5 ms·

Own a Quest (1), use it nearly daily, and like my Quest. I won't even be looking at the Quest 2 because they now require a Facebook account to use it, and I ha

Own a Quest (1), use it nearly daily, and like my Quest. I won't even be looking at the Quest 2 because they now require a Facebook account to use it, and I have absolutely no interesting in that (from a privacy or integrations standpoint). I just want to game in peace. When I purchased my original Quest they were making guarantees that Facebook integrations were going to be optional, only to backtrack two years later.

scott31 6y ago
> guarantees that is a weird way to spell `lies`
- dylan604 6y ago
  more points in Scrabble that way
diggan 6y ago
> they were making guarantees Wasn't this a promise from Palmer Luckey as an individual, not a statement from either Oculus or Facebook? As a owner of Oculus, the difference doesn't really matter, it sucks none the less. But I think we're all better off never trusting what individuals nor for-profit companies says as they can always change their mind, especially if it brings them more money.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  “I want to make clear that those promises were approved by Facebook in that moment and on an ongoing basis,” Luckey said, “and I really believed it would continue to be the case for a variety of reasons. In hindsight, the downvotes from people with more real-world experience than me were definitely justified.”
donohoe 6y ago
But as you say, they will require that soon for the Quest 1.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  You can opt out on Quest 1 until at least next year. But they've said all future hardware will hard-require it from the start.
hardwaresofton 6y ago
This is going to be a big experiment in whether growing products need the early adopters that propel it to relevance and provide the early alpha/beta testing, development and QA in the early life of the product. If we assume that the VR and the Quest in particular are past the early adopter part of the graph, then FB actually doesn't care that it's pissed you off, maybe it doesn't mind jettisoning the helpful but disposable fuel tank (AKA early adopters, no offense) before hitting the mainstream. I wonder if someone has done this (rather cynical) calculus internally, and if so, if it's repeatable. There are echoes of this all over the product world -- API access on platforms are another prominent example, the rug pull from early adopters/builders on platforms seems orchestrated (in addition to inevitable) at this point.
shortandsweet 6y ago
What's your hard point about it? Seems like a dummy, fake, account would provide what you need? What other concerns do you have? Legitimately curious.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  Facebook don't allow dummy/fake accounts and haven't for quite some time[0]. So tying expensive game licenses to an account Facebook may close at any time is a non-starter. [0] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/misrepresentation https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/misrepresentatio...
  - shortandsweet 6y ago
    I dont see where a gaming account is prohibited? Maybe stretching the multiple accounts requirement but there are ways to navigate that.
    - Someone1234 6y ago
      There's no such thing as a "gaming account." They're the same account.
- distances 6y ago
  This was discussed in depth in a previous discussion in the topic, but your assumption that it's trivial to create a fake Facebook account for this is wrong. There may be different experiences but you should assume you'll need a valid mobile number or a valid-looking social graph, or both.
  - shortandsweet 6y ago
    How is my assumption wrong? They haven't even implemented it fully yet. There's google voice for a number. Probably other services that offer that. I think your post has a lot of assumptions... Social graph? What?
ryandrake 6y ago
I've got a Rift, and that will be my last Oculus purchase unfortunately (unless they divorce from Facebook). Love the product, hate that the rug was pulled out and I will soon need to be tethered to Facebook to use it. I should not have to get the manufacturers permission every time I use a product I bought.

scott31 6y ago

> guarantees that is a weird way to spell `lies`

dylan604 6y ago
more points in Scrabble that way

diggan 6y ago

> they were making guarantees Wasn't this a promise from Palmer Luckey as an individual, not a statement from either Oculus or Facebook? As a owner of Oculus, the difference doesn't really matter, it sucks none the less. But I think we're all better off never trusting what individuals nor for-profit companies says as they can always change their mind, especially if it brings them more money.

WillPostForFood 6y ago
“I want to make clear that those promises were approved by Facebook in that moment and on an ongoing basis,” Luckey said, “and I really believed it would continue to be the case for a variety of reasons. In hindsight, the downvotes from people with more real-world experience than me were definitely justified.”

donohoe 6y ago

But as you say, they will require that soon for the Quest 1.

Someone1234 6y ago
You can opt out on Quest 1 until at least next year. But they've said all future hardware will hard-require it from the start.

hardwaresofton 6y ago

This is going to be a big experiment in whether growing products need the early adopters that propel it to relevance and provide the early alpha/beta testing, development and QA in the early life of the product. If we assume that the VR and the Quest in particular are past the early adopter part of the graph, then FB actually doesn't care that it's pissed you off, maybe it doesn't mind jettisoning the helpful but disposable fuel tank (AKA early adopters, no offense) before hitting the mainstream. I wonder if someone has done this (rather cynical) calculus internally, and if so, if it's repeatable. There are echoes of this all over the product world -- API access on platforms are another prominent example, the rug pull from early adopters/builders on platforms seems orchestrated (in addition to inevitable) at this point.

shortandsweet 6y ago

What's your hard point about it? Seems like a dummy, fake, account would provide what you need? What other concerns do you have? Legitimately curious.

Someone1234 6y ago
Facebook don't allow dummy/fake accounts and haven't for quite some time[0]. So tying expensive game licenses to an account Facebook may close at any time is a non-starter. [0] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/misrepresentation https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/misrepresentatio...
- shortandsweet 6y ago
  I dont see where a gaming account is prohibited? Maybe stretching the multiple accounts requirement but there are ways to navigate that.
  - Someone1234 6y ago
    There's no such thing as a "gaming account." They're the same account.
distances 6y ago
This was discussed in depth in a previous discussion in the topic, but your assumption that it's trivial to create a fake Facebook account for this is wrong. There may be different experiences but you should assume you'll need a valid mobile number or a valid-looking social graph, or both.
- shortandsweet 6y ago
  How is my assumption wrong? They haven't even implemented it fully yet. There's google voice for a number. Probably other services that offer that. I think your post has a lot of assumptions... Social graph? What?

ryandrake 6y ago

I've got a Rift, and that will be my last Oculus purchase unfortunately (unless they divorce from Facebook). Love the product, hate that the rug was pulled out and I will soon need to be tethered to Facebook to use it. I should not have to get the manufacturers permission every time I use a product I bought.