Live data from Hacker News

Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

uploadvr.com

131–140 of 144 posts

Re: Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At first I defended the Facebook buyout because it seemed like a logical move. I feel Oculus was pressured into the buyout because valve was about to kill them. Truth is, Carmarck joining the team made it all that much sweeter. If you read through the lines of some of Palmer's communications, it's obvious that there is a rift between Oculus and Facebook that no one is talking about. Carmarck, being Carmarck keeps pus…

> Carmarck Carmack. Only one 'r' in the name.

Thanks for reminding me I'm on the internet.

Re: Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

#132
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the article and never got that impression. If anything, he was grateful to facebook for not only purchasing the company, but also believing in his vision.

It's not the case. Iribe just sold everyone out. He made 5 minute (like literally) decision all by himself. Everyone (Palmer, Carmack, Abrash) heard about Facebook acquisition after the deal was already set. It was already to late for them to do anything at that point. It might as well be, that everything they said after was just a part of facebook damage control operation.

Carmack was definitely taken by surprise, though he did eventually voice approval: http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/30/5563440/john-carmack-faceb...

Facebook's acquisition of Oculus was announced only a few days before Michael Abrash publicly joined the company. Not sure when Abrash made the decision to leave Valve for Oculus. He did shine a positive light on the Facebook acquisition in his welcome post, but as you suggested it's not as if he was going to badmouth his new employer either way: https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/introducing-michael-abrash...

Palmer Luckey, it seems, was at the very least aware of Facebook's interest and informed of the buy-out, though it sounds like Brendan Iribe handled the business decisions.

This was the best source I could find on what went on behind the scenes between Zuckerberg and Iribe:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/09/oculus-rift-mark-zuck...

> Discussions ensued over the next few weeks, during which Facebook offered roughly $1 billion, which Iribe considered low. The deal seemed to peter out until late February, after news of the WhatsApp deal hit: Facebook had agreed to pay $19 billion for the messaging service. That got Iribe’s attention. “Hey Mark,” he wrote in an e-mail, “we should talk.”

> They agreed to meet. “Come up and see me,” Zuckerberg said, according to Iribe. “I’m not going to waste your time.”

> Iribe met with Zuckerberg for brunch on the patio at Zuckerberg’s Palo Alto home on a Sunday, in March. They ordered pizza, and Zuckerberg made a new offer: more than $2 billion in cash and stock. It was rich, considering that Oculus had not yet released a consumer product. Zuckerberg promised that Oculus would operate independently within Facebook, just as Instagram did and WhatsApp would. There would be games, sure, but eventually much more: news, sports, movies and TV, cat videos—everything. “I want to do this, and I want this to be the future of Facebook, long-term,” Zuckerberg said, but Iribe would have to act quickly and promise not to shop the deal.

> Oculus, by this point, had a board of directors that included four venture capitalists, one of whom was Andreessen. The board would have to approve the deal. Andreessen hated the idea of selling so quickly, without talking to Facebook’s competitors. “Don’t do this! Don’t do this! Don’t do this!” Iribe recalls Andreessen saying during a late-night meeting at his house after Zuckerberg’s initial offer. (In light of his role on Facebook’s board, Andreessen recused himself after Oculus’s founders began negotiations with Zuckerberg in earnest.) But the board approved the deal.

> It was sealed at Zuckerberg’s house just three days after his and Iribe’s Sunday meeting, over a dinner featuring mushroom risotto and scallops. The meal, Luckey recalls, was “so good.” And Facebook was the right fit. “I knew I was going to want to work in V.R. for the rest of my life. Anything that can make the industry big and successful … that’s a supercool world that I want to live in.”

Re: Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deserts is an archaic word meaning "reward", i.e. a kind of noun form of "deserve".

It's those things left for you - which have been desert ed.

No, that usage has a different etymology. Compare:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/desert#Etymology_1

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/desert#Etymology_3

Re: Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

#134
As much as I'd like to see an "underdog" win the VR wars I think the Space race to market is a very small part of the battle. Facebook will be able to market non-gaming apps much better then gaming companies, imo, and so don't necessarily have to be first, just eventually get close to parity (which is inevitable).

Re: Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

#135
post #54
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's far more likely that they've maintained their position through first-mover advantage than anything else. Steam is a website wrapped in an application that was built before building applications out of websites was cool, and it shows -- what you get is an outdated version of WebKit and a video player that somehow manages to be worse than the one Polygon uses, and Steam doesn't even have "monetization" as…

I don't agree. I think the first-mover advantage gave them a big leg up, but people wouldn't have kept using the platform for 12 years if they were relying entirely on that. Competitors like Origin might have had a fighting chance if Valve hadn't constantly been creating a superior suite of products. You mention issues with Early Access and Greenlight, but these seem like trivial problems when compared to how solid t…

I hate steam and I rarely use its features outside its store and the friends list. Yet steam remains my primary digital distributor exactly because they got there first.

Later it has basically become impossible to avoid steam, if you want access to every game at least. X-com for instance required steam. Steam is also where all my friends have their profiles.

Even if steam didn't have a monopoly on certain games they still own the access to your library and won't allow you to take it with you.

If you ask me valve is right up there with the worst of them as far as exploiting their monopoly goes.

Re: Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only learned this recently, but it's actually spelled "just deserts". Although desserts (sweet confections) are often associated with rewards, the word "deserts" refers to the element of distributive justice. Source: I wrote a paper about this for a class and got a C+.

Deserts is an archaic word meaning "reward", i.e. a kind of noun form of "deserve".

"Just Desserts" would be a great name for a bakery, no?

Re: Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that about the Wii, but me and my lads still stand to play that. The games are a bit crap, so we only play for an hour or so, but standing to play isn't an issue for us (much to my surprise)

The Wii may actually be a case in point, since it never really got that much consumer uptake, and no other platform has picked up the mantle with physically active games. As with the Vive, it seemed like the future at the time, the concept games were a lot of fun, and it scared competing platforms to rush out imitating products (Xbox Kinect, PS Move). But neither have ultimately had much adoption.

The kinect was crap. It was almost good, but it just wasn't there, it would miss things, get confused, it wouldn't pick up one of my lads (he was too small?) and the games were really boring.

Re: Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that about the Wii, but me and my lads still stand to play that. The games are a bit crap, so we only play for an hour or so, but standing to play isn't an issue for us (much to my surprise)

The Wii may actually be a case in point, since it never really got that much consumer uptake, and no other platform has picked up the mantle with physically active games. As with the Vive, it seemed like the future at the time, the concept games were a lot of fun, and it scared competing platforms to rush out imitating products (Xbox Kinect, PS Move). But neither have ultimately had much adoption.

I feel like the happiest Kinect customers were research groups and some artists, because it was the first really cheap depth camera system you could buy readymade.

Re: Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

#139
Rift has two major advantages that made me choose it:

1. Doesn't require to hang stuff on walls, a single sensor beside the monitor is enough. For me dedicating a room to VR is out of the question.

2. It has built in headphones. Yes they look "cheap" on pictures, but when you actually use a VR headset that goes on and off a lot you appreciate the convenience. Sound is also VERY good in them.

I don't get the blind Facebook hate and Steam fanboyism. Remember Steam is a 35% taking monopoly on PC gaming. If anything that monopoly needs to be dealt with.

Re: Growing Rift Between Valve and Oculus

#140
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. I think the first-mover advantage gave them a big leg up, but people wouldn't have kept using the platform for 12 years if they were relying entirely on that. Competitors like Origin might have had a fighting chance if Valve hadn't constantly been creating a superior suite of products. You mention issues with Early Access and Greenlight, but these seem like trivial problems when compared to how solid t…

I hate steam and I rarely use its features outside its store and the friends list. Yet steam remains my primary digital distributor exactly because they got there first. Later it has basically become impossible to avoid steam, if you want access to every game at least. X-com for instance required steam. Steam is also where all my friends have their profiles. Even if steam didn't have a monopoly on certain games they…

What has Valve done that's so bad in terms of "exploiting their monopology"? I honestly don't know what you're referring to. They do not even request store exclusivity from developers. If a developer or publisher decided to require Steam, that was their decision, not Valve's.

I guess you could point to Steam's DRM, but it's always had that, long before it was the de facto standard platform and before any monopoly existed.

Post reply on HN