Minecraft for Oculus canceled due to Facebook acquisition

Mojang was "in talks" about bringing a version of Minecraft to Oculus Rift. However, yesterday's acquisition by Facebook has put an end to all of that.

126

Mojang was "in talks" about bringing a version of Minecraft to Oculus Rift. However, yesterday's acquisition by Facebook has put an end to all of that.

"We were in talks about maybe bringing a version of Minecraft to Oculus. I just cancelled that deal," company head Notch said in a tweet. "Facebook creeps me out."

Elaborating further in a blog post, Notch detailed the issues the game would face when being ported to VR. "It doesn't really fit the platform, since it's very motion based, runs on Java... But perhaps it would be cool to do a slimmed down version of Minecraft for the Oculus."

Ultimately, the Facebook acquisition proved to be too distasteful for the Minecraft creator. "Facebook is not a game tech company. Facebook has a history of caring about building user numbers, and nothing but building user numbers," he said. Ultimately, Notch concludes that "VR is not bad for social. In fact, I think social could become one of the biggest applications of VR... but I don't want to work with social, I want to work with games."

It's unlikely that Mojang's disapproval of the Facebook deal will really prevent interested parties from playing Minecraft in VR. There are already mods that promise a VR experience for the block creation game.

Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • reply
    March 26, 2014 9:25 AM

    Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Minecraft for Oculus canceled due to Facebook acquisition.

    Mojang was "in talks" about bringing a version of Minecraft to Oculus Rift. However, yesterday's acquisition by Facebook has put an end to all of that.

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 9:33 AM

      You know he wrote a whole piece on it not just a tweet.

      http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to-change-the-world/

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 9:38 AM

        Facebook is not a company of grass-roots tech enthusiasts. Facebook is not a game tech company. Facebook has a history of caring about building user numbers, and nothing but building user numbers.

        says the man who publishes games on microsoft and sony platforms.

        microsoft/sony is not a company of grass-roots tech enthusiasts.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 9:41 AM

          I only eat at restaurants where the food is made by food enthusiasts.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 9:43 AM

          Isn't Microsoft's heritage the very definition of grass roots? From kids in a garage to the most popular OS in the world? At the very least, the Xbox division focuses on games (non-mobile, non-browser based) and hardware. In contrast, facebook wants to focus on social media, ads mobile/social "games" and data harvesting.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 9:44 AM

            yeah, at first, just like facebook was just a couple of dudes in an apartment...but when microsoft and sony joined gaming, neither were gaming tech or grassroots. and notch had no issues developing games for their platforms.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 9:47 AM

              Both sony and microsoft are technology companies. Microsoft had some experience in gaming before ever creating their own console. Facebook is not at all about technology. I'm having trouble seeing what your argument is.

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 9:48 AM

                i'm having trouble reconciling that facebook is not at all about technology.

                • reply
                  March 26, 2014 9:50 AM

                  It would be like saying netflix is about technology. Netflix and Facebook both use tech to achieve their goals, but netflix is about movies, not the storage systems and database behind them. Facebook is about "social gaming" and targeted ads. They just happen to need lots of resources to do that. The tech is the means to an end. Whats so difficult to understand?

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 10:09 AM

                    Netflix used to just be about content delivery, then they diversified and are also creating content now.

                    Why is facebook not allowed to diversify like microsoft, sony, google, nintendo, apple, amazon, and every other business in existance, to more interests beyond what they started as? They just spent 2 billion to become a tech company not just a data-mining social media webpage.

                    • reply
                      March 26, 2014 10:23 AM

                      They can diversify, sure, but they're going to have to earn our trust. They've done too much to lose it (at least if you pay attention) and at the moment all of their users are the product. At the moment the real customers are advertising firms. So its a pretty big shift to go from think of users as the product to users as the customer.

                      There's also the fact that this company that many nerds/geeks/whatever dislike just bought up the developer of one of the most promising new interfaces that gamers and hardware hackers alike were all looking forward to.

                      It would be different if facebook had a good track record in the gaming/hardware market, if they had put out a successful device already. It would be different if all of our experiences with facebook thus far had not been watered down "games", targeted ads, and sanitized corporate-approved "messaging".

                    • reply
                      March 26, 2014 10:25 AM

                      Because of franchises like RCT4 and Dungeon Keeper that are completely ruined by making them mobile/social experiences that no one asked for or wants. Facebook + gaming = bullshit

                      • reply
                        March 26, 2014 10:54 AM

                        Facebook is the reason you didn't get the Dungeon Keeper you wanted yep

                        • reply
                          March 26, 2014 11:36 AM

                          No, that isn't the reason, but that is the reason people are bitching, because they equate Facebook with shitty facebook games an/or social non-gaming stuff. The Oculous was supposed to be the next breakthrough in gaming, and now they are worried it is going to be hamstrung.

                          Not saying they are right, but thats why we have all the outrage.

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 10:16 AM

                    Facebook is about communication and connecting people. The ads are how they monetize the service they provide. That doesn't mean all future sources of revenue need be based on ads.

                    VR has the potential to become an important method of online social interaction, so of course Facebook wants to get in on the ground floor there. This doesn't preclude the Rift from being used as a gaming device.

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 11:31 AM

                    I think this is an incredibly short-sighted view of things. Facebook's business goals are mainly social, but the company is all about making the technology behind driving their goals. They're huge innovators in tech. They're doing a huge amount of development on graph databases right now, and they're pushing that technology as much as Google pushes Android. They still use an open-source stack with Apache, Linux and Memcached that they contribute to, and you can see the tools they've released on Github. https://github.com/facebook They also tried to develop a phone, which was probably a mistake to release, but if Facebook isn't at least trying new things, then they definitely will just become a company that is just about increasing their user numbers and not taking risks.

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 3:05 PM

                    No, Facebook is a lot about technology. Theyve made their own programming languages, they open-source a ton of things, they fund hackathons and what-not, and they release a lot of tech products aside from Facebook.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 9:46 AM

          He makes business decisions like an internet forum poster.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 9:46 AM

        Notch really should've passed this article through his business development manager before making this public, he's being irrational and comes across as an awful businessman.

        • reply
          March 27, 2014 12:56 AM

          Yeah, he is an awful businessman, thats what makes him so great. Passing your article through a business development manager is what someone employed in Facebook probably should do. Notch is the kind of guy who offers to settle lawsuits by Quake Deathmatch. Business and profitability is phony pretend bullshit. Thats exactly why he doesnt like facebook.

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 9:35 AM

      List of things Notch doesn't like:

      1. Facebook
      2. Windows 8 App Store

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 9:45 AM

        3. JohnnyRey

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 10:53 AM

        3. Working.

        Things Notch does like:

        1. Vacations.
        2. Not working.
        3. Releasing an incomplete game early so he can charge a higher price and abandon development to a coworker instead.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 11:15 AM

          I can't begrudge him that. Minecraft is great fun and has reached cultural phenomenon status. I just hate to think that opportunities to play it are limited by some ill-thought out snap decisions.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 11:22 AM

            he has the product that could help push VR into so many homes but nope, he doesn't like FB

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 11:35 AM

          Are you me???

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 9:43 AM

      You know, I've never even played Minecraft and I know fuck all about Notch but if the dude doesn't want to be involved with companies he dislikes, who gives a fuck? That's his business.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 9:52 AM

        Exactly. I'm just glad not every successful dev filters everything through an effin PR mouthpiece. It's a breath of fresh air.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 9:54 AM

          further, it's impossible to know the true feelings and thoughts of the Oculus team with 2b holding a gun to their heads, so to speak. So hell yes notch, speak your mind because not many people will because they lack any manner of balls.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 12:04 PM

        If all the responses to the OP were multiple choice options, yours would be the answer I choose

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 9:38 PM

        No, this is a great loss for human kind.

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 9:47 AM

      I'd probably get future neck problems with how many times I'd have to shake my head "no" when they ask me, "You've struck diamond. Would you like to share on your wall?"

    • Zek
      reply
      March 26, 2014 9:50 AM

      Notch makes big decision based on knee-jerk emotional response, news at 11. Dude is a nice guy, but he shouldn't be in charge of business deals.

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 9:50 AM

      You know what, good for notch. That's potentially a very lucrative partnership and it would have made Minecraft fans very, very happy. But he doesn't believe in it and he walked away. If the Oculus team had the same conviction as him, we wouldn't be discussing how they're a team of massive sell-outs.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 9:54 AM

        Sell out! With me oh yeah!

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 10:51 AM

          The record company's gonna give me lots of money and everything's gonna be, alriiiight~

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 11:49 AM

            but I can't work in fast food all my life
            ...
            Everybody's doing the fish ... yeah yeah yeah

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 9:57 AM

        You know, I've got convictions, but if I had a risky tech venture turning heads and then got an offer for $2 billion, I would say yes without even the slightest hesitation.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 10:43 AM

          They fundraised on Kickstarter and vastly exceeded their goal.
          They built a rabid fanbase of hardcore gamers and tech enthusiasts.
          They had perfect word-of-mouth marketing travelling through all the major online communities.
          They couldn't even keep their website up for devkit sales because they were so popular.
          They got the legendary John Carmack on board.

          What they were doing wasn't a 'risky' venture. They methodically and carefully built what could be called an empire. They were the clear forerunner of all their peers in the VR space.

          Then they sold to Facebook. Of all the companies, Facebook. The one company that is pretty widely reviled by the indie and professional gaming community.

          If RSI Industries sold to Facebook tomorrow and Star Citizen was coming soon to a Facebook feed near you, how would the gaming community feel? This is the same thing in my mind as Oculus - it was an effort that came together ONLY because of the community's initial investment (footing the bill via Kickstarter) and they turned around and sold the results of that money/effort to a company that the same community widely dislikes.

          So yeah, I have a problem with the whole thing and I respect notch's decision.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 10:49 AM

            They were making a niche device for a hardcore segment of the PC gaming audience. That future doesn't suggest widespread success to me.

            Their vision is for VR to be in every household - a product as ubiquitous as a television or iPad. The goal isn't just to make immersive racing games.

            Facebook let's them actually accomplish that vision, bypassing the growing pains of trying to sell and market a product with less than a $100 million in investments. Nothing about this acquisition means the Rift won't come to market, or that it won't be a quality device for gaming.

            You're just making shit up and assuming that anything Facebook touches dies. Even though they built a pretty incredible social networking platform.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 10:59 AM

              You make a good argument! And while I do want them to succeed on the scale you predict, I wanted them to do it with almost any tech company other than Facebook. Logitech, hp, Samsung, Apple. A company that deals with putting tech in peoples living rooms.

              Not a damn social media platform that's historically asked forgiveness than permission.

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 11:01 AM

                valcan_s put it more eloquently than I ever could have.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 11:14 AM

              The first question in yesterday's conference call, following the announcement, was about Facebook's handling of Instagram and whether we'd see a repeat of that. The answer was that while some people are unsatisfied with it, Instagram did grow to over 2 billion users under the Facebook banner. It might suck, but it's hard to deny those results.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 1:56 PM

              100% this

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 10:49 AM

            They couldn't even keep their website up for devkit sales because they were so popular.

            so how exactly were they going to handle the load when it became a publicly available product and takes off in the way you hope?

            Their kickstarter funding is a drop in the bucket compared to the other funding they've already gotten before this deal, but that funding is a pittance compared to the FB funds.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 11:31 AM

              What a strange example. There is a significantly difference in misjudging load BEFORE you sell anything vs misjudging load for a launch product

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 11:35 AM

                the problem isn't judging, it's resourcing. It's really not hard to make a website that can process sales on the order of 1,000-10,000 units assuming you can pay for it.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 11:22 AM

            I totally agree with you ^^^

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 11:45 AM

            John Carmack is on board with this acquisition. How does that affect your position?

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 11:48 AM

              I think it's safe to say John Carmack doesn't really know what's going on with this deal but the internet has used Facebook a lot and has a pretty good idea what's going to happen here

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 12:18 PM

                Sarcasm and snark doesn't really contribute to the thread.

                • reply
                  March 26, 2014 12:21 PM

                  neither does half the dumbass analysis about this but here we are

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 12:23 PM

                    That's your view of their opinion. What they're not doing is being an ass about your opinion.

                    I don't understand why you wouldn't just ignore them if you feel what they have to say has no merit.

                    • reply
                      March 26, 2014 12:48 PM

                      there's not much to say to someone who's analysis is "fuck FB, OR is dead."

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 12:11 PM

            Your timeline missed several critical things.

            Along the way they took $16 million dollars in venture capital money. And then they took $75 million in venture capital money. The moment they took a single dollar of VC money they were 100% committed to selling out. That is the ONLY reason VC people make investments. To sell out either to another company or via IPO. The surprise factor here is not that they sold but that they sold to Facebook. It'd be less shocking if Microsoft, Sony, Google, or Apple bought them.

            And to be perfectly clear that capital was *required* for Oculus to go forward. Manufacturing is expensive. Very, very expensive. The $91 million in raised VC money was enough to put out an retail kit they would be content, but not thrilled, with. And then they would need a lot more money to keep going. The profit from selling the retail kits might have been enough to cover that, but it'd be really really tough. Margins on hardware are not very good.

            It's also worth pointing out that the Kickstarter delivered EXACTLY what they said they would. The Kickstarter was to back a development kit. Every devkit was delivered. They were also selling a dream of a VR future and not only is that dream happening it's going to happen bigger, better, and faster because of Facebook. Furthermore it's going to happen bigger, better, and faster not only for Oculus but for every other company jumping in the VR space. A two billion dollar acquisition officially makes VR the hottest new market in town. That's hella exciting.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 12:23 PM

              infed so hard.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 12:53 PM

              truth bombs.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 9:09 PM

              If OR didn't get acquired and continued down the road everyone raging expected. They probably would have released a product but ended up in trouble trying to break even and expand into new markets. At that point they would still ended up being acquired however with less leverage. They'd basically be looking for a bail out. With this current acquisition, they have more favorable terms and also they can reinforce their momentum more than the the alternative.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 12:16 PM

            I don't know why, but I love this sentence

            The one company that is pretty widely reviled by the indie and professional gaming community

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 12:19 PM

              I as a professional gamer, despise and revile Facebook. Not because they have anything to do with my professional career, but really just because I dislike social media.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 10:03 AM

        This is a joke, right?

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 12:23 PM

        Because if there's one thing Notch needs, it's money.

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 10:01 AM

      I have massive respect for Notch for doing this.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 10:02 AM

        valcan, being an indie dev now, can you tell us what you think about this acquisition? I can understand if not, just really interested.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 10:55 AM

          Well in a big way I don't want to answer the question for I don't want to piss anyone off, but I feel like you have to take a side in life and it’s my philosophy that it has to be 0 or 1 there is no fuzzy logic in the way I live my life, or make a decisions or take a side.


          To me in life it is important to live a certain way, have morals, stick to an ideal of how you want to live your life and how you make your decisions. Ultimately we all want to leave a mark on the earth and be remembered in a certain way. The question is how do you want to be remembered or do you even care?


          Having said that 2 billion dollars is a lot of money I am sure a lot of people would probably change their rules in their mind, soul and heart but make no mistake that does show ones true self. The acquisition is an achievement and an impressive one no one can take that away from JC, congrats well done, your set for life even more so then before, battle ship sunk you win.


          Do I think it was a shady deal and basically screwed over all his fans, promises, idea of Oculus and in a way abused Kickstarter, yeah I do it was badly done.


          I am 100% with Notch and agree with his comments especially the part I highlighted, to me the whole Kickstarter to acquisition was something right out of a movie “I definitely want to be a part of VR, but I will not work with Facebook. Their motives are too unclear and shifting, and they haven’t historically been a stable platform. There’s nothing about their history that makes me trust them, and that makes them seem creepy to me.


          And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.


          I don’t know it just feels wrong in my gut I don’t like the deal that went down at all you cannot help but feel like you got stabbed in your back. The thing to keep in mind it was not like JC had no money and was just starting out he had many options, personal funding, achievements, connections, reputation, fans, support etc he did not have to make such a deal with Facebook it was his decision to go down that path.


          Still like I said you can’t take away JC achievement, congrats, but I don’t support it what so ever he could have accomplished his goals with hard work make oculus be a massive success on his own and his fans. The thing is he choose not to and went down the corporate path with Facebook and a 2 billion pay out.


          My last feeling is if I took the 2 billion and was in JC shoes I would then have nothing to do with the gaming industry and just walk away if I went down that path. For I could not face my fans, industry etc and pretend like my decision didn't matter or had no impact.


          Well atm this is how I feel, maybe down the road I feel differently, I hope I don’t.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 11:10 AM

            Well said, I don't even know what to add. Thank you.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 11:43 AM

            valcan with the crit inf.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 11:47 AM

            valcan_s for Chatty president! \m/

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 11:49 AM

            You really don't think there are any gray areas in your entire life?

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 12:01 PM

              50 shades.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 12:08 PM

              For a lot of people life is very black and white, and shades of grey are seen as fear of committing to a decision, or apathy.

              There are lots of times I see something as a blatant black or white choice that others say is complicated. It's like it gives them an excuse to do nothing.

              Of course, not everything is that simple, but a lot of things are.

              But hey, that's the magic of the human mind lol.

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 12:15 PM

                I like you

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 12:16 PM

                The other side of that is that you could characterize people who see things in black and white as being mentally unsophisticated or lazy.

                • reply
                  March 26, 2014 12:20 PM

                  I agree. Such is the dilemma. Who's the lazy one, the one that thinks something is a simple choice, or the one that won't make a decision?

                • reply
                  March 26, 2014 12:21 PM

                  Although I wouldn't characterise valcan as mentally unsophisticated or lazy :[

                • reply
                  March 26, 2014 12:24 PM

                  Also seeing things in black and white may also mean you're a dog. Which would be weird in itself.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 12:01 PM

            Was Carmack that high up? I had no idea he'd moved from his position of Chief Technology Officer. I'm sure he certainly had input at the very least.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 12:02 PM

            I agree with the synopsis of Facebook, but I don't agree with your angle on JC. He's the CTO, not the owner. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he wasn't completely onboard with the acquisition but we'll never hear him state that. I think it goes without saying that JC would have taken much more pride in making the OR a huge success without Facebook stepping it. :)

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 5:12 PM

              Yeah, valcan_s's post has an odd emphasis on Carmack, especially since he wasn't even directly involved with the Kickstarter.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 12:33 PM

            yeah, I feel bad for people that went heavy in the kickstarter, for the reason you state above...

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 1:10 PM

              Would those guys ever see this deal as money owed to them? Would there ever be a lawsuit you think?

              I invest in a kickstarter, only to have it and my dreams bought out by major money bags corp...was I just a stepping stone? I'd feel pretty betrayed TBH.

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 1:15 PM

                Kickstarting a game does not make you an investor. You have no ownership over Oculus. All that is owed to you as a backer is a dev kit or whatever or items were offered in your pledge packages.

                A successful Kickstarter helped Oculus raise more money and prove to real investors that the company had legitimate interest from the public, eventually leading to the Facebook offer.

                I think anyone who views this $2 billion offer as anything but good for the future of VR is completely deluded.

                • reply
                  March 26, 2014 1:16 PM

                  god so much this.

                • reply
                  March 26, 2014 1:36 PM

                  I concur entirely, anyone who complains about how kickstarter purchasers have been "treated" really don't understand and / or are hugely entitled and need to ratchet it down a bit.

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 1:16 PM

                kickstarter is a donation, not an investment, and that's never changed or been obfuscated

                • reply
                  March 26, 2014 1:21 PM

                  I'd still feel cheated. We're only human. Did you invest in them? How would you personally feel, really?

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 1:37 PM

                    why would you not feel great? the whole purpose of the kickstarter was for fans of VR to help these guys prove that it could be a real thing. What better proof that the mainstream now believes it than a $2 billion acquisition? What were kickstarter backers thinking? That this tiny amount of money was going to be enough to launch a revolutionary hardware platform? Their $2.4 million donations were already a single digit percentage of OR's total funding at this point. If backers really believed VR was the future then how did they expect this tiny upstart to compete with the big guys with billions in the bank? Because if VR is a real thing you know those guys are going to get in the game (ex Sony just announced their offering and they have much more money than OR). The kickstarter did exactly what it was intended to do. It crowd sourced funding to help these guys make their vision and reality and now they've got the attention of a company that will allow them to go after even the loftiest goals.

                    • reply
                      March 26, 2014 1:40 PM

                      Ultimately it's rather pointless arguing about it because it will all boil down to personal opinion. Kudos to you and others like you that see this in a positive light. At the very least it's good to be positive even if the project fizzles later on. You can always say you supported the team. I can appreciate that.

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 9:26 PM

                    Kickstarter pledges aren't investments.

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 1:21 PM

                This is just like when I owned Oakley stock and they got bought out by luxxotica.

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 1:27 PM

                You mean:

                1) You backed a project
                2) That project was successfully completed and delivered to all backers
                3) The company that made the project took investment money to fund future projects
                4) The company was then bought by another company to complete those future projects

                • reply
                  March 26, 2014 1:33 PM

                  this is looking at it without emotion, something that is used often times in the kickstarter promo. Technically you are correct, but once again, we're all human. Hopes and dreams were dashed yesterday and now they'll have a long up-hill battle to try and win that crowd back over.

                  The long-term results of this buyout may potentially harm an already fragile kickstarter movement.

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 1:37 PM

                    I guess I disagree that hopes and dreams were dashed. I couldn't be more excited about the future of VR. Yesterday was AMAZING for the future of VR. Great things are coming and I can't wait.

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 6:17 PM

                    What hopes and dreams exactly?

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 9:27 PM

                    I honestly don't see how a company being massively successful in part due to Kickstarter will harm the Kickstarter movement.

                    • reply
                      March 26, 2014 9:50 PM

                      might just change it up, if I ever put another dollar toward a kickstarter I will understand that it might be just to elevate them to a point where they can be bought out. If I'm ok with that going in, then great. If the dev is playing the small-guy indy thing like it's going to help him well that's going in one ear and out the other because everyone has a price. We're seeing that now more than ever.

                      • reply
                        March 26, 2014 9:56 PM

                        You're looking at Kickstarter entirely wrong. If you pledge to a Kickstarter project, your're pledging to that product. You're not investing in the company, you're not buying the ability to vote or determine the company's future. All you're saying is "yes, I want the product you want to sell" that's it. If the company goes on to be wildly successful or fails or does something you don't want, that has nothing to do with your pledge. If the Kickstarter delivers the product you pledged for, your contract is fulfilled. It's probably not even correct for me to refer to it as any kind of contract.

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 1:28 PM

                Kickstarter is pretty much a stepping stone. It's just a way to generate a bunch of startup capital without really having to pay much back. If they're running things right it should just be a stepping stone to bigger things. Not necessarily a buyout but ideally growth to the point that their business model is sustainable and capital becomes easier to obtain when needed. Just seems kind of naive to view it any other way.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 1:05 PM

            I completely agree with your opinions, and kudos to Notch, but I'm not sure much respect is deserved. He didn't turn down $2 billion. He's turned down some MUCH smaller amount of money to port his game to their hardware. And that's not a difficult conviction to keep when your bank account looks like his.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 1:51 PM

            I totally disagree with your entire post. Oculus has been taking investment from other companies since the kickstarter finished. Some are angel investors that are all about their exit - going public or selling. That is what tech Startups are all about.

            And no - no one kickstarted them as a company. They kickstarted a product. The product was delivered. If you believe otherwise, that is your failure not oculus.

            Do I think fb is the perfect end game for oculus? No clue. But they needed money to grow. This gives them the capital.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 2:29 PM

              I'm not even think the investors would be ready to exit at this point. There isn't even a product in the marketplace. This solidifies their investment at this point where FB would really have to destroy itself for them to lose money. They now have pretty much 2-3 years of guaranteed growth and momentum before this has a chance to plateau and for them to cash out.

              • reply
                March 27, 2014 7:37 AM

                investor are always ready to exit. It's not about when, its about home much. Most angel investors have a multiple number in their minds for a minimum. Obviously, they got what they wanted here.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 1:52 PM

            You know what, man, I think you're wrong, but I get what you are saying.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 2:17 PM

            Why do you keep mentioning John Carmack? Oculus is Palmer Luckey's company not John Carmacks.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 2:22 PM

            1. This 2 billion dollars is not a payout. This is so they can actually get their product to market the way they want to. At the moment the company is not much but an idea with a prototype. They are just getting started. They are not some old company that has been in the market for years where the chiefs and board members are looking to cash out and jump ship to the next thing.

            2. JC is not the CEO or Co-Founder. I'm sure he was involved in many of the discussions, but I don't see him holding much leverage in the companies decision to be bought be Facebook. Even if he has invested his own money in it, it probably wasn't that significant compared to other money raised to date (sans the Kickstarter campaign).

            3. JC joined well after the Kickstarter campaign so how is he screwing over fans? He is living his life for himself, not his fans. He owes us nothing.

            4. Life is completely full of grey areas, just look at laws and politics. Yes, you can try to live your life in black and white, but you'll end up being ignorant of the nature of other people's opinions, ideas, ideologies, perspectives, etc. Unless you're fortunate to find a partner who is completely 1:1 with your mindset you will have to sacrifice your beliefs for the partnership you create.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 8:00 PM

            "And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."

            You also didn't do it to have a say so in such matters. In fact you were guaranteed nothing.

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 10:12 AM

      Must feel weird to have kickstarted this.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 12:49 PM

        why?

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 1:13 PM

          Never change, derelict515.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 1:27 PM

          because you are sold on an ideal, then that suddenly changes and at best you are in the dark and unsure of the future you were so excited about when you forked over your hard-earned dollars.

          http://i.imgur.com/NPLjenz.jpg

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 1:38 PM

            As was pointed out above, people who backed the Kickstarter got exactly what was promised. That the project has grown in scope is neither up to the backers, nor is the company responsible for anything more to them.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 1:43 PM

            “Strategically we want to start building the next major computing platform that will come after mobile,” he said on a conference call on Tuesday night. Zuckerberg sees the acquisition as part of Facebook’s mission to build the so-called knowledge economy. “There are not many things that are candidates to be the next major computing platform,” he said. “[This acquisition is a] long-term bet on the future of computing.”

            - Mark Zuckerberg

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 1:47 PM

            It's like the NPR station you donated to selling itself to CBS, and some dude on the internet is calling you naive because 'you got your tote bag, right?'

            It's just a fundamental misunderstanding of how donating works, and the psychology behind it. If Logitech or Madcatz or FB itself had started a kickstarter for the rift, would it have made the same amount of money?

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 1:53 PM

              Yes a kickstarter with that video and the people supporting it would have gotten support from carmack. And it would have succeeded. You think JC cares on FB or Logitech or some startup ? I don't. He wants to build cool stuff. This lets him do that.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 1:55 PM

              The naive part is making the assumptions that because you donated money to an endeavor (or in the case of the OR kickstarter, pre-ordered a dev kit) you have any say whatsoever in its future.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 1:56 PM

              except the whole point of donating to the NPR station was to get to a point like this where they can be a major player in the future of computing

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 5:36 PM

              it's not really the same thing because i don't think at any part Oculus Rift claimed that it was going to be non-profit.

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 5:36 PM

                basically, if you try to attach ideology/principle to for-profit corporations you are going to always come away disappointed.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 9:30 PM

            I wasn't sold on an ideal, I was sold on a product that was fucking cool, still is fucking cool, and now has way more opportunity to actually take off than it did before.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 2:03 PM

        Nope.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 9:16 PM

        This wreaks of entitlement to me. Kickstarters got exactly what they were owed, which was outlined in the pledge descriptions. You aren't entitled to anything more than that.

        People in this thread need to relax and see how this plays out. The Rift team aren't the type to sell out for money. Despite how much some people hate Facebook, they employ some insanely smart people and have the cash to elevate VR into something much bigger. Only time will tell, but to instantly decide this is the death of the OR is ridiculous.

        "This partnership ensures that the Oculus platform is coming, and that it’s going to change gaming forever." – Palmer, Brendan, John and the Oculus team

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 10:22 AM

      "In talks" with whom? You can't cancel something that you're just thinking about.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 10:24 AM

        top men

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 10:49 AM

        You're aware that Notch doesn't actually work on Minecraft anymore, right? Jeb does development and has for the last two years or so.

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 11:12 AM

      I would say this great news for other indie developers! Whoever can create the next minecraft using VR tech will make some bank!

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 11:47 AM

      What a drama queen.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 11:57 AM

        Totally. Coming from a guy who got majorly lucky and doesn't have the R&D costs of a cutting edge hardware startup to deal with, he can go to hell.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 1:31 PM

          He is an emotionally charged neckbeard, but he didn't get lucky. I don't know why so many people say this about him. It's dismissive.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 1:33 PM

            Seriously. It's not like he accidentally struck gold while digging up weeds in his garden. He built a game that millions of people enjoyed. That's not luck.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 1:34 PM

            he didn't get lucky palmer that's for sure lmao

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 1:35 PM

          Are you talking about Mark Zuckerberg?

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 1:40 PM

          You guys care way too much about this.

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 1:39 PM

      Just once.... I'd love to see fucking nerds stop and say, "you know this is complicated. I'm going to reserve judgement until we have more information."

      BADURRRP! ME NO GOOD AT PEOPLE FACEBOOK SCARY NOT SMART LIKE ME I ONLY DRINK CRAFT BEER AND EAT COSTCO PEAS BOILED IN MY KICKSTARTER BOILER. EVERYTHING SUCKS! IM UNPLEASANT TO BE ROUND CAUSE I NO ACCEPT COMPROMISE OR JOY IN LIFE.

      Get fucked Internet. You are the goddamned worst.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:41 PM

        truth

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:42 PM

        This is such a stupid overreaction. Why do you care so much? If he doesn't want anything to do with Facebook, who gives a shit?

        Everybody has their reasons.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 1:44 PM

          His reasons are silly and deserved to be ridiculed.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 1:48 PM

            Well, I'm sure he gives a shit what you think. Maybe if you write him a letter telling him what a wussy neckbeard (and other choice words used in this thread) nerd he is he'll listen.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 1:44 PM

          Yes.

          • reply
            March 26, 2014 1:44 PM

            It's me.

            • reply
              March 26, 2014 1:45 PM

              I am the one who overreacts.

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 1:47 PM

                Settle down fella!

              • reply
                March 26, 2014 1:52 PM

                What he does with his business, and who he does it with is his business alone. I'm not sure why you think losing your shit over it is an appropriate reaction.

                Unless you're all like "DUDE! IF THAT WAS ME I WOULD TOTALLY GO WHERE THE MONEY IS!!!!"

                But it's not you, it's him. So chill winston.

                For the record, I couldn't give a shit about Notch, and I've never even played Minecraft so I don't care about what he does with the game (I'm pretty sure the game is not what people are getting so riled up about), I just can't quite understanding caring about this to the level you guys do.

                Must be tiring being this angry over something that affects you in no way whatsoever.

                • reply
                  March 26, 2014 1:56 PM

                  I think we're having two wildly different conversations. Not only do I give no shits about what Notch does, I don't care what Facebook or Oculus do either. I've not really slept in about 2 days, so maybe I'm murky here, but I'm talking this sky is falling retard baby shit I am seeing all over, not even just here. People are losing all their shits less than a full day after it was just announced on every level from dudes on the Internet to the largest Indy game dev yanking his support before anyone knows anything other than 2 billion dollars are being exchanged.

                  • reply
                    March 26, 2014 2:02 PM

                    I just assumed he was yanking his support because he disliked Facebook as a company before the buy-out announcement.

                    In which case it would make sense that he pulled his support. He just doesn't want to support them in any way, for whatever reason.

                    I'm just seeing a lot of people raging in this thread and others over this, and I don;t get it.

                    • reply
                      March 26, 2014 2:05 PM

                      He's just as allowed to conduct business as he sees fit, just like Facebook and Oculus. However, one of those almost definitely had months of negotiations, pouring over documents, case studies done, and untold hours of other research, and another had a few hours to boil it over, a NeoGAF thread and maybe some phone calls to buddies with connections to either company.

                      • reply
                        March 26, 2014 2:35 PM

                        Didn't we hear that this is not the case, these discussions started 5 days ago and were concluded within that time frame?

                        • reply
                          March 26, 2014 2:36 PM

                          And, this is also after he said, 8 months ago, he'd never sell OR:
                          "No I don't have a ton of money; I have equity in the company. But we're not planning on selling the company or doing anything to liquidate that - we're trying to remain independent and build what we're building." - Luckey

                          http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-11-happy-go-luckey-meet-the-20-year-old-creator-of-oculus-rift

                          • reply
                            March 26, 2014 3:01 PM

                            that certainly doesn't sound like "we'll never sell" since the only verbs to that effect are plan and try which seems to be exactly what they did. Now that they've seen the true costs involved and the pockets of the competition the plan changed.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 1:46 PM

          >> looks at original OR purchase thread
          >> re-reads to see if you actually used "overreaction"

          Everyone on either side has completely lost perspective.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:43 PM

        I wish I had a filter to replace facebook with nazis and names with nazi leaders, it would make it tolerable.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:45 PM

        Unfortunately, this sale has been a good reminder that this website is, in fact, populated by nerds.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:47 PM

        Level-headedness is reserved for real life yo

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:47 PM

        Is it weird that I read the all caps section in Grimlock's voice?

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:48 PM

        If everything went your way, the chatty would be dead because there would be no discussion.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 1:49 PM

          False. You can have discussion with reason. A lot of the posts surrounding this topic have thrown reason out the window.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 1:50 PM

          Lol, you guys are silly. Just silly people who say silly things.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:48 PM

        GFIYATGDW

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:51 PM

        People saying that the Oculus Rift guys sold out to Facebook act like they would turn down $2 billion if it were offered to them.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:54 PM

        We didn't drop this bomb on ourselves so I don't know what you're talking about. If you don't want to read the backlash don't read it for a week or so.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 2:00 PM

          Y'all were invested as fuuuck in this toy. Now it's not a toy, it's got the potential to be world changing. There will still be gaming VR if people want it. Oculus was rapidly becoming one of several with big no shit companies like Sony and Valve looking into it. They just straight up started playing another game.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 1:56 PM

        like shacknews movie threads... about movies that don't exist yet? :D come on man. this is the information age! we have thumbs up and down, karma points, all sorts of judgment! rotten tomatoes! metacritic! reserve judgment? HAHAHA. far from it! come on man, that takes patience. that shit is long gone. people need to exert their two cents right now and then get that shit retweeted so they feel like a hub of information!!

        the whole thing is a jump to conclusions mat! enjoy the ride!

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 2:03 PM

        Meh. I think people on both sides are over reacting. Just close the browser and live life. Its pretty nice out there right now.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 2:10 PM

        "I don't want to work with bad companies" says man who previously worked with Microsoft, Google and Apple. "This one is way worse"

        "Big fan of privacy and not harvesting user data for advertisement. Buy Minecraft Pocket Edition on Google Android today."

        "Facebook creeps me out." he said before logging into Google Plus

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 2:20 PM

          From everything I have seen Notch say/do, it is clear that his problem is mistaking his feelings for his integrity. He cries first and listens second, it's remarkably immature. It will end up holding back his company once the real competition arrives.

        • reply
          March 27, 2014 2:59 AM

          Zuckerberg is nothing to be impressed by. I'd still work with facebook on business terms, but do not hold much respect for it's leadership. There are so many that would absolutely beyond Zuckerberg if they won the popularity lottery like he did.

          His technical achievements are zero.Vision is cheap. Most people have it. Only a very select view get to exercise it.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 2:19 PM

        Im reserving judgment.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 3:08 PM

        Hahaha amazing.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 3:16 PM

        Okay, you dissing craft beer is pretty dumb. It's so totally ubiquitous that it'd be like dissing some widely used social platform.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 5:37 PM

          I think its more the extreme smugness that surrounds it, like drinking anything but a craft beer demands suicide.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 6:46 PM

          You can drink craft beer without being a twat about it - aka neckbeard hipsters

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 9:19 PM

        get fucked internet. you fucking nerds.

        says a video game forum moderator.

      • reply
        March 27, 2014 2:44 AM

        u mad bro?

      • reply
        March 27, 2014 2:53 AM

        Internet forum moderator goes full retard. Shockingly, it's possible to be worried about an acquisition while fully understanding the nuances of such things. In fact, knowledge of such things only amplifies said worry.

        Acquisitions usually comes with a loss of control. How much control they lost remains to be seen. Being worried is the correct reaction.

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 2:13 PM

      What sort of "talks" was he having? You just buy a devkit, download the SDK and go crazy. It's not like anything has to be licensed. Was he hoping to get paid by them to add support?

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 2:23 PM

        he was one of the top tier supporters that paid 10k, a few days ago he met with carmack (who twittered a pic of notch with his kids) and co as part of that and they tried to talk him into supporting the rift. he was hesitant because minecraft doesnt lend itself to it given that the java based engine and the huge world people build doesnt lend itself to do 90fps solid but they pushed and he was considering doing a lite version.

    • reply
      March 26, 2014 4:02 PM

      Instagram was mostly left alone, until something drastic happens I think people are overreacting.

      • reply
        March 26, 2014 5:31 PM

        on marketplace most VC experts were saying zuckerberg treats facebook like a sort of VC firm, and worries less about specifics of acquisitions and more about getting in on the next big thing.

        could work out amazingly well; could fall apart.

        • reply
          March 26, 2014 6:38 PM

          lol, marketplace has no idea what they are talking about.