The thing I don't understand about that line of reasoning is the Rift is just a controller. How does a controller have any integrity? As long as the device remains what it is, does having a different parent company somehow diminish what it does?

If anything, backing of a large corporation is imperative to the device's success. Like it or not, the Rift wasn't going to be supported in anything but a few indy titles. It just doesn't make financial sense to build support for it into large games when no one has one, and no one is going to buy one if it isn't in large games. The device is hard to market inherently (you don't know why it is awesome until you try it in person).
Having a company like Facebook behind it probably will move the company to flesh out a few casual or social games for it. That is a good thing. Casual/social games are how you get this thing into the hands of the masses. If everyone has one, games everywhere will support it, including the type I'd want to play.

[edit]
I'll remain with my cautious optimism. In the end, I just want to see this device in every home. That is what's best for the VR industry. Politics and PR be damned.

However, I'll also be using Carmack as a canary. If he jumps ship, then I know the project is hitting rough territory with it's new owners.

My actions are as justified as my existence.

I also don't get why there is all this fuss about Facebook per se, I do not agree and really can't jump on the FB haters bandwagon.

BUT STILL, I really really REALLY fail to see any good sense in such an acquisition by the "mission" point of view.

Facebook is not known as a reliable gaming platform nor it is a reliable biz in the strict sense of the word, and seems to be a bit stretched of a good venture for what should have been primarily a GAMING controller.

Homoungos financial backing is great no doubt, but it come with ties in the form of milestones and targets. Those targets HAVE TO satisfy FB's vision and development of the marketing platform.

Now the Oculus Rift isn't going to ever be dirt cheap, how can you bundle it with casual games? Where does this even BEGIN to make sense from the market point of view?

Will even Facebook ALLOW the controller to work outside their platform (i.e. say on some non-FB related AAA game)? (far-fetched to assume the contrary, I know...still...may happen? )

I'm not talking about those absurd "unremovable ads/unexsistant privacy/god knows what other creepiness" fusstalk. I'm thinking about market strategy for those masses you advocate, and how could Oculus achieve the success it aim(ed) for.

That controller HAD to start small and spread upon some big-gig success in my view.

This cannot conceivably EVER have got general consensus, since the Oculus KS has been funded by a lot of smallindies/gamers/VRentushiast that all would have tolerated (even failure) BUT acquisition by a big "evil" (sic) like FB.

Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo....that could have made sense (at least till some weeks ago ) ...even if they can get THEIR OWN technology investing far less than TWO FREAKING BILLIONS.

I repeat just cause, TWO FREAKING BILLIONS.

You just don't get that huge sum without ties.

I'd also use Carmark as litmus paper, but I right now think that it will end up on the acid scale.

It's a controller and display that requires drivers and specific developer integration. Both of which are excellent opportunities to push evil.

Chris, I think the comparison to WinAmp is nonsense for the same reasons I've mentioned earlier. The Rift is hardware. Once someone buys it, an update isn't going to change what it does. Also, Carmack left Id not because it was purchased by a large corporation, but because that large corporation was explicitly preventing him from doing what he wanted to do (which, in this case, is integrate the Rift into Doom BGF). Thus, he makes a good canary to determine when the parent company has started overstepping their bounds.

pkrcel, why are you calling the Rift a platform? It is a controller. It can be integrated into any application on any platform. Whether or not the platform holders will allow it is up to them, but I digress.

gnolam, the drivers are user-space and compiled into the source, thus removing most of the key avenues drivers and developer integration have been pursued. We've been promised by Oculus VR the driver will remain open source and they will not even so much as require you to use Facebook to log in to their developer center. Why don't we hold off on the witch burning until at least one promise is broken.

With platform I was referring to FB's gaming platform as such...I called the Rift "primarily a gaming controller"

I know this is referred to gnolam, still...it's not about with burning really....it's just trying to make out this as a strategic move for Oculus.

And only thing I see it's the lump sum o'money....nothing else.

FB acquiring this tech for? ...most prolly for something not really in the plans of Oculus, and this kind of things attracts fail.

I surely hope not, mind you, but lemme be somewhat pessimistic about it.

It does however require drivers and a lot of software to get working.

Now consider that some bean counter at FB will start breathing down their neck to show some kind of return on the $2 billion dollars they spent, AND for all of the on-going expenses. It may not happen right away, but it will happen. Always does. then theres the internal politics bullcrap that happens at all big companies. Some manager is going to get a stick up his ass about it and cause everything to crater.

It requires user-space drivers. Even if FB eventually decides to make them closed source, it won't matter. The hardware won't change, so people could go on using the already open sourced drives for future projects. Since the drivers are compiled into applications, not linked at runtime, it won't effect any existing projects either.

I do understand that large corporations always have some kind of idiocy, but I believe in the case of Oculus VR the only thing directed will be the applications Oculus VR creates after releasing the Rift. If those applications tie into facebook, what is the harm? It isn't as if other companies will be forced to have facebook integration and having some social game use the Rift is a very good thing for the future of VR as a whole.

pkrcel, would you be happier if FB payed less? Or if it was MS or Apple who made the acquisition? Bottom line, VR was interesting but doomed to failure without an acquisition of Oculus VR. There weren't enough adopters to make VR integration profitable. FB is a fantastic solution for increasing the number of adopters.

Fracturing your own market makes makes very little to no sense. The only power FB has to force upgrades is new and exciting Oculus VR games. They have no say over the rest of companies developing for PC. As long as one version of the device has open source drivers, then I don't see how FB can ruin much of anything. Have you tried the newest devkit? Thus far, we've been explicitly told the development community will remain untouched. There is absolutely no evidence pointing to the contrary.

There is still no evidence to the contrary. Trying to extrapolate from their history is not "evidence", it's just speculation. I also don't think I need to remind you of Instagram and WhatsApp.

yawn The Rift is fine, and if anything, is in a better position than it ever was.

The only thing Oculus does that matters is ship the first version of their product. This hasn't happened yet, but it should be soon. Too soon, I should think, for FB to close off the driver source against promises. After the device is shipped, all Oculus as a company will do is make applications that use the device. Effectively becoming irrelevant in regards to where Facebook leads them to the future of VR.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense, but neither does Facebook Buying Oculus.

Dude, if they don't already have a team on the next version of the hardware, they will fall behind and fail hard. Unless you think they will turn into a Software only company? I imagine all of the first platforms will all use different devkits and apis making everything fun everyone and their dog has announced a vr headset.

Meh. I think the chances of that are not very good. I was thinking of getting one. I might now wait for Razer's or Samsung's, or Sony's or....

Yes, I imagine they'll primarily turn into a software company. It's asking a bit much to request consumers to spend $300 frequently. The device requires at least a 6 year life cycle.

You wouldn't need a monitor per eye, or at least that would be an odd way of going about integration. The device works with one screen using two viewports. Integration is actually quite trivial. At least, it was with DK1. Of course, I'd recommend rolling your own driver. Oculus VR's driver is a bunch of over-engineered OO trash.