6 ms·

No, it sends a message that you shouldn't bother with the customers you can't please no matter what you do, and just focus on the ones who don't get so emotiona

No, it sends a message that you shouldn't bother with the customers you can't please no matter what you do, and just focus on the ones who don't get so emotional about stuff like this.

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
No, it sends a message that you are still a fuckerberg who thinks your users are "dumb fucks"... and you are. fuck a zuck
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chrischen 10y ago
We keep punishing because we're still not satisfied, and because we can't catch their wrong doing all the time so we punish them to detract from their aggregate gains from wrong-doing.
- corysama 10y ago
  So, you punish them for their assumed transgressions. That's rather medieval of you.
  - nilkn 10y ago
    The transgressions are not assumed. All they've done is reverted a small piece of DRM that was leading to piracy. They have not opened up their store at all. It's still completely closed to non-Oculus hardware. Perhaps you're missing context to understand why people are upset. Oculus has went so far as to actually pay developers of open, non-exclusive VR games to restrict their games to the Rift and Touch only, either indefinitely or for a period of at least six months. These are games that were already in development. In one case, people had even pre-ordered Giant Cop for the Vive through the Humble Bundle, but Oculus purchased timed exclusivity rights for the game afterwards. It's a really nasty situation, and Oculus deserves every bit of criticism they've received. This reversal of a tiny piece of their overall exclusivity strategy does not in any way diminish or undo everything else they've been doing. In fact, it's completely irrelevant for anyone who wasn't planning on pirating content.
    - corysama 10y ago
      Everything you've listed is well publicized and I'm quite unhappy about. "because we can't catch their wrong doing all the time" made it sound like you assumed there was even more that we have not caught, so let's keep punishing them based on that assumption.
      - towelrod 10y ago
        The person you are responding to never said "because we can't catch their wrong doing all the time"
      - nilkn 10y ago
        I'm not the person who wrote that.
    - abiox 10y ago
      > They have not opened up their store at all. It's still completely closed to non-Oculus hardware. i don't follow this VR stuff; why should Oculus do that?
      - BigJono 10y ago
        Because it's anti-consumer and it stifles innovation. It's the same problem with console exclusives. It allows a company to release an inferior hardware product and crush the market by using other people's software offerings, rather than have to compete on the hardware front.
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        Same reasons why nvidia shouldn't pay anyone to make sure a game won't run on ATi cards?
  - davvolun 10y ago
    Are 'punitive damages' medieval? If Oculus takes anti-consumer measures, then reverses course and consumers jump back on board as if nothing ever happened, why wouldn't they re-enact those measures once they have the leverage to do so? If HTC does capture the lion's share of the market, and they see there were no long-term consequences to enacting those anti-consumer measures, why wouldn't HTC do the same? These companies aren't your friend. As is always stated, they exist to make money, whether that's in the best interest of the consumer or not. That's capitalism, that's fine. Certainly in this space, I don't think anyone is realistically arguing that there is some better method (would the R&D emerge to create and market VR in a communist society? Seems unlikely to me). That doesn't justify not taking punitive action against anti-consumer businesses/actions (Facebook, e.g.); for the system to work, consumers need to be avidly pro-consumer.
michaelmrose 10y ago
How hard is it not to try to embrace extend extinguish the VR headset market. How can you possibly conflate those who aren't pleased with scummy companies manipulative nonsense with "can't please no matter what you do". Its actually relatively easy to please most people. Make something worthwhile, take their money, fix it when it breaks. It usually becomes complicated because people want to give people as little as possible, rake them over the coals as hard as possible and blame someone else when it breaks.

No, it sends a message that you shouldn't bother with the customers you can't please no matter what you do, and just focus on the ones who don't get so emotional about stuff like this.

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago

No, it sends a message that you are still a fuckerberg who thinks your users are "dumb fucks"... and you are. fuck a zuck

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

chrischen 10y ago

We keep punishing because we're still not satisfied, and because we can't catch their wrong doing all the time so we punish them to detract from their aggregate gains from wrong-doing.

corysama 10y ago
So, you punish them for their assumed transgressions. That's rather medieval of you.
- nilkn 10y ago
  The transgressions are not assumed. All they've done is reverted a small piece of DRM that was leading to piracy. They have not opened up their store at all. It's still completely closed to non-Oculus hardware. Perhaps you're missing context to understand why people are upset. Oculus has went so far as to actually pay developers of open, non-exclusive VR games to restrict their games to the Rift and Touch only, either indefinitely or for a period of at least six months. These are games that were already in development. In one case, people had even pre-ordered Giant Cop for the Vive through the Humble Bundle, but Oculus purchased timed exclusivity rights for the game afterwards. It's a really nasty situation, and Oculus deserves every bit of criticism they've received. This reversal of a tiny piece of their overall exclusivity strategy does not in any way diminish or undo everything else they've been doing. In fact, it's completely irrelevant for anyone who wasn't planning on pirating content.
  - corysama 10y ago
    Everything you've listed is well publicized and I'm quite unhappy about. "because we can't catch their wrong doing all the time" made it sound like you assumed there was even more that we have not caught, so let's keep punishing them based on that assumption.
    - towelrod 10y ago
      The person you are responding to never said "because we can't catch their wrong doing all the time"
    - nilkn 10y ago
      I'm not the person who wrote that.
  - abiox 10y ago
    > They have not opened up their store at all. It's still completely closed to non-Oculus hardware. i don't follow this VR stuff; why should Oculus do that?
    - BigJono 10y ago
      Because it's anti-consumer and it stifles innovation. It's the same problem with console exclusives. It allows a company to release an inferior hardware product and crush the market by using other people's software offerings, rather than have to compete on the hardware front.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      Same reasons why nvidia shouldn't pay anyone to make sure a game won't run on ATi cards?
- davvolun 10y ago
  Are 'punitive damages' medieval? If Oculus takes anti-consumer measures, then reverses course and consumers jump back on board as if nothing ever happened, why wouldn't they re-enact those measures once they have the leverage to do so? If HTC does capture the lion's share of the market, and they see there were no long-term consequences to enacting those anti-consumer measures, why wouldn't HTC do the same? These companies aren't your friend. As is always stated, they exist to make money, whether that's in the best interest of the consumer or not. That's capitalism, that's fine. Certainly in this space, I don't think anyone is realistically arguing that there is some better method (would the R&D emerge to create and market VR in a communist society? Seems unlikely to me). That doesn't justify not taking punitive action against anti-consumer businesses/actions (Facebook, e.g.); for the system to work, consumers need to be avidly pro-consumer.

michaelmrose 10y ago

How hard is it not to try to embrace extend extinguish the VR headset market. How can you possibly conflate those who aren't pleased with scummy companies manipulative nonsense with "can't please no matter what you do". Its actually relatively easy to please most people. Make something worthwhile, take their money, fix it when it breaks. It usually becomes complicated because people want to give people as little as possible, rake them over the coals as hard as possible and blame someone else when it breaks.