.

They also play a good game of appearing to only want to take less than a controlling stock, knowing full well that in the future more money will be needed (especially if they have any say over what the company should do next (to burn more money)) at which point they will offer that extra money they say is needed, but only if they gain a control of the company. Then you are out. You put in years of very hard work and then you get a fraction of what remains yours, whilst they (and their friends) engineer it to take the majority.

But new start-ups are not the only victims of this parasitical like behaviour, of taking over the host and then killing it, then moving on to a new host. Many directors do this all the time, even in established businesses. They move in, and get their friends in, and then they play their seemingly pointless office restructuring games and then you find out later, they are really there to break up the business and sell off parts of a business to other businesses. Then they walk away with huge bonuses and inflated shares, whilst staff loose jobs all over.

They will even work against the success of the business they work for, simply to bring it down to sell off the parts. They don't care about the staff or the business, but of course, the staff who survive the initial restructuring are told their jobs are safe during the takeover, but once the takeover happens, most will end up finding they loose their jobs. Duplications of work, more restructuring, cheaper to employ less experienced people, (with the added bonus they won't see through the bullshit way they are treated). They have many ways to cut staff then the new directors celebrate with big "cost cutting" savings, for which they give themselves huge new bonuses all around.

For many of the most unscrupulous directors and VCs, life is a bean feast. It is however hell working for them, because they screw over everyone to get ahead, then they try to claim it was the only way. :(

Luis Blondet
profile image
*standing applause*

John Mascarenas
profile image
I have yet to see one good factual reason why this is a bad thing. Just a lot of assumptions and paranoia.

Alan Barton
profile image
That's because you are not looking. Let me guess, you are developing a VR game and so you want to spin this as business as usual, because you don't want to rock the boat, so to speak.

Enrique Hernandez
profile image
And after your response he still thinks the same.
And so do I.
Could this end up bad for oculus? yes
is it going to end up bad for oculus for sure? no

will we get a good vr? in my opinion: probably

My guess is that actually Palmer doesn't care about the money, he just wants to make good VR (according to everything he has said in his videos)
And with the money from fb he will be able to just create that.
Facebook just wants the money and doesn't care about the product, they will let Palmer make the VR he wants, and then just collect the benefits.

However, I think that 2 billion is not much, compared to for example instagram, and I believe that OR is worth more due to their potential.

Also instagram seems to be doing just the same as before.
Google/Microsoft/etc buy small companies and destroy them to get their patents, or because they are competition.
Facebook has yet to do the same. So in my opinion in this case FB > Google&Microsoft
Until someone shows more proof other than assumptions

Alan Barton
profile image
@"Facebook just wants the money and doesn't care about the product"

Rubbish. There are many reasons. So many its hard to list them all so quickly that short attention span people can get enough info to convince them. Its the lack of attention why some are so ignorant of what is happening, but then some are also willfully closeminded. Its no wonder some cannot see and refuse to see.

Quick notes about Facebook. They want lock-in of users into their ecosystem. They want more user numbers on Facebook. They want to spy on users as much as possible so they can then sell peoples privacy. Privacy settings are meaningless on Facebook. But then morality means nothing to some business people because all they want to see is more profit for them in way regardless of what they do to others, which they simply don't really care about.

If you want proof, you need to read up on what Facebook have been doing at a deep technical level. But then its much easier to ignore the details and then claim there are no problems ... that way we can all walk and blunder blindly into an ever growing global police state we are all helping to create. See no problems at all ... i guess not for some. But then to see, you first have to open your eyes.

Hint: My words are not for the closedmined, because its pointless talking to them. Instead those of us who do talk, do so to talk to those who do see and want to see.

Enrique Hernandez
profile image
Thanks for those ad hominem arguments

Amir Barak
profile image
Putting the ad-hominems aside for a moment, can you answer whether Facebook's history and business practices weaken or enforce the following sentences:

"They want lock-in of users into their ecosystem"
"They spy on users"
"They mine personal data then sell it to advertisers."
"Privacy settings are meaningless on Facebook"
"Facebook changes EULAs quickly and silently"
"Facebook is a strong competitor is hardware manufacturing, understanding and/or advancement".

Perhaps the answer to this might shed some light as to the legitimacy of people's concerns over the acquisition?

Also, how much of a coincidence is it that Andreessen Horowitz are both investors in OculusVR and have a seat on Facebook's board of trustees?

Alan Barton
profile image
@Enrique Hernandez, its not "ad hominem". The irony is your claim its "ad hominem" is a blatantly Straw Man argument and you fail to answering the points I raised.

Ralph Hogaboom
profile image
Excellent article. Then the closing reddit screencap, well WTH is going on there?

Greg Scheel
profile image
Paid PR.

Duong Nguyen
profile image
VR is a long term game which requires comprehensive solutions encompassing software, content, VR hardware and the platform. OR only addresses the VR hardware and they aren't even the only players.

I think one of the things which attracted people to OR more so than the other VR companies was the fact that it embodied not just a new innovative tech in VR and a potentially new visionary in the field but they also embodied the new crowdsource community invested wave of innovative companies and services just coming online. OR had a ready made group of evangelist in the 1000s singing their praises, because they personally had a bit of stake in it, however small.

When OR sold out to FB, I can see the community feeling betrayed. IMO OR could have been a luminary in the field of VR, but now beholden to FB, I don't think OR can be that company anymore. FB vision has never been about VR, nor have they been very good stewards of games or game companies ( see Zynga etc.. ). OR might succeed or not, but I think the community will place their "faith" elsewhere now. or atleast consider "other" options, like Morpheus, etc..

Alan Barton
profile image
I very much agree with what you are saying. The dream and goal of making VR a reality will live on whatever FB/OR do.

But I do think OR's PR disaster is composed of multiple downers on OR's system. We have the serious longer term concerns about FB's Ad Spying plans acting as a downer (and also how they impact companies like Valve and the question of continued support for OR on Steam) and then on top of that, most importantly we have many early adopters showing they have been very badly hurt and burned by OR. Its very clear there is now a strong and very negative early adopter drift away from promoting OR, so I would expect early adopters to place their hopes in other VR systems. Which VR system will win, I have no idea, but whoever wins, its a win for the games industry.

I'm sure OR will still sell well and FB users will use it, but I think OR are now going to have a lot more resistance in launching their product, as so many early adopters are so negative about it. Their opinion does count. But the desire for VR still exists, so OR's loss will simply be other companies gain. Whoever wins the hardware wars, games developers still need to design for VR.

As for who will win on PC, its too early to tell and I think we will just have to see how they all sell. But whoever wins, VR is finally coming, so we will all continue to develop VR games and make sure it works on as many VR systems as possible and let the players choose which VR system they want the game on.

The front runners I think have to be Valve and Sony, as they have consoles and both could be amazing new markets for VR. But I do think CastAR has a lot of potential as well, as its so different from the other systems and it offers many new things.

As for OR, I have no idea. I don't know what to think about its potential now and frankly I've lost interest caring about their success, with the way things look now. But I do know FB have a lot of questions to answer.

I've wanted VR for almost a quarter of a century, so whatever FB do, my hopes and plans to develop VR games will continue.

Daniel Camus
profile image
Excuse my ignorance on the subject but, how is that?
1 - If FB bought the company, all that money goes in to the pockets of who? the primary investors?, the founder and co founders?

2 - If the money goes into the co founders/investors pockets, then, they will spend it on OR? If that so, that would be giving their money in a FB product, it is the case? Or that money it's for them (personal fortune) and FB will spend more money in the OR requirements?

I know it's pretty basic but I don't know how it's buying a company or selling one.. Thanks.