6 ms·

The reaction by the community is completely irrational. Facebook has largely left Parse, Instagram, and WhatsApp alone. It hasn't required people to use Faceboo

The reaction by the community is completely irrational. Facebook has largely left Parse, Instagram, and WhatsApp alone. It hasn't required people to use Facebook to log into those services nor has it shoved ads in Parse developers' faces. By all accounts, they simply seem to be buying companies with great products and potential and just giving them the resources to continue to grow and improve. It makes absolutely zero sense for Facebook to meddle with Oculus by pursuing any of the ridiculous paths people are worried about like trying to integrate the Rift into the Facebook platform or turn away from the gaming community or charge for the SDK or any other tinfoil scenarios people are assuming Facebook will pursue. The truth is, the Sony announcement was a significant shot across the bow at Oculus. From all accounts their headset is already on par with the rift, plus they have a massive built in user base. Oculus may have had the support and interest of a subset of hardcore gamers behind them but that's small potatoes compared to the console market. With Facebook, they may actually have a fighting chance to retain their position as the leader in VR. On the upside, however, everyone is canceling their DK2 orders which should allow me to get mine earlier :)

Executor 13y ago
The issue is that Facebook has control over this technology and gives it more monopoly power. To decentralize the market Oculus shouldn't have sold out. Facebook is an unethical company that data mines its users. Facebook's treatment of its bought companies is irrelavent since it has ownership/control. You are the one without logic.
Riesling 13y ago
> The reaction by the community is completely irrational. I think you are missing the big picture because you are not realizing the potential of this technology (Mark probably has, that's why he bought Oculus). VR will absolutely change the way we interact with each other in the future. This is not about gaming at all. This is about people wearing VR headsets (which will probably look like sunglasses) in everyday situations (augmented reality). Oculus is the leader in this area and Facebook is in control now. For many people a possible utopia has turned into a dystopia over night.
- panacea 13y ago
  And I think you're wearing virtual-virtual goggles. "VR will absolutely change the way we interact with each other in the future." Probably... but OR was solving hardware/society challenges, and those challenges can't be solved by handing the reins to the masters of the fucked-up dystopia that is Facebook.
  - panacea 13y ago
    I should probably qualify my statement.... actually no. Social is me, my family and my friends! Fuck this Zuck dude's power trip.
- AUmrysh 13y ago
  Oculus may be the leader, but they're certainly not the only game in town. Jeri Ellsworth (Technical Illusions) with the CastAR, Sony has one, GameFace Labs, Durovis, etc. are all competitors. Even if Oculus is the best thing out there, their advances will quickly spread to the community. With the competition we're seeing in the area, it's going to be very crowded, I don't think Oculus being bought by Facebook is bad for consumers. It could be bad for Oculus, but it's not like Facebook is against open source (just look at their github), so I don't think we need to worry about them trying to squirrel away every advancement they make behind a patent or anything.
- marknutter 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure everybody who's even remotely interested in VR tech understands the potential it has to change the way we communicate and interact with us. But that's certainly not the only application, and I highly doubt Facebook will pursue that angle to the detriment of every other possibly application for VR, including gaming. If I were Mark, I would have bought Oculus, too. Not because it fits well with Facebook the product, but because VR is going to be amazing. The only thing I would have done differently than Mark is buy Oculus earlier.
  - leoc 13y ago
    One thing is that the Rift really isn't going to match well with Facebook the highly-mass-market product for a long time. I think the DK1's modest GPU demands have given people a misleading impression of what CV1 will actually cost to run. If Oculus takes the high road and ships a 2560×1440@90Hz CV1 before the end of 2014 then the total buy-in cost at launch could be $800-$900 even for most people who already have their own gaming PC handy: you'd need a powerful and power-hungry GPU, and no currently-existing SLI/Crossfire setup is going to cut it either. With such uncertain prospects for going it alone it seems clear why Oculus would want to be bought by Facebook; like a typical FB acquisition, what's less clear is why FB would want to buy Oculus, since the Rift will have comparatively few owners at first even if all goes well. Three possibilities: 1) Zuckerberg is worried that Oculus and all the other VR efforts could fail, leaving FB without a Next Big Thing to evolve into in future years as VR becomes affordable 2) Zuckerberg is worried that Oculus could fail while Project Morpheus succeeds, leaving VR a failure on the PC but successful on consoles. Sony would love to have its own hit social network, or to make Facebook grovel to gain access to the PS4 platform; Facebook would not enjoy it so much 3) Zuckerberg is another starry-eyed Oculus-loving geek, but unlike all the others he has the spare change to make sure that the VR dream stays alive My hunch is that it's some combination of all three. Other people are worried about FB wanting to exert proprietary control over the Rift "platform"; I'm less worried about that. If the Rift is a hit on the PC it will have competitors, which will put manners on Facebook and/or just give people somewhere else to go. If Oculus had gone it alone and failed, likely there would be no successful competitors for several years either, and FB logins would be the least of our concerns.
sbarron 13y ago
It seems unlikely that Facebook will mess Oculus in any significant way, and I agree a lot of the sky is falling reactions are irrational. However, a lot of people just don't trust Facebook, for rational reasons. It comes down to this: if one doesn't trust Facebook, why would one want to give their money to Facebook?
dclowd9901 13y ago
The Morpheus makes one wonder if Sony attempted to talk Oculus into making the device platform-exclusive and failed. This is all very Sony/Nintendo-ey circa PSX/N64...
- jzelinskie 13y ago
  I don't think this is the case. Sony's VR R&D has been in motion since 2010 and John Carmack initially tried to get them to hire Palmer Luckey before the founding of Oculus[0]. According to leaks, the model they showed off this year was nearly identical to one that they almost showed off around the PS4's launch[1]. Sony have been working on this a long time and, just like Oculus, have been trying to make sure they don't somehow ruin the market like past VR products have. VR for consoles is a very different product than VR for high performance computers; Sony has to make many more compromises to run on the PS4 hardware. [0] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/446122463747776512 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/446122463747776512 [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/20vzid/massive_information_leak_regarding_sonys_vr/ http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/20vzid/massive_infor...
anon4 13y ago
Your post is completely irrational. What sense does it make to be a facebook apologist? Why would you defend a company? Companies aren't people, being nice to one doesn't make it like you and treat you well. Facebook is a company. Facebook is also evil. The decision to immediately drop OculusVR like a hot potato the moment they got acquired by Facebook is a completely sound one.
- marknutter 13y ago
  I would agree with you if Facebook actually demonstrated a history of meddling with products the acquire but so far it doesn't appear they are inclined to do that. When Facebook bought Parse I had the same trepidation people are having about the Oculus acquisition (although with 80% less nerd-rage). To my delight, they have let Parse operate completely autonomously and the platform continues to grow and improve. By all accounts they have also given Instagram and Whatsapp the same autonomy. So why not wait and see instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, if you want to cancel your DK2 order that would make me very happy, especially if you ordered yours before me.
- xmonkee 13y ago
  So anyone ever defending any company ever is an irrational apologist? He at least gave some points. You just sounded like an angry teenager. And I'm not even a Facebook user, let alone fan.
pfraze 13y ago
You have to keep in mind how many of us saw this as a hacking and as a business opportunity to develop exactly what Facebook is now going to develop: VRUI platforms. That will still be possible, but this announcement means that there's a software player attached to the hardware, and they will try to maintain their platform position with it. On top of that, a lot of us are actively hoping to see the death of Facebook- I personally am, because I think they've acted unethically. (It's the job of IT professionals to protect users, not mine them.) Tying Facebook to the Rift means that the Rift is, well, part of that thing that I/we want to die. > It makes absolutely zero sense for Facebook to meddle with Oculus > With Facebook, they may actually have a fighting chance to retain their position as the leader in VR. How does Oculus get access to Facebook's builtin userbase, as Sony has, without having Facebook's software get involved? The only optimistic answer is that the purchase is an financial boost, but it didn't seem necessary. The Rift's strength was that it was purely PC - untied to any platform. They alienated the developer market they were cultivating by doing this. I've thought through the financial angles, I've thought through the "Sony and Valve were gonna beat them" angles, and I still think they're weak arguments. I think this is about Oculus building the software platform, and Facebook taking part in that.
- marknutter 13y ago
  > On top of that, a lot of us are actively hoping to see the death of Facebook- I personally am, because I think they've acted unethically. And this is really at the heart of all the nerd-rage. None of the responses I've seen are based on any kind of logic. They are completely emotional based on people's biases (justified or not) against Facebook the Product. If you look at Facebook's actions when it comes to their major acquisitions, ignoring all the controversy around Facebook the Product, you will see that they've been pretty good stewards of acquired tech so far. I was certainly impressed with their handling of Parse thus far. The way I see it, Facebook has been having a hard time coming up with their second act. Pretty much every new Facebook related feature or product has been a flop. So they are wisely looking to acquire rising stars rather than engineer them internally.
  - pfraze 13y ago
    Right, and I have no problem with all the good points you just mentioned. I like their success, I like the engineers doing good work there, and I get their business position. But I'm going to use an exaggerated metaphor: Facebook is like a surgeon that quietly removes and sells patients' organs, then handles complaints with "hey, you can't beat my price!" It's part of IT ethics to protect users from things they lack the expertise to handle themselves. Facebook has done the opposite: they've pushed people to over-expose themselves. They had the resources and the position to create a self-hosted product that meshes with their network and keeps the social dataset segmented and private, but they didn't. It matters that they didn't. Not in a nerd-rage way, in an ethical way. You may not agree with that, but you should try to understand the position as something deeper than "nerd-rage."
Argorak 13y ago
Yes, people _are_ irrational, especially the gaming community, that is largely driven by emotions. Also, Facebook gaming is seen as a huge danger for many "core gamers", so it isn't just anyone buying their stuff.
- marknutter 13y ago
  Facebook didn't create any of those games, though. Companies like Zinga did. Facebook provided the users and the platform, yes, but they have never been a games company. It's silly to conflate Zinga and Facebook/
  - Argorak 13y ago
    Facebook did create the ecosystem and the platform for these games, so "Facebook games" is a thing, one way or the other. It is also silly not to acknowledge that effect.
grovulent 13y ago
And facebook always makes good decisions right? Look at how they interpreted mobile. It's a device which is multi-faceted, multi-purpose... and they turn it into a bloody facebook window (facebook home) - getting in the way of how most people actually interact with their phone. If you think they are going to let Oculus develop freely without their completely self-absorbed facebook centric mindset, you're kidding yourself.
patrickk 13y ago
> From all accounts their headset is already on par with the rift... From what I've read this isn't true at all. Have a read of this excellent Valve slide deck on VR, which touches on the technical challenges: http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2013/MAbrashGDC2013.pdf http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2013/MAbrashGDC2013... My understanding is that the vision that Oculus has for their consumer product is x2 1080p screens (at a minimum, ideally x2 4K screens or even higher, if the supply chain was ready), one for each eye, to eliminate the screen door effect and deliver true immersion. Supporting x2 1080p screens (or above) requires serious graphical horsepower as you can imagine. The PS4 has nowhere near that ability for graphics. I saw a comment saying the "PS4 is a mid level gaming PC", so do you think that the PS4 will deliver the jaw dropping visuals and immersion required to blow away consumers on their first VR experience and change gaming forever? I suspect the PS4 might only be capable of supporting x2 720p screens (based on what I've read about the PS4), which would deliver a hugely compromised vision of what VR could be compared to what Oculus' original vision was/is. It would be even more disappointing if Sony had a compromised product that made loads of money, as this would send the signal to VR companies that it's ok to not shoot for the stars with a consumer VR product. Oculus stated all along that they wont release consumer product until its ready, which was credible as they had to answer to no one (except if you count the hopes and dreams of backers that had no equity, and VCs that bought into their vision.) Now there is huge uncertainty with this bolt from the blue acquisition. People here defending Facebook are comparing the acquisition to Instagram and WhatsApp. Those companies may have a lot of users, but they don't fundamentally promise to make a massive leap forward into a virtual universe, a kind of a leap forward not seen since Carmack implemented 3D graphics in the original Doom. No nerds here give a fuck about photo sharing with filters, or SMS over the web. Those aren't exciting leaps, they can be cloned easily, there aren't the same technical challenges to be overcome. Facebook is welcome to buy those types of companies. VR, however, with the team Oculus has, had the potential to do something great, with zero compromises or outside pressure. Now all that has been thrown into doubt. I'd sum up the reaction here as: - those who are annoyed that Oculus' independence is compromised by a company with long history of privacy abuse - disbelief that those who chipped in good faith now have contributed to another way for Facebook to mine users for data and stick ads in front of their eyeballs - For those who chipped in on kickstarter: they added value to a company with a long history of privacy abuse instead of ultimately funding what they thought would be an independent entity with amazing technical talent and vision If Oculus felt that threatened by Sony, I'm sure they could raise tens of millions on very favourable terms, in very short space of time. I'm so disappointed that there is a risk of the original vision being compromised, I hope Valve or someone else picks up where Oculus left off if there is indeed a comprise because of this acquisition.

Executor 13y ago

The issue is that Facebook has control over this technology and gives it more monopoly power. To decentralize the market Oculus shouldn't have sold out. Facebook is an unethical company that data mines its users. Facebook's treatment of its bought companies is irrelavent since it has ownership/control. You are the one without logic.

Riesling 13y ago

> The reaction by the community is completely irrational. I think you are missing the big picture because you are not realizing the potential of this technology (Mark probably has, that's why he bought Oculus). VR will absolutely change the way we interact with each other in the future. This is not about gaming at all. This is about people wearing VR headsets (which will probably look like sunglasses) in everyday situations (augmented reality). Oculus is the leader in this area and Facebook is in control now. For many people a possible utopia has turned into a dystopia over night.

panacea 13y ago
And I think you're wearing virtual-virtual goggles. "VR will absolutely change the way we interact with each other in the future." Probably... but OR was solving hardware/society challenges, and those challenges can't be solved by handing the reins to the masters of the fucked-up dystopia that is Facebook.
- panacea 13y ago
  I should probably qualify my statement.... actually no. Social is me, my family and my friends! Fuck this Zuck dude's power trip.
AUmrysh 13y ago
Oculus may be the leader, but they're certainly not the only game in town. Jeri Ellsworth (Technical Illusions) with the CastAR, Sony has one, GameFace Labs, Durovis, etc. are all competitors. Even if Oculus is the best thing out there, their advances will quickly spread to the community. With the competition we're seeing in the area, it's going to be very crowded, I don't think Oculus being bought by Facebook is bad for consumers. It could be bad for Oculus, but it's not like Facebook is against open source (just look at their github), so I don't think we need to worry about them trying to squirrel away every advancement they make behind a patent or anything.
marknutter 13y ago
I'm pretty sure everybody who's even remotely interested in VR tech understands the potential it has to change the way we communicate and interact with us. But that's certainly not the only application, and I highly doubt Facebook will pursue that angle to the detriment of every other possibly application for VR, including gaming. If I were Mark, I would have bought Oculus, too. Not because it fits well with Facebook the product, but because VR is going to be amazing. The only thing I would have done differently than Mark is buy Oculus earlier.
- leoc 13y ago
  One thing is that the Rift really isn't going to match well with Facebook the highly-mass-market product for a long time. I think the DK1's modest GPU demands have given people a misleading impression of what CV1 will actually cost to run. If Oculus takes the high road and ships a 2560×1440@90Hz CV1 before the end of 2014 then the total buy-in cost at launch could be $800-$900 even for most people who already have their own gaming PC handy: you'd need a powerful and power-hungry GPU, and no currently-existing SLI/Crossfire setup is going to cut it either. With such uncertain prospects for going it alone it seems clear why Oculus would want to be bought by Facebook; like a typical FB acquisition, what's less clear is why FB would want to buy Oculus, since the Rift will have comparatively few owners at first even if all goes well. Three possibilities: 1) Zuckerberg is worried that Oculus and all the other VR efforts could fail, leaving FB without a Next Big Thing to evolve into in future years as VR becomes affordable 2) Zuckerberg is worried that Oculus could fail while Project Morpheus succeeds, leaving VR a failure on the PC but successful on consoles. Sony would love to have its own hit social network, or to make Facebook grovel to gain access to the PS4 platform; Facebook would not enjoy it so much 3) Zuckerberg is another starry-eyed Oculus-loving geek, but unlike all the others he has the spare change to make sure that the VR dream stays alive My hunch is that it's some combination of all three. Other people are worried about FB wanting to exert proprietary control over the Rift "platform"; I'm less worried about that. If the Rift is a hit on the PC it will have competitors, which will put manners on Facebook and/or just give people somewhere else to go. If Oculus had gone it alone and failed, likely there would be no successful competitors for several years either, and FB logins would be the least of our concerns.

sbarron 13y ago

It seems unlikely that Facebook will mess Oculus in any significant way, and I agree a lot of the sky is falling reactions are irrational. However, a lot of people just don't trust Facebook, for rational reasons. It comes down to this: if one doesn't trust Facebook, why would one want to give their money to Facebook?

dclowd9901 13y ago

The Morpheus makes one wonder if Sony attempted to talk Oculus into making the device platform-exclusive and failed. This is all very Sony/Nintendo-ey circa PSX/N64...

jzelinskie 13y ago
I don't think this is the case. Sony's VR R&D has been in motion since 2010 and John Carmack initially tried to get them to hire Palmer Luckey before the founding of Oculus[0]. According to leaks, the model they showed off this year was nearly identical to one that they almost showed off around the PS4's launch[1]. Sony have been working on this a long time and, just like Oculus, have been trying to make sure they don't somehow ruin the market like past VR products have. VR for consoles is a very different product than VR for high performance computers; Sony has to make many more compromises to run on the PS4 hardware. [0] https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/446122463747776512 https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/446122463747776512 [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/20vzid/massive_information_leak_regarding_sonys_vr/ http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/20vzid/massive_infor...

anon4 13y ago

Your post is completely irrational. What sense does it make to be a facebook apologist? Why would you defend a company? Companies aren't people, being nice to one doesn't make it like you and treat you well. Facebook is a company. Facebook is also evil. The decision to immediately drop OculusVR like a hot potato the moment they got acquired by Facebook is a completely sound one.

marknutter 13y ago
I would agree with you if Facebook actually demonstrated a history of meddling with products the acquire but so far it doesn't appear they are inclined to do that. When Facebook bought Parse I had the same trepidation people are having about the Oculus acquisition (although with 80% less nerd-rage). To my delight, they have let Parse operate completely autonomously and the platform continues to grow and improve. By all accounts they have also given Instagram and Whatsapp the same autonomy. So why not wait and see instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, if you want to cancel your DK2 order that would make me very happy, especially if you ordered yours before me.
xmonkee 13y ago
So anyone ever defending any company ever is an irrational apologist? He at least gave some points. You just sounded like an angry teenager. And I'm not even a Facebook user, let alone fan.

pfraze 13y ago

You have to keep in mind how many of us saw this as a hacking and as a business opportunity to develop exactly what Facebook is now going to develop: VRUI platforms. That will still be possible, but this announcement means that there's a software player attached to the hardware, and they will try to maintain their platform position with it. On top of that, a lot of us are actively hoping to see the death of Facebook- I personally am, because I think they've acted unethically. (It's the job of IT professionals to protect users, not mine them.) Tying Facebook to the Rift means that the Rift is, well, part of that thing that I/we want to die. > It makes absolutely zero sense for Facebook to meddle with Oculus > With Facebook, they may actually have a fighting chance to retain their position as the leader in VR. How does Oculus get access to Facebook's builtin userbase, as Sony has, without having Facebook's software get involved? The only optimistic answer is that the purchase is an financial boost, but it didn't seem necessary. The Rift's strength was that it was purely PC - untied to any platform. They alienated the developer market they were cultivating by doing this. I've thought through the financial angles, I've thought through the "Sony and Valve were gonna beat them" angles, and I still think they're weak arguments. I think this is about Oculus building the software platform, and Facebook taking part in that.

marknutter 13y ago
> On top of that, a lot of us are actively hoping to see the death of Facebook- I personally am, because I think they've acted unethically. And this is really at the heart of all the nerd-rage. None of the responses I've seen are based on any kind of logic. They are completely emotional based on people's biases (justified or not) against Facebook the Product. If you look at Facebook's actions when it comes to their major acquisitions, ignoring all the controversy around Facebook the Product, you will see that they've been pretty good stewards of acquired tech so far. I was certainly impressed with their handling of Parse thus far. The way I see it, Facebook has been having a hard time coming up with their second act. Pretty much every new Facebook related feature or product has been a flop. So they are wisely looking to acquire rising stars rather than engineer them internally.
- pfraze 13y ago
  Right, and I have no problem with all the good points you just mentioned. I like their success, I like the engineers doing good work there, and I get their business position. But I'm going to use an exaggerated metaphor: Facebook is like a surgeon that quietly removes and sells patients' organs, then handles complaints with "hey, you can't beat my price!" It's part of IT ethics to protect users from things they lack the expertise to handle themselves. Facebook has done the opposite: they've pushed people to over-expose themselves. They had the resources and the position to create a self-hosted product that meshes with their network and keeps the social dataset segmented and private, but they didn't. It matters that they didn't. Not in a nerd-rage way, in an ethical way. You may not agree with that, but you should try to understand the position as something deeper than "nerd-rage."

Argorak 13y ago

Yes, people _are_ irrational, especially the gaming community, that is largely driven by emotions. Also, Facebook gaming is seen as a huge danger for many "core gamers", so it isn't just anyone buying their stuff.

marknutter 13y ago
Facebook didn't create any of those games, though. Companies like Zinga did. Facebook provided the users and the platform, yes, but they have never been a games company. It's silly to conflate Zinga and Facebook/
- Argorak 13y ago
  Facebook did create the ecosystem and the platform for these games, so "Facebook games" is a thing, one way or the other. It is also silly not to acknowledge that effect.

grovulent 13y ago

And facebook always makes good decisions right? Look at how they interpreted mobile. It's a device which is multi-faceted, multi-purpose... and they turn it into a bloody facebook window (facebook home) - getting in the way of how most people actually interact with their phone. If you think they are going to let Oculus develop freely without their completely self-absorbed facebook centric mindset, you're kidding yourself.

patrickk 13y ago

> From all accounts their headset is already on par with the rift... From what I've read this isn't true at all. Have a read of this excellent Valve slide deck on VR, which touches on the technical challenges: http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2013/MAbrashGDC2013.pdf http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2013/MAbrashGDC2013... My understanding is that the vision that Oculus has for their consumer product is x2 1080p screens (at a minimum, ideally x2 4K screens or even higher, if the supply chain was ready), one for each eye, to eliminate the screen door effect and deliver true immersion. Supporting x2 1080p screens (or above) requires serious graphical horsepower as you can imagine. The PS4 has nowhere near that ability for graphics. I saw a comment saying the "PS4 is a mid level gaming PC", so do you think that the PS4 will deliver the jaw dropping visuals and immersion required to blow away consumers on their first VR experience and change gaming forever? I suspect the PS4 might only be capable of supporting x2 720p screens (based on what I've read about the PS4), which would deliver a hugely compromised vision of what VR could be compared to what Oculus' original vision was/is. It would be even more disappointing if Sony had a compromised product that made loads of money, as this would send the signal to VR companies that it's ok to not shoot for the stars with a consumer VR product. Oculus stated all along that they wont release consumer product until its ready, which was credible as they had to answer to no one (except if you count the hopes and dreams of backers that had no equity, and VCs that bought into their vision.) Now there is huge uncertainty with this bolt from the blue acquisition. People here defending Facebook are comparing the acquisition to Instagram and WhatsApp. Those companies may have a lot of users, but they don't fundamentally promise to make a massive leap forward into a virtual universe, a kind of a leap forward not seen since Carmack implemented 3D graphics in the original Doom. No nerds here give a fuck about photo sharing with filters, or SMS over the web. Those aren't exciting leaps, they can be cloned easily, there aren't the same technical challenges to be overcome. Facebook is welcome to buy those types of companies. VR, however, with the team Oculus has, had the potential to do something great, with zero compromises or outside pressure. Now all that has been thrown into doubt. I'd sum up the reaction here as: - those who are annoyed that Oculus' independence is compromised by a company with long history of privacy abuse - disbelief that those who chipped in good faith now have contributed to another way for Facebook to mine users for data and stick ads in front of their eyeballs - For those who chipped in on kickstarter: they added value to a company with a long history of privacy abuse instead of ultimately funding what they thought would be an independent entity with amazing technical talent and vision If Oculus felt that threatened by Sony, I'm sure they could raise tens of millions on very favourable terms, in very short space of time. I'm so disappointed that there is a risk of the original vision being compromised, I hope Valve or someone else picks up where Oculus left off if there is indeed a comprise because of this acquisition.