Palmer Luckey Responds to Minecraft Creator’s Oculus Exit

Oculus VR founder Palmer Luckey has responded to recent news that Minecraft creator Markus ‘Notch’ Persson has cancelled a project for the Oculus Rift virtual reality (VR) headset. The developer made the drastic move based on the recent sale of the company to Facebook. Somewhat fittingly, Luckey issued his statement on Facebook itself, replying to a topic on the story and downplaying the progress that had been made on a possible official Minecraft VR experience.

[Madderz]

Big things happening in the industry the last few days.

I'm still not sure whether this is a good or bad thing tbh.

[jujubee88]

Deal with it.

Anyway, kudos to Notch!

[Madderz]

"Deal with it."

Huh? Was that aimed at me or the article?

[Letros]

Kudos for what, doing nothing?

[LAWSON72]

I dont think making a rash decision the moment something happens with no details deserves a kudos.

[starchild]

Notch acted kind of childish. And it's not the first time we have seen him behave like that.

If the Rift goes on to become the dominant force in VR gaming on the PC he will be back on board.

[Madderz]

I think Notch reacted on a personal level rather than a business/professional level.

Sounds to me like he has had a bad experience with FB in the past maybe. That or he just simply does not agree with what they stand for/how they operate.

Minecraft has quite a following, i wonder how people that supported both Oculus Rift and Minecraft now feel? Hopefully Morpheus can at least try and cater for those guys!

[Army_of_Darkness]

Minecraft looks like crap now and would look like greater crap in VR... so overall, no loss..

[Eonjay]

Good on Notch for standing up for what he believes in. He said, he doesn't know what Facebook's actual plan for the Rift is and he doesn't feel comfortable working with them. He wasn't interested in submitting to social media. Going against the demands of a corporate juggernaut doesn't make you a child. Facebook isn't a God. No one is beholden to align their business or their product with Facebook.

[hay]

It's the first time I agree with Notch. Good stuff.

[jujubee88]

@matterz:

If you are going to follow N4G, than get prepared to deal with all sorts of news that deals with good and bad gaming stuff.

@Letros:

There is no doubt Notch's "doing nothing" made a difference in this scenario.

[Madderz]

My name is spelt 'Madderz'.

I'm quite aware that there will be good and bad news on a news website, I kinda get how simple things like the news work ;). I'm also aware that there may be news that is neither bad nor good and I should be able to comment that I'm not sure which way this one leans without being randomly told to 'deal with it' by some stranger who adds nothing to the conversation at hand.

Manners cost nothing.

[stuna1]

I think this is all building up to another gaming crash! The industry is expanding to quickly, and it's going to be crushed under its own weight!

[Akuma07]

No, no it's not.

There are SO many doom and gloomers in the community.

Things are progressing as normal, as they always have. Companies expand, companies shrink, people move from company to company, console to console.

That is the way of the industry.

The reason why everyone is crying about all this is that most people who are vocal on the internet are not used to that.

[3-4-5]

* Changes are usually good for the long term, we just aren't able to comprehend how it will work itself out at this current point in time.

* I think the industry is realizing you can just make Better looking PS1/2 games and call it next gen.

* We need to fine tune the old and ACTUALLY INVENT NEW IP's.

[_FantasmA_]

Its good.

[SnakeCQC]

I agree with palmer it probably was just an excuse.

[morganfell]

I disagree with Palmer who is now experiencing the sting that people often feel after they finish counting their 16 pieces of silver.

Betrayers are always the most indignant when given a taste of their own medicine.

Notch put a much larger investment into OR than all of us combined. But like many people he wanted no part of what Facebook plans to do. People like Palmer that think he will keep on sailing along without interference are being naive. Of all the posts I've read on the matter, this one sums it up best:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

[elninels]

Thanks for that link.

[mhunterjr]

I'm not sure why he thinks he would be a part of what Facebook plans to do. According to Luckey, there will be no branding or required Facebook accounts, required ad displays or data mining on anything game related. notch made his decision without any real information regarding what Facebook's involvement will mean for games. He just instantly assumed the worst.

Apparently, Facebook will let Oculus continue to develop gaming hardware. With facebook's cash, the hardware can get custom silicon and be brought to consumers faster and cheaper. Later Facebook can use the fruits of Oculus research to bring VR to other walks of life. There's no reason to assume this means gaming on the Rift will require users and developers to submit to facebook's social media business model.

Folks are just jumping to conclusions.

[ZeroX9876]

@mhunterjr

http://www.gamespot.com/art...

not saying it is 100% sure to happen, but be prepared for it. Even if he said they won't, he's not the one to decide anymore, the big corporation is. something he didn't had to worry about before the buyout.

[starchild]

They didnt betray anyone. Feeling betrayed is an irrational emotional response in this case. I always knew that Oculus would likely be acquired and, to be honest, Facebook is a better outcome than some of the other possibilities.

Why would expanding into other areas or building new VR social networks that generate revenue from ads suddenly mean the Rift would move away from gaming? How does that make sense?

It would be entirely beneficial for Facebook to have the Rift on as many heads as possible. Cutting out gaming would serve zero purpose.

It's not like a VR headset good for gaming and a VR headset good for social networking or virtual tourism are mutually exclusive goals. A VR headset that is good for gaming is going to be good for other applications as well.

Facebook just acquired the leading VR company in the world. Why would they throw that all away just so people can look at Facebook in VR? It's absurd. They bought a VR company because they believe in Oculus's vision for VR, and, yes, that does include social networking apps in VR down the line.

But Facebook knows that gaming is the main impetus that will get VR off the ground. They know that game developers are uniquely positioned to bring the best VR content. And they know that PC gamers are the only people that currently have the sort of PC hardware that can drive a good VR experience.

To anyone with a brain and an ounce of critical thinking skills there is literally zero chance of Facebook scrapping Oculus's gaming plans in the near term.

And really, even in the long term, they have nothing to gain by blocking content developers from making games and other applications for the Rift.

The PC is an open platform and VR headsets are protected by few if any patents, so literally anybody can come into the VR market and compete. There is nothing stopping Microsoft, Sony, Google, Razer or Amazon from stepping in and bringing their own VR headset to market. Facebook knows this. The ONLY way they can become a dominant player in the emerging VR field is if they give people the kinds of VR experiences they want.

If Facebook was somehow stupid enough to limit the Rift to their social network applications or plaster adds in our gaming or movie-watching experiences you can be sure that the Rift would be dead in the water. Even far down the line this is the case.

It's in their interest to support gaming both in the near and long term.

[morganfell]

First of all if you are going to start of believing everything Luckey says then you are already holding your breath underwater. I say thins for two reasons. He has already shown he cannot be trusted to be honest with those backing and purchasing from him. Had many known his plan was for us to kickstart his get rich scheme we would never have contributed. Nor would we, and I was one, have ordered OR2. He originally spoke about the need for independence and that is gone as Zuckerberg is undoubtedly the biggest control freak of any Fortune 500 company.

It is doubtless the business deal was in the works while Luckey was pimping OR2 and still talking about independence. This 2 billion dollar deal didn't occur overnight at GDC.

In addition to being dishonest Luckey is about to learn a lesson. You should not make promises you cannot keep. Luckey is promising things now which he does not possess the legal authority to keep. Do you really believe Facebook paid OR 2 billion dollars and said just keep doing what you want? If so then you do not understand anything about the business world. You do not drop exorbitant amounts of money without knowing in advance how you will not only get it back but you will make more. And you do not pay 2 Billion dollars for something you do not own.

While Luckey was telling Reddit users that there would be no ads, Zuckerberg was in another meeting with shareholders telling them ad revenue was one way to monetize OR. Overwritten the first day the sale became public knowledge.

If you believe Facebook then this conversation is at an end. Every company has at least some small aspect of their business that seems unscrupulous on first examination. But with Facebook it is a way of life. It is a modus operandi. This is just one example and the web is loaded with them:

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

If you know how Facebook was founded, not what you saw in Social Media, then you better understand the way it treats business.

When Zuckerberg was in that shareholder meeting he spoke about industrial and scientific uses for OR...but not gaming. The key phrase he used with Luckey was, "Keep doing what you are doing but we want you to expand into other areas."

See, in the midst of your passion, here is what you are missing. Gaming is a bad investment. A very bad investment. If it were a horse in a race you wouldn't bet on it. The earnings pyramid looks like a toothpick stuck in a piece of sandwich meat. And only the people at the tip of the toothpick are making great money. Everyone else? Just meat. It is why Zuckerberg spoke as he did about expanding into about other industries. To them commercial gaming is not a viable money making venture. Facebook, initially built on a risk has since become very risk averse. For Facebook it is those other industries where their money making will be made. Even though more staff will be hired, when OR is told to refocus their efforts that is precisely what they will do.

Do you know how many people work for Zuckerberg that he allows to do whatever they want and act independently? Right, zero. So go ahead and keep believing what you are told. Eventually you will learn that the chasm that lies between what a business tells you, particularly one like Facebook, and what they do is as wide as the sea.

http://www.businessinsider....

[aliengmr]

Notch put $10,000 toward their Kickstarter and that level of commitment and support vanished not even an hour after this announcement.

He didn't have to like this deal. But he didn't have to have to jump on this hate-train and act like he was backing out of some huge deal with Oculus.

Let's be real here, Notch backed out of a deal that was only talked about briefly and one he wasn't entirely enthused about to begin with.

So instead of just backing out quietly or just waiting until things simmered down, he just jumped right in and left as soon as his name got out there.

You would have thought his support and the support other had for OVR was strong enough to wait for more than an hour. But no, they jumped ship in an instant details be damned.

You'll excuse me if I don't call Notch a hero because he backed out of deal he wasn't excited about and fueling the discontent.

[morganfell]

No. And its great when people do not let money drive their passion.

http://notch.net/2014/03/vi...

[aliengmr]

"No. And its great when people do not let money drive their passion."

Except when Microsoft throws a pile of cash your way.

[starchild]

@ morganfell

No, let's say we never had any of these assurances from Oculus or Facebook, my opinion wouldn't change in the slightest. And that's because my opinion isn't founded on their assurances, but rather simple facts, reasoning and critical thinking.

Of course Facebook is going to look for ways to generate maximum revenue from this acquisition. Same would be true of any company. They didn't buy Oculus just to make money off games, that's true. But Oculus is building a display/input device and its many uses are not mutually exclusive. That is, it can be both a great VR headset for gaming and for other broader uses. The requirements for good VR are the same regardless of its particular use.

What you don't seem to understand is that what Palmer was talking about with regards to ads and sign-ins does not contradict what Zuckerberg said in the shareholder meeting.

Palmer is saying that there will be no ads popping up while we play games and no requisite Facebook sign-in in order to play games. What Zuckerberg was talking about, on the other hand, was building future social networks or apps that could take advantage of VR and in which ads would be one way they could generate revenue. (It baffles me how some of you seem to think a business can run on air or something).

Moreover, you are simply lying about them not talking about gaming in the shareholders meeting. I listened to the whole thing and gaming was indeed talked about multiple times. But they have a much bigger vision for VR and there is nothing wrong with that. Oculus has always had a much bigger vision for VR than just gaming. But, again, these aren't mutually exclusive goals.

Oculus, as well as Facebook, knows that gaming is going to be the driving force behind the adoption of VR. They also know that game developers are uniquely positioned to bring the best VR content. And they know that PC gamers are the only people that currently have the sort of PC hardware that can drive a good VR experience.

It's astounding to me that some of you can actually believe that using the Rift will require a Facebook sign-in when it is a piece of hardware and not even Facebook's other acquisitions like Instagram require a Facebook sign-in and those are simply websites.

And Luckey was not dishonest. What was he supposed to do, announce the acquistion before it had even gone through? You're being ridiculous there.

Anyway, I know you hate every company that isn't Sony so I'm probably wasting my keystrokes on you. Just keep hating on Facebook, Oculus, Microsoft and the rest. It won't change anything. The vast majority of developers will stay on board with the Rift http://www.ign.com/articles... and when gamers fully understand what the Rift is bringing to the table they'll be on board too. No point in arguing, we'll eventually see who was right.

[morganfell]

Really? You listened to the call? And that was where? Or you read the reports as most people since there isn't a transcript of the call yet at normal locations such as Morningstar.

Or did you read Zuckerberg's Facebook post after the atom bomb drop. It pays to look at what was said before there was an uproar. And you heard this where? Because what you would have heard was him saying was,

"There's a lot of interest from developers in building for this platform. We're going to focus on helping Oculus build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games. Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this."

He didn't provide one example of game use. That isn't talking about gaming. That is mentioning what OR is doing now.

Then the focus shifts to this. Because again, a non-gaming company purchased OR which is an inevitable disaster for the gaming community.

"Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face to face, just by putting on goggles in your home. This is really a new communication platform. By feeling truly present, you can share unbounded spaces and experiences with the people in your life."

"Imagine sharing not just moments with your friends online, but entire experiences and adventures. One day, we believe this kind of immersive, augmented reality will become a part of daily life for billions of people."

If you listened you heard him say that mobile was the most important platform.

And they are looking at platforms after mobile. "We feel strong enough in our position that we want to focus strategically on building the next big platform that will be coming after mobile. Today's acquisition is a long-term bet on the future of computing. I bet Oculus can be one of the biggest platforms of the future."

He is looking at this from a societal social point of view. It isn't gaming focused. Look at where he gave examples. Look at his focus. Its Zuckerberg and the only focus that matters in his world is his vision. Gaming is way over on the sideline. If you listen to his "vision" they really doi not have time to properly attend to gaming. When I say Oculus is dead, I mean to being at the forefront of gaming. Oculus will survive as a technical social endeavor but it isn't going to be gaming's next great gift.

You can keep ignoring at your own peril the fact that Zuckerberg is an unscrupulous individual willing to do anything to ram his ideas down the world's throat.

And the vast majority of developers aren't going to say anything. They are political animals. You have to watch what they do in a few months time.

I have my fingers crossed for Morpheus and Razer.

[starchild]

Yes, I listened to the whole call. Here: http://www.shareholder.com/...

You said they didn't talk about gaming, but they most certainly did. Was it the focus? Of course not. This was a shareholders meeting...do you really think that the focus would be talking about gaming in this context?

I don't want to go around and around with you. The long and short of it is this: there is no conflict between the Rift as a VR gaming device and the Rift as a VR device for things like virtual tourism, education and social interaction. Gaming will be the first focus--not because Facebook or Oculus says it will be, but because it's the only thing that makes sense.

You've written off the Oculus Rift and I think you are wrong. We'll eventually know who was right. Either way, it doesn't surprise me that you are putting all your hopes into Project Morpheus. I'll be getting one too...along with my Rift.

[GW212]

Haha sting. Good one. He ain't counting 16 pieces of silver. He's probably worth 9 figures now. Somehow I feel his sting is very muted.

[morganfell]

I don't care to go around either. Not when someone believes everything that well documented liars have said. And that is the worst part of it We have someone that is one of the most cutthroat underhanded people in business today, willing to do anything they have to do to get what they want.And you readily jump to kneeling before him and buying into it all. The closest Zuckerberg cares to come to gaming was the pseudo representation of him as the head of Lifehacker. And for satire it was actually pretty close to home.

He doesn't give two craps about gaming. In that call they mention gaming. They really do not discuss it. From the time he says this is the new social platform that 's it. It's all social, all the time. Social, social, SERVICES, social. Connecting people, interfacing with people, there it is. Social. Social to death. It was as I recounted above. He wants his software and a hardware device to be something with which we interface every aspect of our life. You do not understand gaming isn't worth the time of day to him. He purchased Oculus, and make no mistake he owns it lock, stock, and barrel - in order to use it for other purposes. Will it continue with some gaming aspects? Sure. Will it be what it was to gaming? No. That's the difference between a gamer centric device that has other applications and a other centric device that has a gaming application.

I'll put my trust in Razer, in Valve, in Sony. In companies that put the gamer first. Enjoy the back seat. Oh, by the way you have 4 new friends requests.

[kingdip90]

I dont, Facebook has a completely different priorities than a tech company, they make money off selling ad space and data mining. The companies who buy that stuff are Facebook customers not the users... Facebook investors are interested in making money and they make money from their customers so that's who they pander to and cater to, that is not us the gaming community.

Sure I bet that they are hoping we can become their customers but that is a long term goal and most investors are short term gain minded, they want their profit and they want it by a certain deadline. Before when the rift was free (in terms of not having shareholders) it didn't have this pressure and that could become very stifling to creativity and innovation.

Backing away was a smart move and makes perfect sense.

[mhunterjr]

It COULD become stifling to creativity and innovation. On the other hand, It COULD provide oculus with the cash it needs to bring their wildest, most innovative ideas to production.

The bottom line is, no one knows exactly how this will play out. So to instantly assume the worst doesn't do anyone any favors.

According to Luckey, he signed the deal after confirming that 1) Facebook accounts won't be required to use or develop for the rift 2) ads and data collection will continue to be up to the individual devs (as it is now) 3) Oculus will operate with autonomy 4) Facebook branding will be optional. and he cited benefits such as 1) being able to afford to hire the best in the biz 2) being able to afford custom hardware 3) having the scale to bring down cost to consumers 4) being able to bring consumer products to market more quickly.

Simply put, the backlash is coming from folks are only consider the worst case senarios and refuse to look at the situation as a whole.

[kingdip90]

@mhunterjr

It's easy isn't it to dismiss the possibilities when your not making a considerable investment in a technology. The developer of minecraft however in terms of time and money had already assumed a huge investment in the rift.

The could and the could nots matter to people who invest in these things, it's only natural to look after your investment.

My point wasn't against Facebook but it's aimed at publicly owned companies who profit not directly from the public as a whole by selling a product. You have to look at it from the investors in thay companies point of view, you and I are not the people they get paid by plain and simple... you have to consider how that will effect the evolution of the rift, it's a lot of pressure.

[Patrick_pk44]

The same way Palmer tries to avoid the real reason why Notch canceled the project. Notch stated it was because of Facebook, I see no response to that in Palmers statement. He is a sellout and I hope for the downfall of Oculus Rift.

[aliengmr]

Notch saw the word "Facebook" and ran. That's it.

What do you expect him to say about Notch's knee jerk reaction?

Its not like Notch himself gave a detailed explanation other than "Facebook is creepy".

Notch didn't detail how Facebook and this "slimmed down" version of Minecraft were related, because he didn't have a clue.

Notch doesn't like Facebook, that's all there is to it.

[ruefrak]

He can downplay this one comment, but the push back against the idea of Facebook buying Oculus isn't isolated to just Minecraft. The people who backed Oculus in the first place feel betrayed, and when you do that to your earliest supporters, I can only imagine it would make them extremely bitter. Are those people, the people who were willing to put their money on the line for this dream, going to now support the Facebook branded product? I have a feeling they probably won't.

And aside from the kickstarter supporters, Facebook isn't a much beloved company anymore. There are people who will stay away from the Oculus just because it's associated with FB. So Palmer can talk all he wants that Minecraft was never coming in the first place, but it doesn't address the larger issue here.

[TheTowelBoy]

When you do that what else are you capable of? You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain..

[WeAreLegion]

Willem up in here giving good advice.

[ZeroX9876]

I just want facebook to let the original dev of the rift work on what they do best and leave the social media aspect out of it until it is 100% complete and ready for gaming first. Gamers and devs invested in this project for gaming, not social media, so as long as facebook keeps it game centered, I'll be happy.

[TheObserver]

Got bad news for you. How is an advertising parent company going to get their revenue?

Advertise.

[incendy35]

Notch is a baby.. Brilliant baby, but yeah.

[The_Truth_24_7]

#teamsony

[Joe913]

Like he cares he rich as hell now now if all the devs walked away then be concerned.

[Bonerboy]

Palmer: "Oh yeah?... Oculus doesnt want your stupid game anyway, and besides, now I can buy and sell people like you everyday if I wanted too, Nya!"

Notch: "sniff"

[GW212]

This site is great. Bunch of armchair investors who must spend their free time battling the console war. Good stuff.

Anyway, mhunter above is pretty spot on with most of what he says. Probably just read through his comments. You should be ok.

Source of my knowledge: I'm a Wall Street investor linked very closely to hardware tech.

[FAT MAN GO BOOM]

Markus ‘Notch’ Persson did the right thing... this VR headset Oculus rift had a bright future but the sell out move to Facebook of all companies was nothing but a huge flush down the drain...

Even in Facebook announcement they state that they are going to market this in other industries other then gaming. For me it is a huge direction change for this project that will spin out and die.

This was a huge disappointment all in all.

I am glad that Notch sees that this sale has changed a lot... and we will all see that in time..

[Vanfernal]

I don't know. Notch acted like a hipster hating on FB cause it's the cool thing to do. I don't see how FBs acquisition really affects what he was doing. Kind of reminds me of Fez guy and his little cancelling Fez 2 tantrum.