@PS2fweak: First run consoles generally use higher quality parts. But there is some sound reasoning behind leaving it on being better for it than turning it on and off. The temperature changes that occur from doing that put stress on the components over time. As long as your cooling hardware is keeping things at a reasonable temperature, the console will keep chugging along. I can't say the same for the disc hardware.
@jhpiv4 You'll get a lot of flaming for this comment, but there's nothing untrue about your statement. Gamers love Steam, and it's essentially the Facebook of gaming. I wonder how many of these "elitist" gamers scoff at the mention of any Facebook game, but marvel at their collection of Steam trading cards, or post screenshots of their beloved customized game characters.
The Oculus was never intended to be used only by hard core gamers. I don't play Facebook games, and likely never will, but play what makes you happy. If playing casual games in VR is your thing, do it and tell everyone who has a problem with it to @#$% off.
@Dieknochenblume For a company like Oculus, who have a distinct vision, but struggle to make progress because of the cost of innovation... yes, throwing them lots of money does make the product better. At the very least, it gets the product to market sooner. But in this case, it allows them to bypass some of the typical steps you see with newly developed technology. First release products are expensive, require a lot of field testing, require compromises in available components, etc. This level of operating cash will allow Oculus to jump generations ahead, with components that are made specifically for the purposes of their VR tech. To boot, they can keep the consumer cost down up front.
@Raxyman We already use Facebook for games. It's called Steam. If Facebook was interested in gamers, that's exactly what it'd look like. However, there's no indication that they have any intention of competing with Steam. What Zuckerberg was talking about in his shareholders conference was clearly a separate, additional vision from gaming, which would be developed after Oculus had a chance to gain a foothold on the consumer market.
Look at it this way. You can use your computer to play games, and you can use your computer to view Facebook. There's no connection between the two unless you want there to be. The same should and could easily hold true for Oculus. Facebook isn't going to attempt to stuff their social media down gamers throats knowing that it would tank the platform before it ever gained momentum.
@blutfahne Who cares how much money he made on the deal? Nobody else was willing to commit to such a project, and the OR team put a ton of work into the project. If there was no potential for payoff from risky ventures like this, nobody would ever take them on.
@Intocable Again, not how this works. A company like Facebook makes an offer, and you either take it or leave it. As Luckey himself pointed out, they already had a bunch of investors involved, and they each have their own expectations and influence. Mark was offering to give Oculus all the operating cash they needed to see their vision through, with the stipulation that they wouldn't intervene with development. If anyone understands the importance of allowing a visionary to reach their potential with no obstruction, it's Zuckerberg.
@blutfahne Yeah, the government is so very interested in what you're doing in Skyrim. There's nothing additional that could be mined from the OR that isn't already being provided, willingly I might add.
@harndoogle Last I knew, Valve was very interested in Oculus as a platform, but it seemed like Gabe just generally wanted Oculus to succeed. I imagine he's happy that things are going to start moving more quickly for the company.
@abcdefgabcdefgz I wouldn't say that those are blind assumptions. Mark Zuckerberg essentially came right out and addressed those concerns in his shareholders conference regarding the acquisition. Lying to investors isn't an option.
feeb1e's comments