Something went wrong. Try again later
    Follow

    Oculus Rift

    Accessory »

    The Oculus Rift is a virtual reality headset for the PC released in March 2016.

    Notch cancels Minecraft for Oculus Rift after FB-acquisition

    • 78 results
    • 1
    • 2
    Avatar image for kkotd
    kkotd

    364

    Forum Posts

    36

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    I'm less worried about Facebook fucking this up, than them going 2-3 months down the line, expecting much more than what has come out and then ditch the entire project. Facebook loves to throw millions at nothing and hope to find gold, Oculus is a slow moving train, going up hill, in the dark, on 50 year old rails. They're going at a snail's pace to make sure it works. Facebook on the other hand likes to see change nearly ever quarter and that's where I don't see this meshing very well. Whereas a company like Valve doesn't seem to give two shits about 'when' something gets done and more about the 'what' is getting done, Facebook seems a polar opposite. And as they should being a more traditional profit-based company. But let's face the facts, the possibility of Oculus pulling a profit margin in the first 5 years after release, is slim to none, unless something drastic changes to how we buy and use hardware peripherals.

    Now there is definitely room for Facebook to do something special with Oculus but I see it being more service-based rather than hardware, and that may not pan out to well for us, the end consumer. (Conspiracy filled example inc) Think of a situation like this, you get your Oculus VR package home, you rip it open, connect it to your computer and then are told to register a serial code on a Facebook VR site / service. Ignoring how weird this is, you do so and are then told to link your Oculus set with your Facebook profile... Ok, getting weirder, and then after doing that, are greeted with a Facebook VR marketplace, sort of like Steam but only for games that support VR. Let's say you see a game you have on Steam, like Euro Truck Sim 2. You see that it fully supports your headset and so you load up Steam to play the game, start ETS2 and nothing happens on the headset. You check patches, you check your firmware, you check to make sure everything is working, still nothing doing. Then you do what 90% of us do when shit doesn't work, search Google to figure out what the fuck went wrong. Upon searching you find out that the new Rift retail version only supports games purchased on the Facebook VR store... And you can figure out the rest from there.

    Now, the above is pure conspiracy, but it's not out of the realm of reason. Facebook is a company, one that has had many shady deals in the past and aren't afraid to do what they need to make something profitable. They're about the Social Media version of EA (done great things for the platform but are about as close you can get to the Evil Dr. Claw). I truly hope that they won't do this, but don't be surprised if this becomes the future of Oculus VR. At the end of the day, I'd keep an eye on Carmack and his reactions over the coming months. While he's said some stupid shit about PC gaming (like piracy was the reason he'd never make another PC game) he's one of the smartest guys we have a porthole to outside the company. If he jumps ship, especially after leaving id, then it's safe to say that we should be a bit worried, but if he sees steady seas ahead of him, then we might as well believe it.

    Avatar image for minipato
    MiniPato

    3030

    Forum Posts

    3

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @sergio said:

    @believer258 said:

    I don't know, duders, for a guy who put ten fucking grand in there, I'd say that this isn't a knee-jerk reaction. I'd be pretty mad, too, if I had funded this. The backers were promised a gaming device, not a fucking social media device.

    Also, that whole thing that @milkman posted above seems like the carefully measured response of a man who had given this some serious thought, not the ramblings of someone with a knee-jerk reaction.

    The backers were promised whatever reward their kickstarter pledge entitled them to, nothing more. I've backed plenty of kickstarters and as long as they fulfill the reward tier I chose, I'm satisfied. I don't complain if somehow they make it big and are able to take other opportunities. Who cares if he put ten fucking grand in? He got what he paid for, which wasn't a say in how they run their company.

    He's perfectly entitled to say he doesn't want to port his game to it anymore. He comes off a bit pretentious in his reasoning.

    Good point. I feel like he's becoming what he hates, an investor. He put in 10 grand into the company expecting them to follow his vision and when there's a hint that they might stray from his vision, he pulls support.

    Pulling support because they aren't laser focused on games sounds like someone who can't see the bigger picture and the wider potential of virtual reality. The backers putting big money into the OR are the people who believe in VR as a whole, not just the OR being a game device.

    Avatar image for justin258
    Justin258

    16684

    Forum Posts

    26

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 11

    User Lists: 8

    @sergio said:

    @believer258 said:

    I don't know, duders, for a guy who put ten fucking grand in there, I'd say that this isn't a knee-jerk reaction. I'd be pretty mad, too, if I had funded this. The backers were promised a gaming device, not a fucking social media device.

    Also, that whole thing that @milkman posted above seems like the carefully measured response of a man who had given this some serious thought, not the ramblings of someone with a knee-jerk reaction.

    The backers were promised whatever reward their kickstarter pledge entitled them to, nothing more. I've backed plenty of kickstarters and as long as they fulfill the reward tier I chose, I'm satisfied. I don't complain if somehow they make it big and are able to take other opportunities. Who cares if he put ten fucking grand in? He got what he paid for, which wasn't a say in how they run their company.

    He's perfectly entitled to say he doesn't want to port his game to it anymore. He comes off a bit pretentious in his reasoning.

    I don't think there's anything pretentious about refusing to associate your best work with a company whose practices you dislike.

    As for the money - Oculus VR was pitched as a gaming device. Notch backed it with the promise that it would be a gaming device. Then they sold it to Facebook and Facebook explicitly said that they were going to focus on the Oculus VR as a social media device. Yeah, anyone who put any money into that has a right to complain, especially since we don't really know for certain what the Oculus will be anymore. Just because you put money into something doesn't mean that you can't complain when it takes a turn out of left field.

    Avatar image for jrad
    Jrad

    638

    Forum Posts

    15

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 0

    It doesn't matter at all what Facebook focuses the Oculus on. That just means they're going to develop their own 'Facebook' apps for it. Who cares? As long as the platform is open, then there's no problem, at all. Oculus was never going to make games. They're making a platform that others can make games for. If the hardware is good (and with Facebook's money, it damn well will be), then the developers will come. Everyone's acting like this is the end of the world for the Oculus Rift, but it isn't at all.

    Hell, even if Facebook decided to focus on the OR as a 'social device', the stuff that would make that work -- low latency high quality head tracking, high resolution, etc -- works just as well for games. And since anyone will be able to make games for the OR it just doesn't matter. There's only one scenario where this is bad: if Facebook closes off development. They're not stupid. They're not going to do that.

    Consider this entire acquisition as a huge cash injection for Oculus and nothing more.

    Avatar image for devil240z
    Devil240Z

    5704

    Forum Posts

    247

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    Why people why?

    Now Oculus have enough money to actually take the rift to retail! its a good thing!

    Avatar image for tourgen
    tourgen

    4568

    Forum Posts

    645

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 4

    User Lists: 11

    I wouldn't be too surprised to see phone-home requirements in a new version of the SDK somewhere down the line. Also closing off the SDK into a pre-built binary you have to dynamically link against. Oculus on Linux... maybe not for much longer?

    I think Notch probably did the right thing. It's not something he would want to get entangled in.

    Avatar image for trafalgarlaw
    TrafalgarLaw

    1715

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #57  Edited By TrafalgarLaw

    Why people why?

    Now Oculus have enough money to actually take the rift to retail! its a good thing!

    They already had enough money to do that. This stinks of pure greed, with John "MegaTextures" Carmack whose last relevant game was Doom II making it of with a billion after 5 months of being a CEO. I don't blaim him though.

    Avatar image for afabs515
    afabs515

    2005

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @mb said:

    Video games are over, guys. Pack it up and go home.

    But....The Bombcast just said video games are back.

    Why must life be so cruel??????

    This is a fickle industry, man. It'll be back tomorrow, I'm sure.

    Avatar image for jrad
    Jrad

    638

    Forum Posts

    15

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 0

    @devil240z said:

    Why people why?

    Now Oculus have enough money to actually take the rift to retail! its a good thing!

    They already had enough money to do that. This stinks of pure greed, with John "MegaTextures" Carmack whose last relevant game was Doom II making it of with a billion after 5 months of being a CEO. I don't blaim him though.

    There are people who actually think this?

    Avatar image for trafalgarlaw
    TrafalgarLaw

    1715

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #61  Edited By TrafalgarLaw

    @jrad said:

    @trafalgarlaw said:

    @devil240z said:

    Why people why?

    Now Oculus have enough money to actually take the rift to retail! its a good thing!

    They already had enough money to do that. This stinks of pure greed, with John "MegaTextures" Carmack whose last relevant game was Doom II making it of with a billion after 5 months of being a CEO. I don't blaim him though.

    There are people who actually think this?

    The kickstarter pitch (literally): "By Gamers for Gamers"

    Today's official statement: "We believe virtual reality will be heavily defined by social experiences that connect people in magical, new ways. It is a transformative and disruptive technology, that enables the world to experience the impossible, and it's only just the beginning."

    It's a load of bollocks to me how quickly they changed tune.

    Avatar image for deactivated-5cc8838532af0
    deactivated-5cc8838532af0

    3170

    Forum Posts

    3

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 12

    It is a terrible company that doesn't care about consumers at all. It makes sense. I wouldn't want to work with them.

    Avatar image for jrad
    Jrad

    638

    Forum Posts

    15

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 0

    @jrad said:

    @trafalgarlaw said:

    @devil240z said:

    Why people why?

    Now Oculus have enough money to actually take the rift to retail! its a good thing!

    They already had enough money to do that. This stinks of pure greed, with John "MegaTextures" Carmack whose last relevant game was Doom II making it of with a billion after 5 months of being a CEO. I don't blaim him though.

    There are people who actually think this?

    The kickstarter pitch (literally): "By Gamers for Gamers"

    Today's official statement: "We believe virtual reality will be heavily defined by social experiences that connect people in magical, new ways. It is a transformative and disruptive technology, that enables the world to experience the impossible, and it's only just the beginning."

    It's a load of bollocks to me how quickly they changed tune.

    Explain to me how this is anything but good news. Oculus was never going to be in a position where they were developing games. Their primary objective was to deliver a platform to allow other developers make amazing games with their hardware. More money means Oculus can deliver even better hardware even faster. Facebook might be sticking its hand in the cookie jar, but that's not going to stop the Oculus Rift from being a phenomenal piece of hardware. Oculus is going to deliver the technology. Developers will make the games. This acquisition is only good.

    Avatar image for truthtellah
    TruthTellah

    9827

    Forum Posts

    423

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #64  Edited By TruthTellah

    I think people are making too much of Notch canceling something that wasn't even a big thing yet. As he explained, they literally only started discussing the -possibility- of doing Minecraft on Oculus two weeks ago.

    They were on the edge either way and not sure whether it would really work out. The acquisition by Facebook wasn't a "big project gets canceled for this sole reason". It was a "preliminary project gets called off because of a big change being the last straw". Their plans were weak to begin with, and something as big as this certainly changed the situation.

    Avatar image for trafalgarlaw
    TrafalgarLaw

    1715

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @jrad said:

    @trafalgarlaw said:

    @jrad said:

    @trafalgarlaw said:

    @devil240z said:

    Why people why?

    Now Oculus have enough money to actually take the rift to retail! its a good thing!

    They already had enough money to do that. This stinks of pure greed, with John "MegaTextures" Carmack whose last relevant game was Doom II making it of with a billion after 5 months of being a CEO. I don't blaim him though.

    There are people who actually think this?

    The kickstarter pitch (literally): "By Gamers for Gamers"

    Today's official statement: "We believe virtual reality will be heavily defined by social experiences that connect people in magical, new ways. It is a transformative and disruptive technology, that enables the world to experience the impossible, and it's only just the beginning."

    It's a load of bollocks to me how quickly they changed tune.

    Explain to me how this is anything but good news. Oculus was never going to be in a position where they were developing games. Their primary objective was to deliver a platform to allow other developers make amazing games with their hardware. More money means Oculus can deliver even better hardware even faster. Facebook might be sticking its hand in the cookie jar, but that's not going to stop the Oculus Rift from being a phenomenal piece of hardware. Oculus is going to deliver the technology. Developers will make the games. This acquisition is only good.

    Oculus is still going to make the SDK. At any point, FaceBook can say to put in mandatory X in or just mandate to scrap parts of the SDK or shift focus onto social media developer tools. Games are not the focus anymore. FaceBook can even mandate to cut corners in the final retail tech i.e. by putting in 720p-only resolutions screen in the Oculus to cut costs, FB (or whatever social media crap) is not something you'd need 1080p for.

    Avatar image for jrad
    Jrad

    638

    Forum Posts

    15

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 0

    #66  Edited By Jrad

    @trafalgarlaw: Except to achieve market penetration and actually make the social aspects worth using, they need the screen to not be complete trash. The 720p Oculus Rift is an amazing proof of concept, but it's not anywhere near good enough to use for any stretch of time. You can barely read text on it. I know. I own one. If they tried to bring that to market, it would fail. Horribly. What Zuckerberg was talking about -- virtual classrooms, for example -- requires high fidelity. The same fidelity games need. He's not making a 3D text reader for your Facebook news feed, lol. There's no market for that.

    As for the SDK, it assists Oculus development, but that's it. The specifications are open source. You don't need the SDK to develop for the Rift, it just makes things a bit easier. I'm not gonna say it's 100% impossible for Facebook to fuck it up, but they would have to actively work against everything that OR's already developed, and no one benefits from that situation. Even if games aren't the focus anymore, the technology that makes virtual classrooms possible is the exact same tech that would make immersive games possible too. Facebook wants to make Oculus better. Developers and consumers want the Rift to be better. They are not going to shoot themselves in the foot here.

    Avatar image for devil240z
    Devil240Z

    5704

    Forum Posts

    247

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    @devil240z said:

    Why people why?

    Now Oculus have enough money to actually take the rift to retail! its a good thing!

    They already had enough money to do that. This stinks of pure greed, with John "MegaTextures" Carmack whose last relevant game was Doom II making it of with a billion after 5 months of being a CEO. I don't blaim him though.

    I suppose so. I just never imagined that thing would come out until today.

    Avatar image for development
    development

    3749

    Forum Posts

    61

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    This is seemingly horrible news. Seemingly. It might be great news. Only time and virtual-reality eye-blaster popups will tell.

    Avatar image for sinusoidal
    Sinusoidal

    3608

    Forum Posts

    20

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    @narujoe93 said:

    @cornbredx: Facebook is head to toe awful. I think its completely reasonable that people are uneasy about this. Facebook is sketch as fuck; who knows what kind of weird stuff they'll do with this. Facebooks true modus operandi is to get their claws into as many people as possible. This seems like something they could easily abuse if it caught on

    Not that this is a particularly good defense of Facebook and its practices, but what company/website isn't out to get its claws into as many people as possible?

    I honestly don't think Facebook is any more insidious than any other company out trying to make a fast buck, they just happen to have had a great deal more success than your average website.

    Personally, I'm more worried about Google at this point. I recently used a computer that I hadn't used in months, and when I went to Google.com, it knew it was my birthday and made a lovely happy birthday logo for me. Was I full of surprised delight? Fuck no! Goodbye Chrome, hello Firefox.

    Avatar image for humanity
    Humanity

    21858

    Forum Posts

    5738

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 40

    User Lists: 16

    #70  Edited By Humanity

    It will just make room for some other Minecraft clone to take their spot. Great time for Facebook to develop their own "Minecraft" with all the Facebook hooks built into it from the start.

    If Notch doesn't want more exposure for a game that he stumbled into and then for years ignored player feedback for, in order to add trivial mechanics that broke all the well made mods people were making on the side, well then that's his choice.

    I mean it's Facebook, not my favorite place in the world but not the devil either.

    Avatar image for bollard
    Bollard

    8298

    Forum Posts

    118

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 3

    User Lists: 12

    Psst guess what guys, you can already play Minecraft on the Rift without any of Notches input anyway, so his whole hissyfit is irrelevant.

    Avatar image for geirr
    geirr

    4166

    Forum Posts

    717

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 5

    People really need to start pulling certain sticks out of their asses when it comes to Facebook. It's there, it's free, it's optional. Its impact on OR is probably minimal, or maybe even good since they might actually push the OR people to deliver a fucking product already. Or maybe it's really bad and everything is doomed forever so please feel free to insert said sticks again.

    Avatar image for gaff
    Gaff

    2768

    Forum Posts

    120

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    Loading Video...

    Well, Xbox One's original policies were fine for Notch, but Facebook is going too far?

    Avatar image for boysef
    boysef

    200

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    like we needed a fedora simulator anyway...

    Avatar image for gaminginpublic
    gaminginpublic

    119

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    Be prepared for commercial breaks every 40 minutes of gaming. Be prepared for a unnecessary GUI that throws advertisements at you, much like the Windows 8 start menu.

    Avatar image for professoress
    ProfessorEss

    7962

    Forum Posts

    160

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 11

    Politics aside, I can totally understand Notch's point of view purely based on this line from his extended thoughts that @milkman posted: "...they [Facebook] haven’t historically been a stable platform". I don't know if there's anything more stressful than developing for a constantly shifting platform.

    As a game maker and a 10,000 dollar backer he definitely has the right to say his piece whether it's a snap judgement or not. It certainly opens another interesting line of questions regarding Kickstarter.

    Avatar image for singingmenstrual
    SingingMenstrual

    335

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #77  Edited By SingingMenstrual

    Why wouldn't Notch want this in Minecraft?

    Playing Game After Facebook Buying Oculus VR for $2 Billion

    Avatar image for sacui
    Sacui

    53

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    They'll just port it to Microsoft's and Sony's VR kits. They're being made, and everything will be fine.

    Avatar image for geraltitude
    GERALTITUDE

    5991

    Forum Posts

    8980

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 17

    User Lists: 2

    #79  Edited By GERALTITUDE

    Sounds completely fair to me. Man doesn't want to do business with Facebook, end of story.

    Avatar image for spraynardtatum
    spraynardtatum

    4384

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 1

    #80  Edited By spraynardtatum

    Notch is the fucking best.

    Avatar image for elvicerator
    elvicerator

    100

    Forum Posts

    13

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #81  Edited By elvicerator

    @andorski said:

    @milkman said:

    @golguin: He doesn't have to do anything. It just seems silly to me to make what is (presumably) a big decision like this literally minutes after the deal takes place. What if Facebook stays out of the way and everything stays the same with Oculus? Is being associated with Facebook any worse than being associated with Microsoft or Google or Apple?

    There is no reason to believe that this will happen. Facebook acquisitions have always been about integrating whatever they buy into their larger goal of expanding social media. Most companies bought by Facebook have been completely dismantled, with projects/patents/employees being pulled in to the general Facebook corporation. The few acquisitions that remained largely the same after a buyout - like Instagram and Whatsapp - were social media companies in the first place and thus did not need much intervention.

    If Oculus is allowed to operate independently, it will be the first time Facebook allowed such a thing to happen.

    Instagram ended up mostly remaining the same after the Facebook buyout, but they did attempt to gain the rights to sell users' photos initially. They ultimately backed down after some outcry.

    http://www.cnet.com/news/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/

    This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

    Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

    Comment and Save

    Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.