What: Facebook Buys Oculus VR For $2 Billion

Update: Palmer Luckey has posted on Reddit about the acquisition, his perspective on Facebook’s goals, and Oculus’ continued relationship with the gaming world. “Very little changes day-to-day at Oculus, although we’ll have substantially more resources to build the right team.” Nothing about those pesky privacy issues, though.

Original story: It’s not quite April 1st yet, so I guess this is happening. Oculus VR, the daringly sexy eyeware fashion company/hobbyist virtual reality outlet has officially been purchased by, um, Facebook, of all things. It sort of makes sense, I suppose, given that VR stands to radically alter the way people communicate from long distances, and that seems to be Facebook’s focus here. Problem is, the social media goliath sent out a press release that’s full of bits like, “mobile is the platform of today, and now we’re also getting ready for the platforms of tomorrow” and hey wasn’t Oculus Rift a PC gaming device at one point? Also John Carmack works for Facebook now, and that’s just weeeeeeeeird.

Here are some pertinent bits from Facebook’s press release:

“Facebook today announced that it has reached a definitive agreement to acquire Oculus VR, Inc., the leader in immersive virtual reality technology, for a total of approximately $2 billion.”

“While the applications for virtual reality technology beyond gaming are in their nascent stages, several industries are already experimenting with the technology, and Facebook plans to extend Oculus’ existing advantage in gaming to new verticals, including communications, media and entertainment, education and other areas. Given these broad potential applications, virtual reality technology is a strong candidate to emerge as the next social and communications platform.”

“’Mobile is the platform of today, and now we’re also getting ready for the platforms of tomorrow,’ said Facebook founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. ‘Oculus has the chance to create the most social platform ever, and change the way we work, play and communicate.’”


Seriously though, virtual reality does present some incredibly fascinating, almost Matrix-like possibilities for communication, as I discussed with Oculus and CCP during D.I.C.E. And while having Facebook’s bulging monetary muscle hoisting Oculus like in that one scene from Titanic won’t hurt, it does mean Facebook will likely get to call some shots down the line. For now, though, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg implied that Oculus will get to keep doing its own thing with games.

“Immersive gaming will be the first, and Oculus already has big plans here that won’t be changing and we hope to accelerate,” he wrote in – what else – a Facebook post. “The Rift is highly anticipated by the gaming community, and there’s a lot of interest from developers in building for this platform. We’re going to focus on helping Oculus build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games. Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this.”

But that is apparently just the start, and Facebook’s eye is very much on communication applications. Zuckerberg proposed examples ranging from attending a basketball game courtside to consulting a doctor to attending class. And you’ll never have to leave your home. Hurrah? I am honestly not sure how to feel about those examples, but I suppose the hope is that one would take the VR magic carpet across oceans and continents – not to their village grocer, metalsmith, or alchemist.

There is also the issue of Facebook’s sometimes rather dubious approaches to privacy, targeted advertising, and the like. I am not sure that’s something I want bleeding over into my virtual reality – let alone defining the entire movement, given how nascent it still is.

At any rate, this is all still fresh and crazy. I’ve contacted Oculus with some questions, and I’ll let you know as soon as I hear back. In the meantime, I hope they don’t change the Oculus Rift’s name to the Facebook Face.


  1. Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

    Mark Zuckerberg has finally transcended his human form and become a being of pure money. He cannot gaze upon anything without sandblasting it with a torrent of filthy lucre projected from his very eyes. Why, just this morning he glanced at a bakery and accidentally bought bread. All bread – past, present, and future.

    • Tendentieus says:

      At least a lot of that money now goes to John Carmacks pockets, so he can develop more spaceships for fun.

    • RedViv says:

      Luckily, spiked honey-caked is not acquired with this. WE STILL HAVE HIS WEAKNESS! WE SHALL BREAK THE WALLS OF THE THIRD CIRCLE!

    • Gap Gen says:

      And still only 66th on the rich list, which is topped by Bill Gates of all people.

      • RedViv says:

        Bill Gates buys out Facebook, liberates Oculus VR, sells Facebook to Jeremy Peanut Buttess (1.3 years) of Overwick, Cornwall, for one pound fifty-eight, returns bread with doubled value to humanity, announces plans for “hydro-vinoisation device”

        • pakoito says:

          Too late, he already spent all his fortune in charity. And lasers.

      • TCM says:

        It’s worth noting that personal assets and corporate assets are not the same thing.

    • Tei says:

      :-O this comments is everything I wanted to be when I was young

    • DanMan says:

      Please never ever stop posting here.

      • Fenix says:

        I enjoy Lord Custard’s comments as much as the next guy, but is it necessary to have a “please dont stop posting here ever” reply whenever they say anything?

    • communisthamster says:


    • Vodka, Crisps, Plutonium says:

      “Why, just this morning he glanced at a bakery and accidentally bought bread. All bread – past, present, and future.”

      I think, first version with “All bread. Ever” (remember it from reading the comments section last night, sorry) felt way beyond any hope. But maybe it’s edited for good, just ‘cuz it seems the British folks are into whole time travelling dangers P

      About the topic: I don’t think that the FB(i?) will f(ck up Oculus Rift development, but I feel cheated that the crowd-funded (and designed for crowd in first place, not to serve business cashflow turnovers) project fell in hands of money-grabbing “bastards of human intelligence”.

      • MadTinkerer says:

        Notch feels the same way. “And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.

        That’s pretty much how I would feel too, if I had backed the OR at all. The Rift was one of those projects I wanted to back but with my limited funds it didn’t make the cut. (currently I have backed almost 100 KS projects, but that’s about a third of what I really wanted) But for them to treat a Kickstarter project as just something to develop long enough to sell out and skip town with all the money, is completely against the spirit of Kickstarter. Facebook should, at minimum, refund all backers’ contributions. It’s only a drop in the bucket compared to how much money they’ve already thrown at the former owners of the company, and much cheaper than if they were actually paying dividends to investors. There’s literally no excuse to not do it, other than being completely heartless.

        • Smoky_the_Bear says:

          This is the problem with kickstarter. People feel that they are owed something in someway. They aren’t. They are a silent investor who has no say on the running of the project. Kickstarter in many situations is used in order to fund a project to a stage where it can secure additional investment where a bunch of drawings and ideas would otherwise fail, this seems to be no different. At least according to this it sounds as if the original team is being left to their own devices so until we see otherwise I fail to see how this has changed anything to warrant people demanding money back.

    • CutieKnucklePie says:

      Comment of the decade!

    • HisDivineOrder says:

      But did he buy the rights to rounded corners? The rights to black on silver color combinations? The rights to reducing processor speed to reduce power usage?

      Because that’s the definition of power. Only one man was truly capable of such feats and he, sadly, has been elevated to the next level of the Cloud.

  2. Sheng-ji says:

    Oh Jesus, given how Facebook treat personal data, I guess it’s Sony for me now then.

    • waaaaaaaals says:

      But you’ll be able to be virtually bombarded with targeted advertisements for products you may like in the comfort of your own virtual home!

      • Deano2099 says:

        But apparently this is a far, far worse situation than at the moment, where I’m bombarded with advertisements for things I don’t like in the comfort of my own home.

        I mean god forbid advertisements on Facebook start telling me when my favourite bands are on tour or a director I like has a new film out. How the hell will I find hot young singles in my local area if that happens?!

        • HisDivineOrder says:

          You could rely on a service that doesn’t have your friends, family, and mere acquaintances giving away information about you to every tom, dick, and harry online so they can make entire databases of people who haven’t even remotely given permission to have their information stored or their name listed.

          There has to be a way to have a service that is useful to you that also requires you actually sign up to have information about you saved, right? ;)

      • TCM says:

        You should probably stop using the internet, watching television, or using a phone, then. Oh, chuck the credit cards too.

        • jrodman says:

          That’s it. Credit cards that show ads on their surfaces!

        • TechnicalBen says:

          Ok. (Have).
          Some of those provide consumer data, some actually push adds. I don’t use the platforms that push adds that have no relation to the product/service I’m searching for.

    • Deathmaster says:

      Yeah, the can keep this doomed project now. I don’t want anything connected to Facebook in my life.

    • AngelTear says:

      Oculus for me just went from “I’d love to try it one day” to “never, not even if you actually pay me”. Hoping for rival technologies of the same kind, I just want to stay as far away from Facebook as possible.

      • TheSplund says:

        Totally agree – this can only end badly and currently I’m not prepared to put any money into the coffers of the hateful FB (which surely must be close to failing). I was readying my wallet for the Rift when it finally reaches the consumer market but now it looks like I can afford that monitor upgrade that I was going to fore go.

    • plsgodontvisitheforums_ says:

      I know right! At least Sony only let 70 MILLION credit card numbers and accouts be hacked. But god, I hope nobody finds out about the picture I posted of my cat impersonating a dog…

      • Sheng-ji says:

        Let them be hacked is still a world away from sold them for profit. By the way, hope that picture wasn’t taken with a phone or modern camera, because if it was, it was very likely tagged with gps data. Now I know your home address. Enjoy that thought.

        • stupid_mcgee says:

          You are completely and absolutely wrong. What you are suggesting is impossible.

          Facebook strips ALL photos of their EXIF data when they are uploaded. If you hacked into someone’s account and looked at their photos’ EXIF data, you wouldn’t glean anything even remotely significant.

          Seriously, anyone with half a brain knows to strip out EXIF data from photos before publishing to the web. The only people that don’t seem to know about this are Vice’s reporters that were covering the McAfee drama. The vast majority of image uploading sites automatically strip EXIF data by default. This has been commonplace for years.

          • jrodman says:

            That’s interesting, but it doesn’t really mean that facebook can’t have read the exif data on the files before stripping it for the public.

          • d32 says:

            You are only half-right. Facebook strips the meta data from displayed images, but (of course) keeps them in their databases anyway.

          • cafeoh says:

            Seriously, anyone with half a brain knows to strip out EXIF data from photos before publishing to the web. The only people that don’t seem to know about this are Vice’s reporters that were covering the McAfee drama.

            No. No, no, definitely not, where did you ever thought that to be right? You are biased by the general over-average technical knowledge of your social circles. I’d be impressed if 1% of the population have even heard the term EXIF, and that’s insulting a lot of people.

            The vast majority of image uploading sites automatically strip EXIF data by default. This has been commonplace for years.

            No. Still, seriously, you can’t just make up information and act like it’s right. Imgur does, and surely it’s one of the most important, but a lot of websites don’t go through the hassle of modifying the pictures you upload. Of course absolutely NO file uploading site (including google drive, dropbox and the like) will do that, with fairly obvious reasons.

            And just like they mentioned above, there’s no way that facebook doesn’t keep this data aside.

          • aepervius says:

            GPS data ? on a normal camera ? want some tin foil for your hat ? Heck even with phone the best one could do is tower location positionning. If you enable it.

          • stupid_mcgee says:

            Anybody who gives a single iota of a shit about privacy knows about EXIF data. Anyone serious about digital photography knows about EXIF data. The people that don’t know are people like my mom, who doesn’t give 1/1,000 of a damn about the data, anyways. Again, not that it matters because FB strips EXIF data as soon as the image is uploaded.

            The only way someone can get a hold of your EXIF data is if they hack into your account, select to download your dataset, and then hack into your email address to get the dataset link. The other route is to hack into FB’s datacenter, and that’s not only very risky but also not exactly a cakewalk, especially for targeted information.

            The idea that geolocation metadata will somehow auto-magically reveal your house is complete bullshit, too. Photo GPS is not that pin-point accurate. Even actual geolocation information on smartphones, which is much more accurate, can only give you a rough idea of location, within the roughly 2 or 3 blocks, at best, to a mile or two, at worst. Good luck picking the exact apartment in a big apartment complex.

            If you’re worried about this, then turn off GPS locations on your phone. Every smartphone can do this. If it can’t by default, then there are numerous apps for iPhone and Android that will do this for you.

            The interesting thing is that there are a lot of people who actually don’t want FB to strip EXIF data because it makes it easier for people to spread copyrighted images and it also makes it so that, if someone were to steal your phone and take pictures with it and if those pictures were uploaded to your FB account, you still can’t find the location of the person that stole your phone because the GPS is stripped out. You would have to wait until you could compile and download your FB dataset. If the police contact FB, they must get a warrant before FB will comply. This takes even more time and has no guarantees.

            If the premise is that one can get a hold of GPS infor from your EXIF data on uploaded FB photos if they really want to, then that’s true. But that’s not what Sheng-Ji was alluding to. You cannot get EXIF data just by browsing other people’s photos on Facebook. Twitter removes EXIF data by default, too. Again, nearly every single responsible site either strip EXIF data on their own or they have a user-option to strip EXIF data.

            BTW, imgur DOES strip your EXIF data. Maybe they didn’t at some previous point in time, but the most certainly do now. Tumblr allows EXIF data nowadays, but they didn’t in the past. And if you want to edit/remove your EXIF data, all you have to do is click on the file, got to Properties, and then edit/delete any and/or all the info you want.

          • stupid_mcgee says:

            aepervius, that’s not entirely true. For older cellular phones, it’s true that you can only triangulate using towers, and even then you can only triangulate an active signal. However, today’s smartphones do use GPS data. This is how people use their iPhone to give them step-by-step driving directions, like traditional vehicular GPS systems.

            Still, a cell phone’s GPS data is often not as defined as that for vehicles. Depending on your location and the strength of your signal, your GPS data is never exactly correct. This is why it takes a bit of searching to find geocaches. You’ll get the general vicinity, but it won’t tell you the exact location within the scope of a meter or less. It’s more like 100 or 200 square meters at best.

            As for knowledge of EXIF data, I can’t stress enough that anyone who actually gives a fuck about their security and privacy has known about this for a long time. More than a decade ago, I used to provide computer security advice to medical marijuana growers on medical marijuana message boards. Most people knew about EXIF data. Every now and then, someone would get busted because they didn’t scrub the EXIF data, but the overwhelming majority knew to strip out their EXIF data.

            Also, as aepervius points out, stand-alone cameras will not track GPS unless you have a peripheral that will do so.

    • Mungrul says:

      Yup, this has successfully killed any and all interest I had in Oculus. I was really looking forward to trying Elite: Dangerous with one, but I won’t touch anything Facebook.

    • Gap Gen says:

      There are examples of companies keeping their acquisitions running more or less as-is, so hopefully they won’t kill this one. I guess we’ll see, although Facebook might well only monetise it for evil once it’s been taken up by consumers.

      • strangeloup says:

        Has Facebook ever monetized anything for good?

        • Syphus says:

          Well of the things they monetize they have really championed their open source status. link to code.facebook.com Pretty much everything they run is open source. Not sure if this counts for companies they own like Instagram. Which by the way runs basically independently.

        • nitehawk says:

          What does “monetized for good” mean?

    • DodgyG33za says:

      They have lost me as well. I just cancelled my Dev Kit 2 pre-order. I love my Dev Kit 1 but that is as far I go. There is no way I am developing software exclusively for Facebook hardware.

      Given what I have seen on various tech forums I think this move will seriously damage the viability of Oculus in the hardcore gaming community. It is a good job there are alternatives starting to appear.

      • WrenBoy says:

        Out of curiosity, what alternatives are these? I’ve only noticed Sony but hopefully I just haven’t been paying attention.

        • TacticalNuclearPenguin says:

          If there are none yet, there will be, afterall VR is still an early thing despite what some over hyped people-who-tried-it would tell you.

          The thing is that it is hard to imagine Oculus, despite retaining some of their independency, focusing all their facebook money on input lag and other 100% gaming related issues, without first having to work and spend their biggest budget on the idiotic things FB will ask of them.

    • Misha says:

      That’s assuming, of course, that the OR will ever be a Thing You Can Buy and actually use for anything other than bragging rights, which is still not a given.

    • Lestibournes says:

      I wanted the Rift, but even if I’m willing to use Facebooks’ advertising platform, er, social network to communicate with friends and family something feels a bit wrong about letting them practically own my eyeballs. Sony will make its VR specifically for the PS and Microsoft for the Xbox, so that leaves Valve who will target PCs in a cross-platform way, unless some new player shows up on the market.

  3. Christian O. says:

    Godammit, William Gibson, look what you did.

  4. Wulfram says:

    Long live Facebox!

    To me, this seems like broadly good news that increases the chances of Oculus being an actual thing

    • Cross says:

      Was there ever any doubt?

      • Wulfram says:

        Given the history of VR?

        • Sgt_Big_Bubbaloola says:

          …….and a large group of people who got fooled by the whole VR thing in 1991 nod sagely.

          • TCM says:

            If things that failed once couldn’t possibly succeed, we wouldn’t have video games as a mainstream source of entertainment.

            For that matter, we wouldn’t have visited the moon either.

          • sinister agent says:

            We also wouldn’t have “3d” film bullshit, so every silver lining has a cloud.

          • TCM says:

            True, but most clouds don’t in fact have silver linings. They have linings of even darker clouds.

            Welcome to Earth, enjoy your stay here.

          • Wulfram says:

            Having a few doubts isn’t the same as saying this can never succeed

      • Continuity says:

        Hell yes, and I say that as a kickstarter backer. VR is such a huge leap for the industry and consumers the chances of it taking of from a tiny startup with a few mil in funding is practically zero, to force the necessary generational leap VR is going to need a bottomless money pit. Looks like it just got one. I reckon at least this means the difference of pulling forward the VR revolution by 5 years.

        • Rizlar says:

          I dunno, having used the old devkit it was already amazing. They seemed to have a really great device, even if the res and refresh was still being improved. There was a massive amount of interest from game devs and many, many games already work with it, both released and pre-release. So the demand was there, the product was almost there, I could imagine it really taking off once they went into production. I would have been very likely to buy the first consumer version released.

          But fuck facebook. And fuck the corporate idiot-speak that is all over those press releases.

          I just hope this stupidity won’t stop the OR from ‘building out’ as a product and that obsessions with ‘vertical integration’ into pointless facebook-related stuff won’t stop it from the becoming the incredible, beautiful device it was always meant to be.

          • Premium User Badge

            Malarious says:

            Your worries are mostly unfounded, I feel. The Oculus is a piece of hardware. Unless they lock it down and prevent you from running your own software (which, honestly, would be beyond stupid) then this is good news. Oculus can bring their product to market much faster with Facebook’s money. As it stands now, anyone can develop anything they want for the Oculus, and you can download it and run it. There’s no app store. There’s no ‘tracking’. Those things might come, but they’ll be optional. There’s not going to be anything forcing you to use the official Facebook software when it comes.

            On the other hand, if they do completely ruin everything and force you to log in to facebook before you can even turn the device on, well…

      • TheVGamer says:

        The possibility of Oculus making large quantities of the actual product were quite low – they didn’t have the resources, not really. To make it a reasonable purchase, at around $300, they possibly would’ve had to sell it at a loss, something that’s not reasonable when they’re not developing any software that could sustain them. Now, the possibility is 99% – it’s going to happen and it’s going to happen sooner than before. They were already unsure of the late 2014 release date, who knows when they would’ve released it.

    • Rindan says:

      Let me hand you my list of companies that I would have prefered to have bought Oculus instead of Facebook. No, fuck that, it would be a list of all the companies. Let me just give you the list of companies that would be worse than Facebook: Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast. That is fucking it. I can think of three companies that would leave me more upset.

      Facebook is a worthless piece of shit. They have brought not a single piece of new good technology to this world beyond (arguably) Facebook. Everything Facebook touches turns to shit. Facebook spews from its gaping encrusted orifices liquid shit like like “social” gaming and “free to play”. Facebook is a hideous and worthless company when it comes to taking something good and letting it reach its full potential. Fuck Facebook. Fuck it sideways, up and down. I would happily take a worthless and evil company like EA buying Oculus over fucking Facebook. FUCK!

      A smile slice of the future was eaten today. The cake was a lie.

      • Talon2000uk says:

        Don’t mince words. Say what you really think. :D

      • Widthwood says:

        Ok, so they might have been bought by one of the hundreds of military corporations like Boeing, Northrop Grumman, BAE, Daimler Benz, etc and that would be the last we heard from them.
        They might have been bought by Sony thus eliminating competition. Some tech would likely be incorporated in later Sony’s products.
        Or Google, with similar result.
        Or they might have been bought by Microsoft, making it effectively Xbox exclusive, with PC API’s being second class and barely maintaned.
        They could have even been bought by an actual evil corporation (not low-consumer-satisfaction type of “evil” like EA or Comcast) for internal needs, like BP or Dow Chemical or Haliburton or Monsanto – the list could just go on and on.

        Facebook indeed can be slightly annoying, but let’s not get carried away here…

  5. Maritz says:

    I was really looking forward to getting my hands on one of these eventually, but dammit I’m loath to give any money to Facebook.

  6. Pich says:

    Dammnit. I wanted the OR to get away from people, not to meet them.

  7. Ysellian says:

    Well there goes that. I don’t dislike facebook, but I like to keep gaming separate from it.

    • Gap Gen says:

      If the Oculus Rift now requires a Facebook account to use, I’m burning down the internet.

      • CookPassBabtridge says:

        Just think, you can now have that smug arse you never want to see again from school’s wedding photos rammed down your retinas in fully immersive 3D, whilst simultaneously finding out that his burps probably smell of Dr Pepper because he just ‘liked’ it.

      • DanMan says:

        Count me in. “Connect with your Facebook account” my ass.

        Seriously, everyone had only nice things to say about it, invested time, people (Carmack), money and knowhow (Valve) into it and then they sell out before even delivering the thing. Butt-stabbers.

      • Premium User Badge

        phuzz says:

        If I have to have a facebook account to use an OR, then I should probably start thinking about ways to make that account as useless to them as possible.
        Uploading pictures of random noise (hence difficult to compress)? Never ‘friending’ other accounts, except possibly obvious spam ones? Obviously I’ll use a throwaway email address, perhaps forwarding all mails back to facebook.

    • stupid_mcgee says:

      I don’t dislike Facebook, either, but I sure as fuck don’t want Zuckerberg to be the one who owns Oculus. The guy is a total and completely inept fucktard when it comes to business. Most people think FB is a fantastic company that’s raking in massive cash, but it’s really not. It’s been a massive financial sinkhole for far more years than it has been profitable and investors are still seeing a much lower ROI than they’d like.

  8. Flit says:

    LIKE THIS if U LUV 2 RUIN emerging hardware!! LOL <3

  9. Natanji says:

    I feel like Zuckerberg just walked in and stole our nerd toy.

    • RedViv says:

      And we weren’t even done making it!

      • TCM says:

        You could just go ahead and make your own, you know.

        Wait, that would take knowledge, effort, time, and money.

        Let’s instead be bitter at the people who have those things.

        • sinister agent says:

          Yes, you’re right. As of this moment, nobody can ever criticise or complain about anything they don’t like ever again unless they are an ultra rich, omniscient superhuman, just like our Immortal CEO Overlords, may their magnifience forever fuel the sun.

          • TCM says:

            I believe in criticizing everything and everyone equally, and that’s why I typed up a strongly worded rant that I sent to my local congressman, and hand delivered to the guy down the street who begged me to give him a few cents.

            More seriously, there is a line between criticism and bitterness. “X thing sucks because Y company owns it” is the latter. Claiming some sort of ‘deserved’ ownership over something that hasn’t even been completed is VERY VERY MUCH the latter.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            So, if a company who I will not do business with because I don’t like their business model, acquires another business that I was planning to buy from, and I then don’t buy that product, is that bitterness in your eyes? In mine, it’s standing up for my principles.

          • Josh W says:

            TCM, your level of false identification is tragic, do you know you will never run one of these big companies? And all your justifications are for ways for people to give you, specifically, worse service, because they apply to you as much as they do any other customer?

            Having a basic level of ethics in capitalism is not so hard, but it means treating your customers with respect, it means seeking more benefits than just the narrow interests of your shareholder’s short term profitability. Corporations have a structural bias against acting ethically, in that those in charge of corporations have a duty to do exactly the opposite, and diminished personal responsibility for anything else that goes wrong.

            Some companies moderate that, they say that although technically yes the legal structure they are working in expects them to be a bastard, but they aren’t going to do that, obviously, because it would be stupid. They don’t expect they have some god given right to do whatever is legal, “because this is capitalism”, they do things more sensibly. Facebook in contrast is an example of a company that is constantly planning up devious bastard stuff and only avoids doing it to the extent that other people hold them to better standards. For facebook, ethics is friction, and for us, facebook is like a naughty child you can’t turn your back on for a moment, as they sit on the advantage given to them specifically by network effects, and try to milk it for all it’s worth.

            The problem is that the oculus is in a position where possible competitors, like valve, have shared technology with them in order to create a partnership, thus weakening their power to bypass them if they turn out to start abusing their market position.

            Facebook, a company infamous for doing exactly that, has just swooped in and bought it.

            If you knew anything at all about the real way corporations work, the nature of implicit monopolies and their affect on markets, you would realise this is an extremely bad idea.

        • engion3 says:

          lol what.

        • Kitsunin says:

          That would require time effort money

          I could spend every minute of my life working on making an Oculus Rift and I would still fail, because I just don’t have the money or contacts to make it happen.

          Yeah I could dedicate my life to getting one or the other of those, but I would probably get fucked because it would take too long and a good version was already released.

        • Cataclysm says:

          @TCM (oops reply fail)
          The comment you replied to didn’t display upset with the creators of the Oculus, but rather with the large faceless corporation who bought out the people with the talent.

        • Josh W says:

          Or to put it simpler:

          Yeah, it did require money.

          Our money.

          This company was birthed off the generosity and enthusiasm of thousands of gamers. They sold it to twats.

          There was nothing legally stopping this, because kickstarter is new, but I’m going to start checking something before I fund it now, adding it as a kind of personal new agreement clause. Don’t sell it to twats.

  10. serioussgtstu says:

    This is the darkest timeline.

    • TCM says:

      Except for the ones where Hitler was a bit more successful, ofc.

      • tumbleworld says:

        Hm. And I note it’s the Facebook fanboi who’s proving Godwin’s Law.

        • TCM says:

          Joke’s on you, I don’t use facebook. Never have. Don’t even have an account there. Honestly I don’t see the point, I already have chat programs, my phone, and skype. That’s enough communication for me, any more would be obtrusive and annoying.

          Thanks for the ad hominem though, I’m not the only one indulging in logical fallacies for fun.

          • hotmaildidntwork says:

            “any more would be obtrusive and annoying.”

            Ironically enough, that’s exactly what most of the people complaining here are likely worried about.

          • tumbleworld says:

            /s/Facebook Fanboi/troll/ then, if you prefer.

      • Orija says:

        We have no evidence to think that Hitler hated openness in VR tech.

  11. PoulWrist says:

    When I read it, my first thought was “wow, and I was so looking forward to it” … I guess that sums up my feelings :|

  12. brickstool says:

    Oh, I get it. It’s now facebook’s answer to google glass.

    • Flakfizer says:

      Oculus will be renamed Faceface

    • Horg says:

      That probably has more to do with the acquisition than anyone would be prepared to admit.

      • Premium User Badge

        Nathan says:

        But they’re… completely different markets. Like, completely different. Augmented reality / wearable tech is still a distinct market from VR. It’s probably got a lot to do with what FB actually say (that VR has huge potential for social), tinged perhaps with FB wanting to diversify their fragile revenue base.

        • brickstool says:

          True, though I guess the Oculus could be seen as a ‘wearable’. In the future we might see an Oculus model similar to functionality to Google Glass. Then Oculus will be in two markets, both VR and AR.


  13. DickSocrates says:

    2 billion dollars! A product that hasn’t gone on sale yet, and can NEVER become mainstream. A potentially interesting gimmick product now turned into a wing of the worst in corporate internet bs. It’s the worst match, a bad buy, and generally just madness. The indies that supported it now have to work with Facebook. What’s the bet Facebook will require you to have a license to develop for it? How many of the indies will boycott on principle?


    • Gap Gen says:

      $2bn is a lot, larger than Facebook’s profits in 2013 and larger than its quarterly turnover. I honestly didn’t see Oculus ever making that. Then again, apparently the stock market thinks Facebook is worth a lot so I have no idea how companies pick these numbers, or if it’s a huge pyramid scheme run by speculators and when Facebook starts declining it’ll turn into a rout. Or maybe it’s a vanity project for Zuckerberg and they never expect it to recoup the initial payment.

      • SominiTheCommenter says:

        It’s still 1/8 of WhatsApp.

        • Gap Gen says:

          I don’t understand tech pricing any more.

          • TCM says:

            I’ve pretty much given up trying to figure out the reasoning or logic behind large companies and their valuation. Governments too for that matter.

          • AngusPrune says:

            Probably because you have the quaint notion that people should get value from their purchases.

            It makes so much more sense once you consider the incestuous relationship between lobbyists and government. That’s what the silicon valley scene has become. It’s not about making anything anyone might actually want and charging them a fair price for it. It’s a jobs for the boys scheme at the expense of everyone who has a pension fund or other vehicle where other people invest their money.

          • Gap Gen says:

            But the richest 0.1% are valuable job creators who have created, through their wisdom and hard work, full employment, and any vagabonds holding out a dirt-infused, quavering palm asking meekly for a few coins are worse than the architects of the Final Solution.

          • TCM says:

            You know, if you want to attack legitimate problems with the system, you can do so without ridiculous hyperbole that makes you look ignorant of reality, or the actual stated stances of participants. Just a thought.

            But then again, I’m probably a shill.

          • Gap Gen says:

            The Wall Street Journal published a letter from a high-profile businessman comparing progressive politics to Kristallnacht. It’s not so much a hyperbole as a rephrasing of actual stated views on Wall Street and in the Republican Party.

            link to online.wsj.com

          • TCM says:

            One man’s views define everyone, and that’s why I believe that all communists have the same mindset as Joseph Stalin.

            Really I’m not trying to have a serious debate, I just enjoy being glib and flippant, and throwing people’s words in their faces. I find it amusing.

            I think I need help.

            (FYI: Yes, I do know glib means insincere. That is partially the point.)

          • Gap Gen says:

            I could hunt more info, quotes, etc, but yeah, we’re not having a serious debate here, so.

        • strangeloup says:

          Or two Instagrams.

          Measuring things like this is weeeeeeeird.

          • Diving Duck says:

            The important question still remains; what is the actual value of this in Peggles?

          • Premium User Badge

            phuzz says:

            and now you’ve just reminded me that Popcap are owned by EA, thanks.

      • Stardog says:

        It’s hilarious that you say it’ll never become mainstream. What numbers do you have to back that up? It’s the only viable next step for gaming, after the Wii introduced waggle sticks in 2006.

      • darkChozo says:

        Not to state the obvious, but I’m guessing they’re more interested in leveraging Oculus’s tech than any profit that the company would’ve generated. Oculus making $2bn might be a bit farfetched, but Facebook making $2bn, say, licensing semi-open Facebook-integrated VR tech to smartphone manufacturers is a bit more plausible.

      • Stardog says:

        Their profits are low because they spend tons of cash. They just bought WhatsApp for $19 billion.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Which is their turnover for 10 quarters, but granted if it kills a competitor it could be worth it. As for the uptake, I suppose like people have said Oculus as a gaming peripheral is less important to Facebook than the tech it represents, which can be farmed out to other places.

      • hotmaildidntwork says:

        If it makes things any more/less confusing, I’m given to understand that about 3/4 of the 2 billion is in shares of facebook stock. Not sure how that affects the street value.

        • Syphus says:

          Yes, it was $400million in cash and $1.6bil in Facebook stock. Basically it means if Facebook stock one day falls 30 points, that sucks.

          • Bury The Hammer says:

            This is what annoys me about stories like this, though. “$2 BEEELLION” is an eye-catching number but doesn’t reflect what has actually been traded here. Volatile tech stock is worth a lot less than the its market value in cash, because of the risk. It’s the same reason why the banker’s offers in Deal or No Deal are always way lower than the average of the remaining boxes – a certain hundred quid now is a different proposition to a “maybe £250, maybe £10”.

    • Premium User Badge

      Malarious says:

      Never become mainstream? I showed my parents the DK1 and they were in awe. As long as there’s content available for it, I don’t see why it couldn’t reach a very large audience — and Facebook is in exactly the position to reach such an audience.

  14. CookPassBabtridge says:

    I want to swear

  15. ain says:

    Nah I’m going to stay the heck away from Facebook for as long as I can manage. And once they overtake the government I will become a freedom fighter who uses a neuroimplanted mainframe to hack into their cyber periphery. It will be rad.

  16. Shadow says:


    Instantly reminded me of this:
    link to i.imgur.com

    • Asdfreak says:

      That book was exactly what I thought of first, especially because it is basically I reallistic portait of the future society if everything goes according to popular pessimistic views.

  17. Boarnoah says:

    Well good for them can afford some actual screens now.

    This is probably going to affect Occulus future with the smaller indie crowd? Facebook would want them to head in a more consumer direction, so tighter locks on what content works with it.

    About time they had some proper competition, your move internet.

    EDIT: Notch doesn’t seem happy, link to i.4cdn.org

    • Chuckleluck says:

      I thought valve had a VR prototype. But then again, they also had a tongue-mouse prototype.

    • Asdfreak says:

      I can really understand notch’s reaction, exactly what I would have done. Most of the indie crowd and me as well will probably wait for a more not-facebooky competitor.

    • MrUnimport says:

      Did you really just post an inherently volatile 4chan link in the comments section of a website? Instead of reuploading somewhere more permanent, or god forbid just linking to the original Twitter post?

      • Boarnoah says:

        Sorry about that, passed on a link a friend gave to me. Didn’t realize.

  18. Billanthrop says:

    I was looking forward to buying the 1080p public release of the Oculus – had the chance to try it out at Rezzed 2013 and it was amazing.. but reading this tonight has been the worst part of my week – now I’m not interested in buying this kit when I know Facebook will ruin it somehow.

    I feel most sorry for the developers that have invested time and money into creating games for the Oculus. Judging from the comments on this article already, this deal will influence a fair amount of gamers that were otherwise waiting to purchase this kit.

    At the same time though, who says no to $2bn?

    • CookPassBabtridge says:

      Money: Breaking nice things since 1163.

      • TCM says:

        Currency’s existed a good deal longer than that, man.

        I think we ought to change the headline:

        People: Ruining good things since existing.

  19. Chuckleluck says:

    Hey, it could’ve been EA.

    • CookPassBabtridge says:

      This all suddenly puts that Tesco crap in a new light. VR is obviously being pushed by these arses as the ultimate way to “influence buying behaviours”. Fucks sake though. I thought Oculus were kind of … better. Yeah, drama. Whatever.

      I guess to us this was always about gaming, but to a businessman it was always going to be way bigger than that. Just would have been nice for that to NOT be its starting point if you know what I mean.

      • AngelTear says:

        For a while, now, I’ve been feeling the need to kickstart/patreon you as a commenter, just so you can type and I don’t have to bother, since I’d be saying the same things, and I wouldn’t be as nice to people.
        Can I?

      • waaaaaaaals says:

        I considered that Tesco thing to be mostly a joke up until a short while ago.

        They probably plan on eventually having a virtual facebook store where you can buy cats and junk for whatever game Zynga has cloned lately.

      • LionsPhil says:

        I’m amazed it’s taken this far down the comments for someone to say something along the lines of “they must have seen that Tesco thing”.

    • weary ghoul says:

      Maybe this is heresy, but I feel that EA would actually be better since their business is actually, you know, video games.

    • Hebrind says:

      Imagine EA’s effort:

      Pre-Order Oculus Rift™ now! Standard Edition box set comes with:
      One eye’s worth of glorious 3D vision!
      A chin strap!
      A charging-cable!

      Pre-Order Oculus Rift™ PREMIUM EDITION for:
      A second eye; get the edge over the competition with fantastic stereoscopic vision!
      Free access to the Day One DLC drivers for your OS of choice!
      A chin strap and BONUS head strap!
      Charging Cable!
      Free Oculus Rift™ Wallpaper and plushy eyeballs

      Warning: Online Connection Required for single-player use. EA reserve the right to withhold Oculus Rift™ vision from any party. Do not share with friends. Friends sold separately as DLC available NOW from Origin™

    • foop says:

      Could have been Oracle. Unlikely, I know, but just imagine… I don’t like Facebook, but if you’re talking about companies that turn everything they acquire to shit you need look no further than Oracle.

  20. alms says:

    I guess we’re long past the point where Facebook has enough money to buy basically anything they want.

    Wondering if anyone could please buy Facebook AND SHUT IT DOWN FOR GOOD.

  21. Chris D says:

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

    • OscarWilde1854 says:

      It seemed good while it lasted… now it`ll just be an overly capitalist piece of shit meant to drag in as much $$ as possible. RIP Oculus Rift.

      • TCM says:

        Man capitalism is so terrible, what with those “driving investment into technology in the hope it will pay off” and “creating niche products that might not otherwise be made because a market is found to exist” things. I believe in a world where your only incentive is your passion to create, and feeding yourself and your family will just come naturally! After all, the world could be completely fair if we wanted it to be, there is a place for every special creative snowflake, and nothing good has ever been accomplished by spending money.

        • OscarWilde1854 says:

          You’re a treat aren’t you?
          Because clearly a corporation purchasing a small company that is currently (essentially) driven by the community and turning it into a profit making machine won’t destroy the proper creativity needed? or force a faster timeline?

          Xbox? Facebook? Anything else? Is making money a bad thing? No but it would have been nice to see the Oculus develop on its own and become something amazing and THEN make a ton of money (and THEN probably sell out).

          And you clearly need to calm down the sarcasm a bit. I get it. You’re a facebook fanboy.. (you replied to nearly every comment on this article..) but other people are allowed to have opinions too.

          • TCM says:

            Hey, two times being called a fanboy of something I’ve never used within ten minutes! It’s a new record, guys, you broke the Paradox Forums’ current held record of fifteen! I am proud of you RPS comment section, so proud.

            Other people’s opinions are objectively worse than mine, and my value of objective is defined subjectively, so there.

            For what it’s worth: I enjoy comment threads that are guaranteed to have emotions run high, and get people to sit on a high horse. So I wind up participating in them. Because I am an emotional vampire.

            And then I always feel incredibly depressed the next day, for some reason. It must be the stored empathy getting back to me.

            EDIT: On checking, it was actually more like twenty minutes. And beyond that, my first comment was nearly an hour ago.

            I think I need to go lie down and wonder what my life has become again.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Seriously though, you are acting like a fanboi… which is kind of worse – theres an endearing innocence about fanbois but you… I know you only through comments on here – you’re better than this!

        • Asdfreak says:

          It’s funny for you to ridicule people that belive that the world would be better if it was not driven by proven pysychopaths with a lot of money. I do agree that captialism is a good thing, but only if you make your money out of competition and because you actually develop something that people want to buy. I think what he criticizes (if he realizes that or not is another question) is consumerism, the production and sale and buying of things for the sake of buying things.
          I don’t want to get all “everything was better in the past”, but big companies stopped being about making products better than the competitor when advances in pychology meant that you could suddenly make more money by having more money than everyone else through manipulation and media controll, and when market deregulation suddeny made short term bullshit decisions and buying out other companies and crashing them more profiable than actually producing anything of any worth whatsoever.

  22. Taidan says:

    First victim: link to twitter.com

    • OscarWilde1854 says:

      Good for him. I honestly hope more do this now… I`d rather watch the Oculus crash and burn than watch Facebook profit from (what they will turn in to) a sub-par product

      • TCM says:

        Because as we all know, when a corporation purchases anything it changes overnight into a monstrous, soulless, terrible machine that is designed to inflict suffering upon the living, and build oil fields on top of baby elephants. Living baby elephants.

        I just figured if we’re going with hyperbole, I’d take it to its logical extreme.

    • derbefrier says:

      what a dumb ass. I see even moderately famous business people are not immune to kneejerk reactions.

      for all we know facebook could just subsidize the development to help bring it to the mainstream market(which is good because the more people buy it the more games will be made for it) and make apps to be used with it just like anyone else if it becomes successful. Why the hell do people automatically assume the worst possible scenario when there is absolutely no reason to?

      • J. Cosmo Cohen says:

        Get out of here, Reason. You’ve no place here.

        • derbefrier says:

          I can see that reason has no place here. you are right

          • subedii says:

            Notch has always been high on the whole ‘personal liberties and privacy’ thing. And Zuckerberg’s attitudes to privacy (alongside FB’s policies and general implementation) are very clear.

            So yes, I can see why he’d want to avoid dealing with Facebook. But I guess I don’t feel the need to call him a dumbass for that.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Since we’re talking about buying shares, wild and perhaps unfounded panic seems fairly appropriate.

          • TCM says:

            Wild unfounded panic has always done good things in relation to consumers, yeah.


          • Gap Gen says:

            I was mainly taking about speculation, which is basically high-stakes gambling with real commodities, but yeah, was also mainly joking.

          • TCM says:

            To be fair, the speculation market is probably one of few economic areas I’d say should be more restricted and controlled.

            But I’m just a college aged armchair economist, so take that with a grain of salt. A grain of salt the size of Wyoming.

          • Gap Gen says:

            I admit I don’t know much about financial regulation, although it’s clear that bubbles are something that are going to happen with even the best intention of regulators, and prices of things in demand are likely to be inflated by speculators (as I understand it, the oil price crash during Bush’s presidency was largely a drop in confidence in oil speculation rather than a realistic measure of supply and demand). Not that fiscal or monetary* policy in the West is particularly great right now, which can go some way to smoothing out booms and busts, but that’s another issue.

            *Mainly the euro, although that has its own wonderful structural problems.

          • jonahcutter says:

            @Gap Gen

            Not really. Bubbles and financial market instabilities have increased dramatically as regulations have been removed.

            Corporatists and the Randian objectivists will proclaim how such instability is normal (sure, in the unregulated environment they created) and that after everything rights itself (post publicly-funded bailouts) everything is better than ever. The bubbles do burst and corporations often do come out of it even wealthier. The burden and costs are carried by the government and general population though. In the form of the bailouts themselves (corporate welfare essentially) and the “soft” effects of stagnant wages, lost homes, lost jobs, more debt and higher costs of living. Factors that are not addressed when corporatist cheerleaders are on TV telling you how “it’s all behind us” and things are looking bullish again.

            In the U.S. we enjoyed a long period of general stability while under the “onerous” regulations put into place following the Great Depression. It was upon starting to remove those protections that economic instabilities markedly increased.

      • Tams80 says:

        If your going down that route, then will it really affect Notch much? Even if Oculus for Minecraft meant Minecraft sales carried on at high levels, Notch has no need for the money. He’s in the lucky position where he can afford to pick and choose according to what he thinks is right. He doesn’t like Facebook; so no official Oculus for Minecraft.

      • Lanfranc says:

        Because it’s better to be pleasantly surprised than to have your hopes crushed.

        • TCM says:

          I dunno, my perspective is that if you can be crushed by the failure of one thing you put hope in, you probably need to have a lighter outlook on life, and find humor in things.

          Things like war crimes, genocide, blood mining, human trafficking, conflict minerals, the lurching failure of the world’s economy, the gradual erosion of the right to privacy, etc.

          I personally find crimes against humanity to be hilarious, but I’m a deeply twisted individual.

          • Gap Gen says:

            Perhaps it’s the emotional equivalent of buying a lottery ticket rather than betting your house on a football game. You can’t control the outcome of either, but the stakes are far lower if you lose.

          • Volcanu says:

            Ooh blood mining. Now that IS a good idea for solving the donor crisis…

      • Consumatopia says:

        for all we know facebook could just subsidize the development to help bring it to the mainstream market(which is good because the more people buy it the more games will be made for it) and make apps to be used with it just like anyone else if it becomes successful.

        If that’s all Facebook wants to do with Occulus, why bother buying them? Why buy a company if you just plan to use the tech “like anyone else”? It only makes sense for a company to buy another if they expect to get some kind of exclusive benefit.

        • TCM says:

          The exclusive benefit they are gaining is the right to profit from a project once the collective will of humanity decides “Nope, facebook’s outdated, on to the new social network”.

          Well, other things too, but diversification is kind of a key part of any business strategy.

          • Consumatopia says:

            Occulus is not a new social network. It’s a piece of hardware that might somehow be used to communicate with a social network, but unless you plan to put some kind of exclusive control on that hardware, it’s hard to see what a social network gains by purchasing the hardware.

            It also doesn’t make sense for a company to just buy a dissimilar company for the sake of diversification–if Facebook feels that they have more money than they can profitably invest in their field, they can simply give that money to shareholders and any shareholder who feels that their portfolio lacks diversity can go ahead and invest in VR hardware instead of social networks (though, really, that’s still not a very diverse portfolio, is it?). It only makes sense for company A to buy company B if A thinks they can make more money as a single company than they can separately.

            And, in the case of Occulus and Facebook, maybe they can. But it’s a lot easier to think of “evil” ways to do so than benign.

          • AngusPrune says:

            People keep throwing around this idea that facebook is doing this to diversify. I’m not really sure they understand what that means.

            A business diversifies as a hedge against a decline in one aspect of their business. It guarantees continuity by ensuring that their assets are still valuable even in the event that unexpected future events basically kill off one line of business or send it in to terminal decline. Facebook’s chief assets are its user base, assuming it keeps it at the magical critical mass that makes a social network viable, and its human capital.

            Imagine now that Facebook’s social networking business were to be siphoned off by some upstart rival. How does Oculus guarantee them continuity? Their staff have fundamentally different skill sets, and Oculus really has no way to leverage Facebook’s user base to turn a profit despite hopeful burblings about advertising and digital goods. Having a bunch of scattered holdings is a risk enhancer, not a risk reducer.

    • Gap Gen says:

      I suspect someone will mod it in anyway.

      • Premium User Badge

        Malarious says:

        Minecrift (link to share.oculusvr.com) already exists. It’s a mod for Minecraft that enables Oculus support. People are seriously overreacting over this news. As long as Oculus remains an open platform that anyone can develop for (and let’s face it, it’s going to — it needs loads of supported applications to get any amount of traction) then who owns Oculus doesn’t matter. What matters is that the device and hardware itself is good. Guess what? The easiest way to make good hardware is loads of money for R&D. You know who has loads of money? Facebook.

        This deal is disastrous in only one circumstance: if Facebook decides to gate off Oculus development. I don’t think Zuckerberg is that stupid.

        As long as anyone can develop for the Oculus, all that matters is the quality of the hardware.

        • Cataclysm says:

          “People are over reacting, theres only one issue with this.”

          “The only issue is this HUGE issue that everyone is reacting over.”

          Its a potentionally critical issue for the Oculus that wholely depends on the owners decision. The owner now being someone who has a reputation of making this kind of critical decision… ergo the reaction is justified.

  23. Monkey says:

    What the fucking fuck fuck fuck?!

    Soon you’ll be able to buy tickets to a football game that you’ll never go to, wonder how much a virtual private box will be…

  24. bigluvin says:

    Welp OR just went from a preorder to I’ll wait and see if/when facebook screws this up somehow.

  25. yhalothar says:

    Well fuck. Talk about a mood killer.

    • CookPassBabtridge says:

      Like a skid mark on satin sheets

      • Michael Fogg says:

        That would mean like a car drove over the satin sheets? I can see how that ruins someone’s day.

        • Correa says:

          Just in case my head isn’t on straight but in the UK skid marks are what we mean for stains in underwear. Sorry if you knew and were just taking it the other way :)

          • matrixdll says:

            Well, talking about “mood killer” explanations : /
            p.s. I think I’ll skip OR and keep playing immersive games by sitting really close to hi-def TV

  26. Monkey says:

    So Valve give them all their tech on VR, and Occulus runs away and sells it to Facebook. Valve must be pissed, talk about selling out

    • Cataclysm says:

      If this is true, you raise a good point…

      Also, wasn’t this Kickstarted? Where does this sit with Kickstarter? An ownership change after receiving Kickstarter funds, which were given under the knowledge of the company being a small indie company, unable to fund the tech themselves. Now they walk away with Kickstarter funds AND Facebook funds aswell as the Kickstarters inadvertently Kickstarting a Facebook product…

  27. J. Cosmo Cohen says:

    I think it’s a brilliant move on Facebook’s part. I can see the potential for putting on a headset and feeling like I’m at a football game without actually leaving the house, or like we saw the other day here on RPS, shopping at a real store. The potential is there, obviously, but it definitely comes down to execution. If it’s setup at all like Facebook is (piss-poor UI, inane adverts), I’ll never touch it. But if it’s made with the gamer in mind first and foremost, I’ll probably give it a whirl.

    That being said, I’m probably being overly optimistic. My gut is telling me this is the end of my hopes for playing games with the Rift. Ah well.

  28. waltC says:

    Facebook investors should be royally peeved *if* this istrue. This is insane–what’s this about Carmack working for Facebook? I thought he resigned id to go to work exclusively at Occulus. This has got to be April fools, because if Carmack is *now* working for Facebook then this is a huge conflict of interest story. Mr. Z is likely to have his pants sued off–which is why I think this is definitely an April fool’s story…;) It is too horrific otherwise.

    • Lanfranc says:

      Considering Facebook’s share price compared to their profits, their investors are completely batshit insane themselves. Ridiculously overpriced company.

    • NotToBeLiked says:

      Conflict of which interests? Carmack left a software company to go work for a hardware company that now gets bought by an internet company… Why would anyone be able to sue Zuckerberg for that? Unfortunately it’s not illegal to be a horrible human being and destroy everyone else’s fun :(

      • waltC says:

        It would be a definite conflict of interest if Carmack was driving the sale and wound up with a multi-million-dollar commission in the deal. Oculus Rift needed Carmack’s “prestige” to get its initial $75M (prestige that is much higher in investment circles than in gaming circles these days, certainly), and it would not surprise me if Carmack was a major reason for this sale and that he had played a major role behind the scenes. If he got a giant commission out of it courtesy Facebook investors, then FB investors get screwed again. But as another poster aptly pointed out, they seem to welcome this kind of moronic behavior from Zuckerberg (who has too much money and too little experience…;)) I read a comment by Zuckerberg quoted on another site in which he reportedly said that he has no plan or expectation for the OR device in which he sees the final product *making a profit!* Hello? Then under what pretext is OR worth $2B in cash and stock?

        As it sits, OR doesn’t even have a marketable product at the moment so its actual value is close to 0. That, coupled with Zuckerberg’s remark about the eventual device not ever bringing in a profit for FB, ought to be raising eyebrows everywhere. But, maybe not. I would be very interested in knowing Carmack’s role and what, if anything, he got himself from the sale of this company he just joined that is making no products and generating no profits for anyone.

    • Contrafibularity says:

      No no no no, you misunderstand. Carmack isn’t working for Facebook, he has gone undercover with Facebook. At least that’s how I choose to interpret reality.

  29. Psyke says:

    And I was so looking forward to this whole VR thing.

  30. TwwIX says:

    And there goes my interest in the product.

  31. mootpoint says:


    • Vodka, Crisps, Plutonium says:

      Dear O.R. marketing department,
      I suggest you to pack your facebook-powered device with some warface premium kit and deliver it to your end userfaces under tha label of “F-F-FACE”, “3XFACE” or “FACECUBE” (or “CUBED PROFILE”, for all that matters)
      And then attempt to make Valve your, ahem, “companion” along your heartless venture.

      And then everyone will eat pie?

  32. caff says:

    I hate facebook.

    But I don’t really know whether this will be good or bad. Probably a bit of both.

  33. rocketman71 says:

    Why, why, WHY?.


    Sorry, can’t make more sense than that.

    Fucking Zuckerberg, go home and choke on your money already!.

  34. iucounu says:

    CUT TO: Facebook HQ

    ZUCKERBERG’S BUTLER: Your nerd tears, Sir.

    ZUCKERBERG: Thank you, Carmack,

    Five more years of youth!


  35. dazzle999 says:

    i was really happy with oc rift when it was announced, was even happier john carmack was involved (/bow quakeman)
    but after reading this i think im crawling back into my cave again cuz facebook of all evils srsly..
    link to 24.media.tumblr.com

  36. phenom_x8 says:

    Ha..ha.. Screw facebook.
    I still used it by the way (What an Hypocrite am I?) to organize meeting with my friend and relatives.
    Eat my privacy though, thank good there’s no important personal information tied to my name (no credit card, no social insurance, no etc ) due to the policies of my Country*
    *thank god for that
    Some of the commentary in the facebook post are quite funny by the way, like this :
    “Does this mean we are going to see a bunch of terrible FB social games on the Oculus now?”
    “Woohoo! Vr poking”
    “Mark please don’t buy my bed now thank you!”
    “Virtual Reality meets your high school friends. Wait, that’s Back To The Future, right?”

  37. Didden says:

    Now aren’t you all glad folks kickstarted this so a handful of folks could get rich quick? Sorry, but I always thought they would get bought out – this is why most american tech companies start up – not to make money gradually, but get to the point they are bought out and the founders and investors can cash in. Given they just had a round of investment, many folks there will be rubbing their hands together in glee.

  38. Dorga says:

    Daft…. I really wanted an Oculus, guess I’m not buying one anymore…

  39. buzzmong says:

    Initially I was thinking this would be very bad.

    It might not. Most commenters here (and elsewhere) are coming from the angle that Facebook as a product/service want this and will be using it for devious information scraping / spreading social media purposes.

    I’m wondering if it’s the fact Zuckerberg isn’t an idiot and is trying to diversify the corporation because the main product they’re currently known for potentially has limits or a limited shelf life. Very much trying to not put all the eggs in one basket, and they just happen to have picked a rather promising project to do that with. You could actually saying they’re doing what Google have done. Or you could say they’re trying to actively compete with Google in the fancy headgear market.

    • TCM says:

      Internet commenters understand business about as well as businessmen understand 4chan.

      • tumbleworld says:

        Says the internet commenter.

      • buzzmong says:

        Pffft. As that was directed at me, I should point out I do have a fairly good handle on how big mulitnationals operate, I was having a fingers-in-ear-moment and just felt like not stating the obvious reality of what the outcome of this purchase will be.

    • Tams80 says:

      I think that is what’s happening. I think Mark and co. know that Facebook isn’t really sustainable and not that profitable; just like a lot of what Google does isn’t.

      Oculus may see this as an easy way to get investment while maintaining control.

      Still; I’m not sure how well they thought out what the reaction would be like. Rather unsurprisingly a lot of people don’t want social networking so closely associated with the hardware they use. It’ll be interesting how the general public react; they likely almost all use Facebook without any qualms. Hell, Google Glass has been accepted by them quite well so far.

      Still, I now have active disinterest in the Rift. I think people who wear Google Glass are ‘glassholes’ though, so I might just be a little bias.

      • AngusPrune says:

        Nope. You’re looking at the wrong Mark.

        The person you should be interested in is Marc Andreessen. Who is on the board of facebook? Andreessen. Who’s VC firm invested in Oculus? Andreessen. Who is also on their board? Andreessen. Who now gets a massive pay-day? Andreessen.

        It’s sick. Oculus has nothing at all to do with Facebook’s core business and really can never be integrated. People should really be asking why a social networking site should be at all interested in the world of computer gaming peripherals.

  40. Chubzdoomer says:

    I so badly want to wake up tomorrow only to have this all be just some bad dream. Some REALLY BAD dream.

  41. Hogni Gylfason says:

    Considering the mediocre level of code drivel that underlies all of their solutions, any overlay and ad-push software that FB will undoubtedly attempt to squeeze into the OR drivers/interface application will be hacked on release day with relative ease. Thus leaving a hopefully well constructed piece of hardware from Oculus VR – usable without inane lowest common denominator shit splatter ejected with great force by the reeking anus of the advertisement spewing monolith RIGHT IN YOUR FACE – in the inventive ways that lovely indie devs construct all the time. Or they will make earth moving and construction simulators. Like fucking Minecraft.

    Where are the Huxleys of our times?

    No bitter. /weep

  42. The Sombrero Kid says:

    RE the Update: Yeah Facebook bought them because it has a passion for giving money to tech start ups and expects nothing in return.

    • TCM says:

      Why that’s actually a reasonable post, constructed using knowledge of history and news instead of hyperbole!

      Get that crap out of here. This is the INTERNET, and on the internet, the COMMENTS SECTION of a GAME NEWS ARTICLE.

      • Hogni Gylfason says:

        “Zuckerberg called out virtual reality as one of the computing platforms of the future — following desktops and mobile — and yes, talked about building Facebook’s advertising into it. Specifically, he talked about the potential of a virtual communication network, buying virtual goods, and down the line, advertising.” – link to engadget.com

        Constructed using “news”.

        • TCM says:

          Didn’t see that. It does change my view a little bit, but not enough to regret anything I’ve said.

          I’ll just do the sensible thing and wait and see before panicking.

          • Hogni Gylfason says:

            I would also like to make the point that if nothing is uttered by those with vested interest – and I would argue we do – no notice will be taken beyond the sickening brown-nosing in evidence on Mr. Zuckerbergs original post on FB. While somewhat strongly worded due to the heat of the moment, I stand by the words I wrote in my post above.

            My hope is that strongly competing offerings will be on hand, i.e. Morpheus or the Valve product which I suspect will be the subject of some discussion at Valve HQ tomorrow. My fear is that Sycophantic Apple Representative Syndrome (SARS) will prevail, where one giant with a practically unlimited advertisement budget, in this case even the purveyour of the main global outlet of said advertisements, will emerge as the mainstream product.

          • hilltop says:

            Not enough to regret anything you have said, you say.

            You have posted nothing but snide sarcasm in response to peoples’ concerns while alternatingly admitting to being insincere about it. And in the face of evidence in favour of those expressing concern you demonstrate no regrets.

            A treasured voice.

  43. Continuity says:

    What!? Just….. WTF.

    Seriously, what the hell does facebook and VR have in common? or is this just a speculative investment from Facebook? It makes no sense of any kind.

    I guess the flipside is a tiny startup just got a 2 $billion cash injection that should guarantee success of the rift.

    Kinda hard to know whether to cheer or cry.

    • NotToBeLiked says:

      Well no. Most likely the founders/current shareholders of Oculus got a big cash injection. The company might not see a dime of it.

      • Continuity says:

        Either way, Oculus is now bankrolled by Facebook, and thats going make a huge difference to the product and reach into the market place. Remains to be seen what the downsides of this will be.

        • NotToBeLiked says:

          There is no evidence they’ll get bankrolled by FB. On the contrary, they might just get plundered empty for patents. FB doesn’t care about VR or gaming, but they care about money. And with VR taking off again, I would not be surprised if they just used the Oculus patents to sue other companies for a big paycheck.

  44. LunyAlex says:

    Well that’s pretty short sighted…

    *Ba dum tss*

    No literally I want to cry.

  45. Gap Gen says:

    Looks like their turf war with Friends Reunited is taking its toll on Facebook and they need a way out of the social media game. Plus everyone under 15 has moved to Grindr.

  46. Reapy says:


    Won’t affect day to day operations? Sure. Can’t wait for the first time they have a meeting opening with ‘mark really thinks we should…’ Anything, make the interface in hack, focus more on ads, force you to login with your FB account, have this team write xyz, have this guy be your CEO.

    Occulous is fucked right out the door.

    That said, I’d eject for 2 billion in a heartbeat, don’t blame Palmer for going to a random dude in his garage to a billionaire in like 2 years.

    • Syphus says:

      Have you been in high-level meetings with Facebook before? Or are you just basing this off internet ranting? Anyway, Palmer has said straight up that this won’t affect the day to day, and given the fact that Instagram is completely separate (two completely different logins), I tend to believe them.

      There’s really no reason that Facebook would have to forcefully integrate Facebook into the Rift outside trying to paint Zuckerberg as some kind of Bond villain.