Virtual Duality: Oculus Declares All Of Zenimax’s Claims False

By Nathan Grayson on May 5th, 2014 at 9:30 pm.

Batten down the hatches and/or anything else you frequently batten down in times of crisis; we’ve got yet another titanic clash of gaming companies on our hands. Last week Bethesda/id Software parent company Zenimax claimed that virtual reality giant Oculus Rift owes it some sort of licensing deal because of the VR tech and code John Carmack developed while working for both companies. At the time, Oculus issued a curt statement essentially saying it disagreed. Now, however, it’s decided to put together a fighting word sundae of individual claims, with a few fighting words sprinkled on top.

Among other things, Zenimax alleged that Oculus was using code/tech that was technically Zenimax property and that Oculus Genius The Younger Palmer Luckey went so far as to acknowledge this in writing. Oculus directly disputed those claims and more in a statement issued to RPS.

We are disappointed but not surprised by Zenimax’s actions and we will prove that all of its claims are false. In the meantime, we would like to clarify a few key points:

  • There is not a line of Zenimax code or any of its technology in any Oculus products.
  • John Carmack did not take any intellectual property from Zenimax.
  • Zenimax has misstated the purposes and language of the Zenimax non-disclosure agreement that Palmer Luckey signed.
  • A key reason that John permanently left Zenimax in August of 2013 was that Zenimax prevented John from working on VR, and stopped investing in VR games across the company.
  • Zenimax canceled VR support for Doom 3 BFG when Oculus refused Zenimax’s demands for a non-dilutable equity stake in Oculus.
  • Zenimax did not pursue claims against Oculus for IP or technology, Zenimax has never contributed any IP or technology to Oculus, and only after the Facebook deal was announced has Zenimax now made these claims through its lawyers.
  • Despite the fact that the full source code for the Oculus SDK is available online (developer.oculusvr.com), Zenimax has never identified any ‘stolen’ code or technology.

So there’s that. It’s more or less everything Zenimax said contested point-for-point. Oculus’ declaration that all of Zenimax’s claims are pointless is especially, er, pointed. There’s no middle ground here, and it doesn’t seem like either company is willing to give an inch – let alone a licensing deal. There’s a good chance, then, that this one is headed to court.

I’ve reached out to Zenimax for comment in light of Oculus’ new statement. I’ll update this story when I have more.

, , , .

83 Comments »

  1. Metalfish says:

    To a stupid layman with really no idea what I’m on about (I mean, seriously, I’m really not even qualified to begin to think about beginning to think about having an opinion on this one) that last bulletpoint seems pretty potent. It seems to speak for itself.

    • kalirion says:

      I’m guessing Zenimax’s claim will be “John Carmack wrote some of that code while he was working for us, perhaps using Zenimax-provided equipment, therefore that code belongs to Zenimax.” Unless he also used Zenimax’s source control, there’s no way they could point to a specific piece of code.

      • Nice Save says:

        Pretty much any company where creative or technical development occurs will have a clause in their employment contract stating that all IP, copyright, patents, etc created by the employee while they are employed belongs to the company.

        If you’re lucky, it’ll only include things you could reasonably be expected to work on as part of your job, or only things which could be of benefit to your company.

        If you’re still lucky, unrelated stuff that you create without using any company resources or on company time might not be included.

        In any case, if you’ve created anything related to your work, or used even 5 minutes of company time or a work computer in the creation of something, it’s theirs and not yours. I recently have been working on a tutorial for Dwarf Fortress, and I emailed it to my work email to pass on to a colleague whose personal email I didn’t know. If it came down to it, that would probably be enough for them to take it. Luckily, it’s not something my company has an interest. If it was webcode or something, it might be a different story.

        • jaypettitt says:

          I’m no expert on this – but contract law is way more nuanced than ‘you signed it lol’. And it’s somewhat likely that those kind of ‘all your endeavours are belong to us’ type clauses are intended to prevent ex-employees preventing ex-employers from benefiting from work ex-employee did while ex-employed – not the other way around.

          So if JC or Occulus tried to stop Zenimax from following up any work JC might have done while at Zenimax I’d expect a court to be sympathetic to Zenimax. I’d not obviously expect a court to be sympathetic if Zenimax (who don’t seem keen to pursue VR so it’s a stretch to claim substantial harm done to them) want to claim ownership of Occulus because JC used to be on their payroll at one time.

          Only the idea that people aren’t free to change jobs without employers taking each other to court has some ramifications that a court might think is a bit more important than some not very important code code that maybe got writ one place and not the other maybe.

          • hungrycookpot says:

            From what I’ve personally experienced about IP contracts, they usually specify any product or code created while on company premises/equipment/hours. Also, large companies like this often apply and therefore conform to privacy/security/etc standards certificates, of which some specify that you must have source control that keeps records of code committed (as well as ticketing systems on products/etc)

            To me it stands to reason that if Zenimax could produce dated records of Carmack having produced actual lines of code that are directly replicated in Oculus products, they might have a case. But the language of Zenimax’s original statement seemed to me more to imply that they are pissed about Carmack having developed skills and techniques while working at Zenimax which he then applied knowledge of towards Oculus products. I can understand why they would feel ripped off by this, but if that’s the case, Zenimax doesn’t have a leg to stand on, because you can’t IP someone’s skills and intelligence.

        • hilllbilllyjoe says:

          Yeah, big companies love writing clauses into contracts that are totally unenforceable. I was working for a Korean mobile dev a while ago doing some crappy concept art for a digital card game (working over the internet might I add), and they threatened to sue me for selling work I created at the time of employment, that had absolutely nothing to do with their project. Game companies like to pretend that everything their employees create is their own, but if falls apart in court so quick its not even funny.

          • P.Funk says:

            Thats all assuming that the burnt out and exhausted probably broke coders can actually acquire representation. So much of what happens involving lawyers isn’t about court but about bullying poor saps into submission by making it not worth their time or money. The whole thing of soy beans and farmers is a classic example of this.

            Ultimately when it comes to justice via the courts, or more accurately the alleged pursuit of “just result’ in the courts, its all a game of money is justice.

            Basically its just corporate racketeering… except they’re the corner store owners… and the gangsters… I dunno what the little guy would be… maybe the broom boy.

          • Corb says:

            The little guy is the starving hobo in the back alley.

          • frenchy2k1 says:

            The contract clauses usually state that anything developed in the same field as your employer during employment belongs to them. The field is complex, but some of the latest judgments seem to indicate that development would belong to the employer, but idea stay with the person
            (I actually had to rewrite that paragraph, as my example was the Bratz line of Dolls and I had stayed at the judgment where the whole line had been given to Mattel as the creator had been working for them during their development before quitting and creating MGA. This was overturned on appeal:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz )

            So, complex cases abound and this will NOT be simple. I don’t think that they stand a chance to bully facebook though, so I hope (for them) that they have a leg to stand on…

        • LionsPhil says:

          Yes, this.

        • jalf says:

          Pretty much any company where creative or technical development occurs will have a clause in their employment contract stating that all IP, copyright, patents, etc created by the employee while they are employed belongs to the company

          Except, you know, for the companies worth working for.

          Ok, slight exaggeration, but in my experience, such clauses *really* aren’t that common.

          I typically see ones stating that anything I do for work purposes, related to work is (obviously) owned by my workplace.

          The other point, of course, is that if John f’ing Carmack came and asked for a job, I’m pretty sure he could practically write his own contract. If he wants to avoid such a clause, then I’d expect that there won’t be such a clause.

          • hungrycookpot says:

            Maybe it differs by area, but every developer job I’ve gotten or had a friend got made me/them sign a contract saying that all code typed by my hands while at work is property of the company. That’s not to say that I couldn’t go home and rewrite all that code from memory on my own computer, it would be pretty hard to prove that I had or hadn’t done that tho, I guess. A good many of the companies I’ve worked for also made me sign an industry no-compete as well, although maybe that doesn’t so much apply in the game development industry.

          • frenchy2k1 says:

            My work contract includes a clause that everything I develop in my field of work belongs to them. It had a list of exclusion I filled when I signed it. The company I work for being reasonable, if I were to develop something, I would go see our legal department and clear it out before doing more. Unless it is directly related to my field (not just “programming”), I doubt they would lay claim to it.

            I work in California, so non-compete are not enforceable The only way would be if your employer will pay you for not working at your competitor (basically, they pay the salary the competitor would have paid you for you to sit at home)and even that may not fit in the law…

        • tavio says:

          Would you be willing to send me your tutorial? Always wanted to learn DF!

          o t a n a s c AT g m a i l DOT c o m

          thx =D

      • Corb says:

        If Zenimax didn’t have a source control setup, and their programmers using it, then they are friggin stupid. There is no way you can code something like an elder scrolls game without using source control. Not to mention it lets you backup you legal claims.

        • hungrycookpot says:

          Many ISO certifications specify that it must be in place for just that reason.

        • Premium User Badge

          Devan says:

          I don’t think there’s a question of whether or not the studios under Zenimax use source control (they almost certainly all do), but whether or not the particular code Carmack was working on was submitted to it (as opposed to some repository not controlled by Zenimax).
          I’m not familiar with the details of his work, but it sounds like he was simultaneously employed by both companies in some sort of partnership, the conditions of which were apparently not clearly established in a contract beforehand. I imagine that he was sort of “on loan” from Zenimax with the expectation that his work would be mutually beneficial. It looks like it’s not turning out to be beneficial for Zenimax and meanwhile Oculus has just hit it big with that buyout, so Zenimax wants a piece of the pie it contributed to.

          I’m not saying they deserve a piece, just trying to explain it from their side too.

    • orren77 says:

      “that last bulletpoint seems pretty potent. It seems to speak for itself.”

      Except zenimax did not claim any source code was stolen. Rather, “The proprietary technology and know-how Mr. Carmack developed when he was a ZeniMax employee” is the culprit.

      • Rindan says:

        If they can show he took actual and specific proprietary technology, they might have a case. If they show he took “know how”, they are up shits creek, no matter what he signed. It has been ruled in court more than once that you can’t prevent “know how” from leaking out. If you did, it would mean that once employed at one company, you would no longer be able to work anywhere else. NDA’s can’t prevent you from having experience and using it. Contract law isn’t unlimited in its enforceability.

        Imagine you build engines for one company. In the course of your job you learn stresses, tolerances, rules of thumb, and general “know how”. If you get a job making engines somewhere else, you can’t take with you the designs, and obviously you can’t violate any patents, but you don’t have to erase the fact that you know certain materials work as so-and-so tolerances, or that some designs are dead ends, or that some things work better than others. We call that experience. You get to keep it, NDAs be damned.

        Unless they can show actual stolen technology, Zenimax is grasping at straws and are going to get an epic beatdown in court if they are dumb enough to bring it. The only people who will win that court case will be Zenimax lawyers you will get to bill a bunch of extra hours to get their asses kicked. This stupidity might have worked before they were eaten by Facebook as legal battles are expensive, but with Facebook in their corner? They are screwed. Facebook can fund lawyers.

        • Archonsod says:

          It’s whether Facebook is willing to fund the lawyers for the years this could potentially take. Especially since Zenimax will probably move for an injunction to prevent sale of the Oculus Rift until it’s resolved. Which is probably Zenimax’s purpose – turn the company into a poison pill until they get their way.

          • P.Funk says:

            Free market competition flexing its majesty yet again.

          • Premium User Badge

            drewski says:

            It’s pretty hard to get an injunction when there is financial relief available for any harm, which is absolutely what Zenimax are chasing here. They would have to demonstrate a prima facie case that Oculus going on sale would cause irreparable harm that cannot be compensated for to get an injunction, which is a pretty high hurdle to climb – if Apple couldn’t get it in a case Samsung subsequently lost, it’s pretty hard to see how Zenimax could get it for a case up pre-trial.

        • orren77 says:

          ———————
          “Imagine you build engines for one company. In the course of your job you learn stresses, tolerances, rules of thumb, and general “know how”. ”
          ———————-

          That is, as you said, general know how.

          But imagine you have a company that builds houses, and has a R&D departement that, after years of expensive funding, discovers a way to build houses in half the time. And then the lead of the departement leaves your company, founds his own – and starts building houses in half the time.

          He invented it – but you paid for the research. That’s not general know how, that’s very specific know how that no-one else but your company has (or should have).

          The case isn’t as clear-cut as “it’s know-how, therefore its use cannot be limited by contracts”.

          • drinniol says:

            That would be a stupid company that didn’t patent their building time reduction method, then, and seeing as it is a specific method doesn’t fall under ‘know-how’. They would 100% be unable to stop him designing his own method using that knowledge unless they had a valid non-compete clause – and depending on where you are, most non-compete clauses aren’t legal.

          • El_Emmental says:

            @drinniol:
            Intellectual property isn’t just patents, in several countries there isn’t software patents (at least not “pure” software patents) and it’s regulated by the equivalent of copyright.

            Also, in the case of Zenimax, JC and Oculus, you can’t ask Zenimax to patent every single beta stage of all their researches: if JC brings out some research results from Zenimax to Oculus, without warning Zenimax, how are they going to know they “should” have patented that element ? How are they going to block that transfer ? They can’t spy on JC outside of his office hours, and they can’t apply for 30 patents every single day, every time an employee finds something that could be vaguely interesting, maybe.

        • El_Emmental says:

          Rindan :
          “[...] If they show he took “know how”, they are up shits creek, no matter what he signed. It has been ruled in court more than once that you can’t prevent “know how” from leaking out. If you did, it would mean that once employed at one company, you would no longer be able to work anywhere else. NDA’s can’t prevent you from having experience and using it. Contract law isn’t unlimited in its enforceability. [...]“

          Totally, but here JC was still employed by Zenimax when he worked with Oculus – the agreement between Zenimax and Oculus was that JC was free to work on the Oculus despite still being a Zenimax employee:
          1) Zenimax no longer had the exclusivity of JC’s expertise (despite paying for it) ; both Zenimax and Oculus work on 3D tech and 3D display (Zenimax has its own game engine R&D department). As an employee of a company, you can’t just go work for a competitor on the week-end because they’ve got a neat project there.
          2) It seems JC was allowed to work on Oculus at the expense of Zenimax (in terms of worked hours, dedication Zenimax’s projects).

          So far, it doesn’t seem Zenimax gained anything from it. As Twitchity mentioned earlier in the comments, it seems Zenimax tried to get a foot in the door in Oculus – lending the availability and expertise of JC (without any monetary compensation) as a perk, to make the negotiations easier.

          However, Zenimax business executives/lawyers couldn’t secure a deal and both parties walked away, and now Zenimax lost all opportunity to invest in Oculus (with Facebook owning 100% of it).

          What they currently want is a compensation for letting JC work on the Oculus during his employment at Zenimax.

          -

          To be honest, even if Zenimax is currently led by a bunch of arses (non-dilutable equity, seriously ?!), I kinda get where they’re coming from: when you’re in a business negotiation, if a party brings something on the table, and later nothing is signed, the other party can’t just walk away with that added value (especially if that other party just signed with a competitor).

          I know it’s weird to talk about JC like he’s “owned” by Zenimax, but he was actually a Zenimax employee at that time and his professional availability wasn’t fully his own, part of his revenues was strictly regarding his availability and the exclusivity/priority regarding his expertise, he got paid for that – that’s the whole point of having employees and not just external contractors.

          Facebook will very likely pay Zenimax a sum of money to settle this for good and move on, they can’t risk Oculus’ future over this. The question is how much – it will depends on Zenimax’s lawyers, the contract JC had with Zenimax, that NDA agreement between Zenimax and Oculus, and the court/court of arbitration (if there’s any).

          • Josh W says:

            An interesting point, although in the smaller ends of the business world, people do all kinds of free work in order to secure deals. In their cases getting employment rather than shares, but there’s always a risk in giving freebees as a sign of commitment or good will, people can just take the free stuff and run off without obligation.

            Works in market stalls too actually.

        • hungrycookpot says:

          That’s how I read it too, they are trying to sue because Carmack learned some tricks while there and they’re mad that they’re no longer getting a piece of it.

    • Faxmachinen says:

      It also seems to be a fallacy, I.E. argument from silence.

  2. Premium User Badge

    Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

    Any executive who wouldn’t at least make a flimsy token attempt to stick the company’s shovel in a $2bn pile of money as it walks out the door would probably not be employed much longer.

    • Premium User Badge

      jezcentral says:

      And how long would they be employed if said shovel cost millions in lawyers fees, and dug up nothing?

      • Horg says:

        The likely outcome of this little corporate spat is that Facebooks lawyers will pay a relatively small settlement to Zenimaxs lawyers to make them go away for good. End result, our hypothetical executive is given a healthy bonus for keeping to the Code and turning a profit from nothing.

        • The_Sleeve says:

          Unfortunately, I think you’re right. It’s sad that the system works this way.

          • P.Funk says:

            Its hardly sad, its marvelous. This is how the money game is played. Its tactical chess with lasers mounted atop piles of cash.

            If it weren’t good for business that things worked this way the powers that be (the very businesses that use this system to its full effect) would have changed it long ago.

          • LionsPhil says:

            “Good for the powers that be” does not imply “good in general”. This is, after all, why we try to build democratic systems that impede self-serving politicians from establishing a stranglehold on power. (Try.)

          • hungrycookpot says:

            P Funk, that’s crazy. The only people this system benefits are the lawyers who collect retainers in order to always be on hand to pursue ridiculous, time and resource wasting cases like this. It doesn’t benefit the blameless defendant, and it doesn’t benefit the consumer. And in the end, the suing company will likely be sued at some point in the future, and even things out. It’s short-sightedness and greed, that’s all.

      • tormos says:

        also Zeni is big enough that they probably have lawyers on staff, meaning that this basically only represents an opportunity cost for them

      • Premium User Badge

        drewski says:

        They’d probably keep their job for 15 years and get a tens of millions of dollars golden handshake at the end of it.

        Executive incentives are “weird”.

    • Twitchity says:

      It sounds like Zenimax wanted to be an early investor, but their terms were too onerous to be borne (anti-dilution clauses can be extremely punitive to early-stage startups) — or, alternatively, perhaps they really thought that VR support for Doom 3 was so valuable as to be worth a privileged equity stake. (Did they play the same game I did?)

      In either case, Oculus announced their Series A (led by Spark and Matrix) just a few months after Doom 3 support was dropped, so Z-max obviously screwed up their chance to be part of the initial investment round. Seems that those grapes are very sour.

      I’m sure that Facebook has a whole lot of attorneys poring over any and all exchanges between Zenimax and Oculus, given that Oculus obviously believed at the time that Zenimax had agreed to provide a VR-enabled Doom 3. I wouldn’t be surprised if a countersuit was in the offing just as a brushback pitch.

  3. yogibbear says:

    Just wait till Apple finds that patent they can come troll them both with. “Wearable goggles that does cool stuff” (TM). I’m pretty sure Zenimax were just testing their sphere of influence on this one and hopefully they walk away and shutup and let Oculus do its thing in peace. Otherwise FOR SHAME! Zenimax go die please.

  4. Murmur says:

    In my mind, there are two legal teams. The lawyers from each team are impeccably dressed. Expensive, sharp looking suits, and each has an exquisite alligator skin briefcase that costs more than most peoples cars. The two teams stand across from each other in the courtroom, glaring intently. The tension is almost too much! Then suddenly, the judge bangs the gavel. Each lawyer unzips his pants and pulls his dick out. They swing them around at each other for awhile, then everyone involved spends a ton of money. Then nothing really happens.

  5. MistaJah says:

    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/08/12/id-not-licensing-id-tech-5/ Previously on Doom 3, Carmack and Zenimax.
    Double Fine is right, publishers giving more creative freedom to devs is important. Zenimax is the biggest and so perhaps the most rigid (video game) company out there. That’s what you get when your CEO is a 67-year-old lawyer I guess :/

  6. JohnnyPanzer says:

    Whatever happens, I’m sure facebook will proceed with their usual innovative nature and produce a VR-version of facebook that simply consists of a flat webpage with the regular facebook layout in a black void, allowing the users to facebook like it’s really facebooking for real. I’m honestly convinced that’s the whole reason they bought it.

    If the stellar team of developers that is FB suffers from some form of sudden creative insight, I suppose they could also hand exclusive Oculus rights to Zynga for some farmville action.

    Either way, I could not be less interested in Oculus if I tried. The only thing I find even slightly interesting about the whole project is the glaring hole in Kickstarter’s business model that the buyout put a spotlight on. For all the people who supported the project with their own, hard earned money, it must have sucked big time to see Zuckerberg swoop in while screaming “Thanks for the free development, SUCKERS!” while laughing and flipping them all of the birds at once…

    • PopeRatzo says:

      The only thing I find even slightly interesting about the whole project is the glaring hole in Kickstarter’s business model that the buyout put a spotlight on.

      Hard to believe with all the glaring holes in Kickstarter’s business model, this is the one that gets your attention.

    • MellowKrogoth says:

      Eh. When you fund a Kickstarter, it’s because you want a product to exist that nobody else wants to make, isn’t it? So if the Kickstarter project you backed succeeds in bringing back to the mainstream interest for making that kind of product, isn’t that the ultimate victory?

      • JohnnyPanzer says:

        In one way, yes, you’re right. But you gotta admit that when multi-billion dollar companies are able to sit back and watch while the projects they are interested in gets funded by charity before swooping in to claim the results, yelling “THANKS FOR THE FREE MONEY, BITCHES!” like some sort of corparate Jessie Pinkman on a sugar high, it’s bound to leave those who provided the charity in the first place with something of a brown taste in their mouths, yes?

        I like kickstarter, a lot, but I’m concerned that things like these might very well sink the model. I realize that there are laws against making a profit from charity, but that doesn’t change the fact that this PR-disaster highlighted a biiiiig problem with the whole concept of a kickstarter. Basically, we’ve set up a system where the ONLY involved party in a project that is 100% guaranteed to not recieve a single dime from a successful project also happens to be the ONLY ones actually paying for the project in the first place.

        The thought proccess behind supporting a kickstarter has gone from “am I willing to donate this ammount to a project that may not see completion?” to “am I willing to donate this ammount of money to Facebook, Electronic Arts or Activision, in order to ensure that they don’t need to spend their own money?”…

        • Asurmen says:

          Only if you dislike big Corp or FB in particular. For anyone else I don’t see how they can be bummed out by this.

        • frightlever says:

          Funded by charity? You pledge to Kickstarter in expectation of receiving the tier reward appropriate to what you pledged. It’s hardly charity. You think it’s charity, try claiming it back on your income tax and see if the tax people agree with you.

          If you want a definitive answer go to Kickstarter itself, where you don’t have to get too far into their FAQ to see that they explicitly forbid charity projects.

          • JohnnyPanzer says:

            True, but considering most tier awards it truly is nothing more than a form of charity in disguise. In normal circumstances people tend not to pay thousands of dollars for things like their name in the thank you section of the credits or a custom in-game model with a slightly different hue.

            Yes, people donate to projects they want to see on the market, projects that might not otherwise recieve funding. But one doesn’t have to be a militant anti-capitalist to feel a bit cheated when large corps sit back and wait for projects they are clearly interested in to be crowd funded before they swoop in and collect the winnings. Luckey got rich from this, and all power to him. Facebook got a billion dollar product developed for free, good for them. But again, the only people with absolutely zero chance of any kind of profit are the people funding the whole thing, which is a rather odd state of affairs.

            The only reason I brought up charity is because people have informed me that it would be impossible to introduce any kind of system where the actual funders of a kickstarter could recieve any form of stake from buyouts like these, due to laws regarding charity and profits. I have previously suggested that perhaps some form of clause that guarantees backers a small part of the profits in case of a buyout, based on their respective donation sizes, should be introduced. Say that the backers would be able to share a small percentage of the buyout sum, something like five percent. In this case, it would still have left Luckey with 1,9 billion dollars to build cocaine fountains with, while the people who actually paid for the development would get to divide 100 million dollars between them and Zuckerberg would still sit on next-gen technology that he spent zero dollars on developing. Everybody wins. Luckey is set for life, backers get compensated and we would all still get to play farmville in virtual reality, for whatever that’s worth…

        • hungrycookpot says:

          I’m confused as to why people think that facebook will turn around and shit on the obvious gaming applications of Oculus? Of course they’re going to integrate it into FB, virtual meetings and hangouts and concerts and stuff, to whatever degree of success that entails, but why would they invest billions in a gaming peripheral and then stop development of it’s core functionality/profit? That just doesn’t make any sense.

          • JohnnyPanzer says:

            I can only answer for myself, but for me it’s based on Facebooks entire business model: Taking something that allready exists, stripping it of usefull functions and adding a horrible user interface. I simply see no indication that they would change that model.

  7. Paul says:

    Eh, Zenimax is panicking over the moneyhole that is ESO, and saw this as potentially easy pay day. Whatcha gonna do, Zenimax gonna Zenimax.

  8. PopeRatzo says:

    When VR headsets really start hitting the market and people all over are buying them for gaming, the Oculus Rift will not be among them.

    • Wixard says:

      This could be the iphone, or a case of it being overshadowed by sony’s and eventually MSs offerings. Of the 3, MS probably has the better chance given that they have the software resources to overshadow both. (Assuming they put their weight behind it.)

      Personally, I think VR is finally for real. It’s coming, and it’s going to really improve game experiences.

      This isn’t like the Kinect or Wii Waggle Waggle. The tech is mature enough now for prime time. (mainly screen improvements).

      • hungrycookpot says:

        Honestly, I’m not going to sit there and play a multi-hour gaming session with a big real life obscuring headset covering my face. It will be a cool gimmick, something you show your friends and try the next big VR experience (Star Citizen or what have you) for an hour, but then I’m going back to my monitor setup. And in all likelihood, I’m not going to pay hundreds of dollars for another peripheral that’s going to sit in the junk drawer and collect dust.

        I’m not yet convinced.

    • Asurmen says:

      Why so?

  9. Dozer says:

    You “reached out” to Zenilawyer? Have you been watching House Of Cards? Every character would “reach out” to one another in lieu of merely contacting them.

    • Consumatopia says:

      At least they aren’t “touching base”. God, I hate that one.

      • Arglebargle says:

        Done correctly, it’s the difference between being safe, and being on the outs…..

  10. mseifullah says:

    Zenimax canceled VR support for Doom 3 BFG when Oculus refused Zenimax’s demands for a non-dilutable equity stake in Oculus.

    Remember when the word on the street was that Prey 2 was cancelled by Zenimax because Human Head refused to sell the company to Zenimax? And remember how there was a lot of “we probably aren’t getting the full story from either side?” Yeah, it seems like that rumor about why Prey 2 was cancelled just got a lot more validity.

  11. mwoody says:

    While I agree it’s a likely candidate, it almost seems to obvious. Plus, it was for sale on Groupees a while back, so presumably, there was a playable version of some sort.

    Edit: And it’s on Desura, too.

  12. RPSRSVP says:

    I hope John parks the first half of his last name in Zenimax HQ.

    • Josh W says:

      This being RPS, for some reason I assumed you were talking about John Walker. And suggesting he sit in their HQ. The other one makes much more sense.

  13. racccoon says:

    This whole VR is a joke!
    Get your lawyers ready!

  14. rustybroomhandle says:

    Perhaps they should settle this with a Quake 3 death match.

  15. Premium User Badge

    drewski says:

    Ah, Zenimax. Forever thou shalt be jerks.

  16. sophof says:

    “Zenimax canceled VR support for Doom 3 BFG when Oculus refused Zenimax’s demands for a non-dilutable equity stake in Oculus.”

    This shows the level Zenimax is playing at (i.e. very low). Not only did they apparently believe Doom 3 support was worth that, when they didn’t get their way they actually went out and executed their threat. And, it now looks like, lost one of their most valuable employees because of it. And instead of someone getting fired over such a debacle, it looks like they have doubled down on the stupid…

  17. lucilapbroadhurst says:

    Start working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do……. JOBS333.C­O­M

  18. fish99 says:

    Zenimax sure know how to make people hate them.