Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 359 posts

Re: FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

#331

Post by ynx »

oauea wrote: post #274
ynx wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a horrible, rude, and insanely demeaning take. Formerly one of those developers, finally got fed up with the beast and left. I continue to do VR dev. 1. The internals were actually some of the most robust software I've ever seen. 2. People who worked on it originally were some of the best devs I've ever seen across multiple companies 3. They uniformly got burnt out by incredible harassment from people who hat…

Shouldn't have locked it behind a Facebook login then, eh? It could be the best thing since sliced bread, but it belongs on a trash heap as long as it requires a facebook login.

Agreed 100%.

I draw the line at "wishing ill upon its developers". Yeah, we were a part of the beast and responsible for its output. And I did quit, as the sibling comment failed to notice in its blunt anger. Login was beyond controversial even amongst my peers.

My point was: If, as a critic of Oculus, you look for someone to feel a dull sense of non-actionable vengeance against, aim higher.

I left and my headset of choice is an Index, despite its software having much rougher edges.

Re: FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

#332

Post by aplummer »

shkkmo wrote: post #330
wccrawford wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they were trying to say that playing games from the Oculus store on a Valve Index or HTC Vive isn't possible, but playing games bought on Steam on a Quest 2 is possible. It actually is one of the complaints I have about how Oculus does things, but since they basically ushered in this new era of VR, they pretty much had to have their own store and SDK. I can't fault them for not closing it, and nothing is stop…

> nothing is stopping the developers from publishing on both Nothing except for the exclusivity contracts that Oculus pushes...

You are describing all video game publishers, Nintendo, Microsoft, Epic, Sony. This is actually for indie developers, who can de-risk a project by taking the upfront money.

Re: FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

#333

Post by BeetleB »

g_p wrote: post #217
bigyikes wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate FB and Google, but I don’t buy this argument. It doesn’t pass the duck test for me — doesn’t look or quack like a utility in my view. I am sympathetic to the argument though. Getting locked out of your existing Gmail account could be really disastrous. Maybe there should be regulation for email extrication — if you’re going to ban me, you better allow me to update all of my accounts to not use your email servi…

I don't see a massive difference between a Gmail account and a phone number. One is typically provided by a company, in a competitive marketplace, with rivals available. That one is regulated and has to adhere to portability which lets you continue to make and receive calls using that number indefinitely, without any further payment. The other is provided by a large company, again in a (semi) competitive marketplace,…

You started with "Gmail" and then switched to "email".

Much of what you say is not true with email in general. I own my own domain and I absolutely can take my email address anywhere.

Also, keep in mind that people typically pay for phone service. I do not think you can demand portability if a company provides you a phone number for free (which some do).

If you want portability for email, buy your own domain.

Re: FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

#334

Post by BeetleB »

jedberg wrote: post #205
odux wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The are critical pieces of the modern world yes. But not a utility. One cannot live without a utility and utilities generally have a monopoly in most places. If my power or water company bans me for some reason I am toast. I have to endure undue hardship to get something that provides may be 10% of the utility (own well, water pump, generator...). Internet itself (the pipes) on the other hand are probably a utility.…

Cars are fungible, email address not so much. If you get banned from owning or servicing your Honda, you can sell your Honda and get a Toyota. If you get banned from using your Gmail, you can't just switch to Hotmail.

If you own your own domain and use that with Gmail, you absolutely can switch to another provider and keep your email address if Gmail bans you.

Using your car analogy: If Honda provides me a car for free, I don't expect them to allow me to do whatever I want with the car that I don't own.

Re: FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

#335

Post by jedberg »

BeetleB wrote: post #334
jedberg wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars are fungible, email address not so much. If you get banned from owning or servicing your Honda, you can sell your Honda and get a Toyota. If you get banned from using your Gmail, you can't just switch to Hotmail.

If you own your own domain and use that with Gmail, you absolutely can switch to another provider and keep your email address if Gmail bans you. Using your car analogy: If Honda provides me a car for free, I don't expect them to allow me to do whatever I want with the car that I don't own.

So you think it would be ok for Honda to show up at your house and say "You can't have this anymore we're taking it" and then take all the stuff that happens to be in the car, even if you are using it for free?

Re: FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

#336

Post by BeetleB »

jedberg wrote: post #335
BeetleB wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you own your own domain and use that with Gmail, you absolutely can switch to another provider and keep your email address if Gmail bans you. Using your car analogy: If Honda provides me a car for free, I don't expect them to allow me to do whatever I want with the car that I don't own.

So you think it would be ok for Honda to show up at your house and say "You can't have this anymore we're taking it" and then take all the stuff that happens to be in the car, even if you are using it for free?

I expect that Honda will set the terms under which I can use the car, and if I don't like them, I need to buy my own car.

As for the stuff in the car, it's a poor analogy. The stuff in your Gmail account is easy to duplicate, unlike physical stuff, and it's your responsibility to back it up.

As you can guess, I don't use free email services, and I don't rely on the mail always being in the hands of a provider - I always have my own copy via IMAP. This was the normal way to do email, and the barrier to entry is low - most people doing this in those days were not tech folks.

It's just silly to demand that a company spend money to provide something to you for free, and then demand they be treated as a utility. Especially where plenty of alternatives exist.

Re: FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

#337

Post by Shorel »

MikeUt wrote: post #127
jimrandomh wrote: post #88

There's a bit of a story behind this. Oculus is owned by Facebook, but the Facebook website and the Oculus headsets/software are by different teams working in different states. When Facebook bought Oculus, they decided to get rid of the Oculus-specific account system and use only Facebook accounts. The Facebook account requirement took effect with the launch of the Oculus Quest 2, which launched in October 2020. Octo…

So FB can take over the VR market by over-moderating FB, and making Oculus a requirement to get support. Looks very anti-competitive and illegal.

I think both the Valve Index and HP Reverb G2 are better headsets, and also better purchases by not having anything to do with Facebook.

So, no risk of a Facebook monopoly here.

Re: FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

#338

Post by oauea »

aplummer wrote: post #327
oauea wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And since you can play all the same PC VR games as the Index, plus Oculus-specific games, plus standalone Quest games... It's very versatile. Indeed. Because Valve values openness while Oculus (Facebook) values money. That's why Valve lets you play SteamVR games on Oculus, but Oculus does not let you play them on SteamVR (community solutions exist, of course). This is pure evil.

It’s not evil at all. Do you see how accessible the price of this thing is? There is trade offs. Also, there is official support for playing your steam games (wirelessly) now, so you’re not correct on that.

Why would I want to buy a second VR headset to play some games, when the one I have is already perfectly fine? Keep in mind that playing Oculus games on the Index works fine using third party software, it's Facebook trying to DRM the hardware.

Do you also expect me to buy a Disney TV to watch Disney movies and a Marvel TV to watch Marvel movies? Or do you expect that all games, or movies, use the hardware you already own?

Re: FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

#339

Post by eru »

dlgeek wrote: post #191
eru wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bread! We should definitely regulate bread that way. It's way more important than Google and Facebook.

We kind of do, which is really the point. There are all sorts of regulations about making and selling bread to ensure safety and fitness for purpose as well as all sorts of programs such as SNAP, WIC, school lunches, many state programs, etc. all to ensure that everyone has access to bread.

Yet, bread ain't regulated like these other utilities.

Or to give another example that lighter in regulation than food: shoes.

Re: FB users buying Oculus VR headsets to get customer service prioritization

#340

Post by eru »

rzzzt wrote: post #196
eru wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be an interesting experiment to have each employee start their cycles (review cycle, or quarterly numbers for sales etc) on a random offset.

(This is what one should do with cron jobs so they don't hammer the server at exactly the same time.)

Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thundering_herd_problem
Post reply on HN