The Tale of Lucky

The Tale of Lucky

Editor’s Note: This was originally published on March 29th, 2016 and is being republished today for the Oculus Rift’s third anniversary. The author of this piece, Blake Harris, has a new book out about the history of virtual reality and founding of Oculus called The History of the Future.

“Wait, hold on,” said Brendan Iribe, the CEO of Oculus, as he squinted with sudden confusion at the guests who had come to visit his company’s new Irvine office. It was December 2012, and there were four of these guys. Four of these guys from Dallas. “Wait,” Iribe continued, as his confusion grew to curiosity, “Who are you guys?!”

This is the story of who those guys were and how that awkward moment led to an intimate relationship and, ultimately, the creation of a foxy mascot named Lucky.

The Kings of Pop (Software)

Paul (left) and David (right) Bettner

In late 1997, when he was 19 years old, Paul Bettner began working at Ensemble Studios in Dallas. Six years later, Bettner’s younger brother David joined Ensemble as well. At some point between then and 2008—when the two would leave to start their own game company—Paul brought a chess board to work so that he and his brother could play a version of the game that can probably best be described as the opposite of speed chess.

Paul (left) and David (right) Bettner working in the library in 2008.

The way it worked is one player would make a move and then, the next time the other player passed the board, he would make his move (whether or not the other opponent was present). The game would continue in this fashion—toggling back and forth, each at their own pace—until one of the two won. Sometimes it would take days, other times it would take weeks. And then, when it ended, they would start it all over again.

Certainly, the Bettners could not have been the first to play chess in this manner, but they were the first to embrace the asynchronous aspect and bring it to the iPhone. And not just any game, but one that seemed ideally suited for the iPhone, which Apple had just recently brought to market. In terms of a gaming device, the iPhone paled in comparison to dedicated handhelds (like the Game Boy or PSP) in almost every way. Except for one: it was always connected to the Internet, which made it perfect for this newfangled idea of persistent social gaming.

Paul and David Bettner in their first office.

Text messaging meets gaming, that was the general idea, and in August 2008 Paul and David Bettner left Ensemble Studios to further explore this notion. To keep overhead low, they worked out of the McKinney public library and over the next few months they created a game called Chess with Friends. And in November 2008, Chess with Friends was released on Apple’s just-four-months-old App Store.

By no means was a runaway hit, but there was something unique about the release that kept the Bettners optimistic. Among those who did play the game, over half of them were still playing 30 days later. Compared to the love-‘em-and-leave-‘em games that populated the mobile market, the retention numbers for Chess with Friends were incredible. So the Bettners concluded that their problem wasn’t the gameplay, but rather the game itself. They needed something more fun. Something more playful. Something like…Scrabble.

The Bettners followed up their hit Chess with Friends, with Words with Friends.

In July 2009, with their business hanging on by a thread, the Bettners released Words with Friends. In July 2010, the game surpassed 7 million downloads. And in December 2010, for $180 million, Zynga acquired the Bettner’s mobile game studio (Newtoy, Inc.)

Although neither Paul nor David Bettner would ever complain about their windfall—they both felt grateful, and lucky, to have created something so valuable—the aftermath of the acquisition was a shock to their systems. At Newtoy, they believed they were making something more than games. “Pop Software” they called it, referring to a type of catchy, intuitive content that appealed to both traditional gamers and non-gamers alike. They felt that they had been on the forefront of something special and, without getting into the nitty-gritty of why they no longer felt that way, let’s just say that come 2012—two years into the four they had planned to stay—the Bettners left Zynga.

Following his departure, Paul Bettner didn’t know what he was going to do next. And he certainly had no idea that it would involve unleashing a fox in virtual reality.

Diversely and Relentlessly

Paul Bettner visits the Oculus headquarters in 2012. (Photo Credit: Oculus)

After leaving Zynga, Bettner expected some sort of happily ever after. With money in the bank, autonomy reinstated and a wife (plus two young kids) at home, this was supposed to be the beginning of the good life. Except, as he soon learned, he wasn’t very good at that. Quickly he grew restless—feeling a gnawing need to create, build and collaborate—and started driving his family crazy with pet projects and creative fascinations.

One such fascination was virtual reality, and the string of what-ifs that kept popping up in his mind. What if virtual reality could actually be a thing? What if technology had advanced far enough to actually make it possible this time? What if three or four years from now, my wife (or even kids?) could be buying their first VR headset? So he reached out to an old friend, someone he believed could help him answer the question better than anyone: John Carmack, who around this time just so happened to be asking himself the same sort of what-ifs.

Professionally, these conversations with Carmack didn’t provide Bettner with any increased clarity about what he should do next, but personally—as a creator, as a technophile—he grew increasingly intrigued. Enough so to be one of only seven backers to pledged $5,000 or more to Oculus’ Kickstarter campaign. And, by doing so, received a reward that included visiting Oculus for a day.

Bettner scheduled that tour-the-office visit to coincide with another trip he was making to Oculus, a sort of how-can-we-work-together meeting. So in December 2012, Bettner and three colleagues flew out to Irvine to meet with Brendan Iribe and Palmer Luckey (twice). One as a developer, the other as a benefactor; which is what led to Iribe’s sudden confusion.

 “Wait, hold on,” Iribe said scanning the table. “Wait. Who are you guys?!”

“We’re the guys who did Words with Friends,” Bettner explained.

“Ohhhhh,” Iribe replied. “I thought that meeting was tomorrow. I thought you guys were here for a Kickstarter reward, just to visit.”

Laughs, smiles, recalibrated handshakes. And any potentially lingering awkwardness was wiped away by the awesomeness of trying the duct-tape Rift prototype.

By the end of this meeting, Bettner knew that this was what he needed to do next. “We want to make things with you guys,” he said. “We don’t really know what we want to make, but if mobile taught us anything it’s that we need to let go off our expectations and just figure out what works. So why don’t we start building things on, like, a month-to-month basis with you guys and we’ll see what comes with that?”

What came first was founding a new game studio (Playful Corp) and the idea of doing something like Wii Sports for VR. Not necessarily sports, per se, but a collection of mini games that showed off the potential of virtual reality. Not only did this seem like a logical creative approach (Wii Sports was the perfect vehicle to implement Nintendo’s “Blue Ocean” games-for-anyone strategy), but it also created a framework for Playful to experiment diversely and relentlessly.

Paul Bettner and the Playful Corp team.

During this time, they were churning out about one prototype a week. There was a Katamari-like game, where the player would subtly grow in size over time. There was a cooking game, where players would have to catch ingredients with a frying pan attached to their face. And there were a lot of games based around the mechanics of classics old and new (like Tempest and Doodle Jump).

Operating under the mindset that the fastest way to find the most compelling idea was just to keep building things, that’s exactly what they did. Brainstorming, building, bending (and then constantly re-bending) their expectations. And among the early batch of games, there was one concept that the guys at Playful had the most faith in: and it absolutely, positively was not Lucky’s Tale.

Super Capsule Brothers

One of Playful’s earliest platforming prototypes – the Super Capsule Brothers.

From the getgo, Bettner and his team loved the idea that VR could enable us to do things that were otherwise impossible. Like flying. That was the big one. They thought flying would be the coolest thing in the world and so, in game form, tried things like putting players on the back of a giant dragonfly. Except every time they tried something like this, it was never as good as they thought it would be. It always felt too flat, like a matte painting and lacked any compelling sense of depth.

Meanwhile, as Playful spent 2013 throwing spaghetti at the virtual wall, Oculus continued to take off. In June, they drew in $16 million of Series A funding and then, in December, they brought in $75 million more. As the scope of Oculus and what they believed the Rift could be grew larger, so did their hopes for what Playful could build; instead of a potpourri of mini-games, they wanted a big launch title. Hitting a home run instead of a spree of singles and doubles would be a challenge, but it was one that the guys and gals at Playful relished.

By this point, Playful had created forty games. Although none stood out as an obvious can’t-miss, there was one prototype they all believed in the most. But they had a little trouble admitting that at first because, in truth, it was among the ideas they thought least likely to pan out. This was the one idea that didn’t celebrate the first-person, immersive aspect that virtual reality offers; a third-person platformer called Super Capsule Bros. Inspired, of course, by Super Mario Bros., the prototype’s protagonist differed from its namesake. Instead of starring an Italian plumber, this one featured a blocky capsule (because that was one of the default shapes in Unity).

While the guys at Playful were initially skeptical about the type of game this was, they quickly realized why this concept worked: after decades touring the worlds of their favorite platformers (like Mario’s Mushroom Kingdom), they finally felt like they got to a place like this and explore. What they saw in that Super Capsule Bros. prototype was the first—and, still to this day, the only—VR experience that allowed for continuous, free-form locomotion through a virtual landscape without causing motion sickness. Or, put in terms that the kid inside of each of them was shouting through their skulls: magic.

Intermezzo: Q&A with Paul Bettner

Blake Harris: So you’ve got Super Capsule Bros., and it’s your favorite of the 40 games, but I was wondering if Oculus felt the same way?

Paul Bettner: I think, like us, they were surprised that a third-person game would work in VR. But after they tried it, they agreed that not only did it work, but they also saw the potential of what this could be. And another great thing about this game was that because it was a platformer, we didn’t need an excuse to put in whatever crazy mini-games we wanted. Because platformers have all sorts of crazy mini-games. So we were able to borrow from some of the other prototypes we’d built and bring elements of those into Super Capsule Bros., which, of course, soon became Lucky’s Tale.

Blake Harris: I figured that’s where this was headed. So tell me about how that happened. How did you go from capsule to fox? Were there other iterations in between?

Paul Bettner: Oh yeah. There were four or five major iterations of the character before we finally got to Lucky. Early on, we knew we wanted to do an animal and a fox ended up working really well. He was cute, my kids were into that, and he also evoked something nostalgic. He looks like he belongs in plenty of games you’ve experienced before.

Blake Harris: He does. Given that he’s a fox, it’s hard not to think about Sonic’s old sidekick. But I think that association with Tails is about more than just being the same species. There’s some other quality about Lucky that evokes characters from that era.

Paul Bettner: You know, it’s easy to gloss over this, but I really think that—and I believe this is the reason why Oculus signed Lucky’s Tale as a bundled deal, why this even happened in the first place—when you meet Lucky in VR, there’s this feeling of new meeting the old. You have this incredible technology, you’ve never been inside of a game like this before, and yet you are meeting something that is immediately familiar to you and that most people have some nostalgic memory of. A character, whether it’s Mickey Mouse or it’s Mario, you’ve met a character like Lucky. So it’s kind of this childhood dream come to life. That’s where Lucky came from. We were trying to evoke that. We were trying to create something that felt familiar. Immediately familiar.

Blake Harris: Well speaking of iconic, mascot-type characters like Mario and Sonic, I’m curious why you don’t think there hasn’t been one in such a long time. Obviously there have been some since then—like, say, Crash Bandicoot and Spyro; though even they are both from the 90s—but why do you think it’s such a rare thing?

Paul Bettner: I really couldn’t tell you. I could say that it’s hard, because it’s definitely hard. You could ask our brilliant director, Dan Hurd. We’ve struggled and it’s been an uphill battle to create someone who looks and plays like Lucky. So that might be what keeps people away. Or maybe, to be honest, it could be the lack of diversity that exists in our industry. Typically, that’s not the kind of game that middle-aged white dudes play, nor is it what they tend to want to make. I really don’t know. But here’s one thing that I do know: it’s very frustrating from a consumer standpoint. I mean, I’ve got these little kids—a 7 year old, a 5 year old, a 2 year old—and we love to play games together. But the menu of games that are available to us is so thin. Like how many times can we beat Zelda Wind Waker together? We’re desperate to play more games like this, but there aren’t that many out there.

Blake Harris: That’s where you come in. Lucky’s Tale: uniting families everywhere!

Paul Bettner: [laughing] exactly. But seriously, I think that there’s definitely an element of us wanting to fill that void a little bit. And to be honest, that’s part of why we chose this direction for our first game and why the company is even called Playful.

Blake Harris: What do you mean?

Paul Bettner: Well, technology allows for entertainment to evoke plenty of different feelings. VR especially can evoke several strong emotions and responses. Fear. Adrenaline. Excitement. But what we want, the emotion that we’re going for, is happy. We want to evoke happy. When people put on a VR headset, we want to make them smile. And so everything we’ve done in Lucky’s Tale, all these little elements in the game, they’ve all been about trying to evoke that feeling of just pure joy, childlike joy, and I hope that’s the way that people react to it when it ships this week.

Blake Harris: Speaking of shipping, my last question for you is about how that came to be. Lucky’s Tale is one of two games bundled with the Rift. How did that happen?

Paul Bettner: Oh, that’s a good story…

Let’s Go!

In November 2015, Playful sent a final build of Lucky’s Tale to Oculus. Not long after, Brendan Iribe called up Paul Bettner. “I just sat down and played two hours of Lucky’s Tale,” explained Iribe. “Two hours, non-stop, without coming out of the Rift. I’ve never done that before, that much time.”

“That’s amazing,” Bettner replied. “I’m so glad to hear this.”

After they talked back and forth about the game for a bit, Iribe brought up the idea of making it exclusive to Oculus [for a period of time, at least] and bundling it with the Rift. “We’re going to put a deal in front of you,” Iribe began, speaking with the same sort of magnetic, it’s-all-happening confidence that persuaded many to work for him at Oculus. “We’re going to put a deal in front of you and you’re going to accept it because it’s gonna be that good.”

True to his word, Iribe soon put a lucrative offer in front of Bettner. But if there was anything that Bettner had learned from his Zynga experience, it’s that his long-term vision is more important than any amount of short-term money. Which, of course, begs the question: what was Paul Bettner’s vision?

Visions are hard to put into words, and even harder to put into numbers. So perhaps the best way to try and express Bettner’s outlook and ambitions is by sharing a story that he mentioned during one of our conversations. “This is something that we tell ourselves internally,” Better explained. “Imagine if you could put yourself in Walt Disney’s shoes back in the day. He saw this amazing new cutting edge technology called motion pictures and he believed it was going to change the world. Because what he saw was an ability to bring a character to life and make an audience fall in love with that character in a way that you just couldn’t do before. And the first time that you see Lucky come out of his house, and he looks up at you, makes eye contact, waves hello…I think people will feel something that they’ve never felt before. Then he points at you, points over to the level and says, ‘Let’s go!’ You just feel so connected to him in a way that you couldn’t have felt if this wasn’t VR.”

Sharing and spreading that kind of connection—one of joy, adventure and friendship—is, at least in my opinion, what lies at the heart of Playful’s vision. And so when Iribe presented his godfather offer—one that generously compensated Playful, wouldn’t require them to part with their IP and ensured that their foxy new friend would be experienced by 100% of those first traversing VR’s seemingly limitless frontier—it was, of course, impossible for Paul Bettner to say anything other than what Lucky himself would say: Let’s go!


About the Author

Blake J. Harris is the best-selling author of Console Wars and will be co-directing the documentary based on his book, which is being produced by Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg and Scott Rudin. Currently, he is working on a new book about VR that will be published by HarperCollins in 2017. You can follow him on Twitter @blakejharrisNYC.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

The post The Tale of Lucky appeared first on UploadVR.

‘So…What Really Did Happen With Palmer [Luckey]’

‘So…What Really Did Happen With Palmer [Luckey]’

A book out next week tells the story of the founding of Oculus VR based on hundreds of interviews across several years.

I read an early version of the Harper Collins book by Console Wars author Blake Harris. We’ve decided to refrain reporting certain elements of the book until we verify information, or until we read the finished edition which arrives February 19.

The draft I read, however, is an intimate portrait of Palmer Luckey, Nate Mitchell, Brendan Iribe and other key members of the Oculus founding team. They assembled in 2012 to realize consumer VR and just two years later were acquired by Facebook for $3 billion. Written in a “narrative non-fiction” style, the final section of The History Of The Future follows the path Luckey took after September 2016, when a Daily Beast article tied him to “secretly funding Trump’s meme machine.” It ends after Luckey’s departure from Facebook in March 2017.

Though we broke news of Luckey’s exit, Facebook representatives wouldn’t say at the time whether the departure was voluntary. Instead, they said he’d be “dearly missed.” Luckey was also quiet on the subject despite lasting questions surrounding the misleading public statement he issued.

In April 2018, Senator Ted Cruz asked Facbook CEO Mark Zuckerberg about it:

Late last year the Wall Street Journal reported Luckey “was put on leave, then fired.”

From the Wall Street Journal:

“Internal Facebook emails suggest the matter was discussed at the highest levels of the company. In the fall of 2016, as unhappiness over the donation simmered, Facebook executives including Mr. Zuckerberg pressured Mr. Luckey to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, despite Mr. Luckey’s yearslong support of Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the conversations and internal emails viewed by The Wall Street Journal.”

VP of VR/AR at Facebook Andrew “Boz” Bosworth published on his Twitter the statement “we did not pressure him to say something untrue.”

I’ve reached out over direct message to Oculus co-founders Nate Mitchell and Brendan Iribe in hopes of understanding what happened in Luckey’s final months at the company. Iribe has not responded to my messages. I also reached out to Luckey, who responded but declined to comment publicly until the book’s release. I received the following statement over email attributed by Facebook PR to Mitchell, Head of VR Product:

It’s certainly surreal to see such a huge part of our lives turned into a few hundred pages. The book’s dramatization of our history is not always consistent with what happened, and some of the stories are definitely not reflective of our real relationships. That said, what I hope people take away is the spirit of Oculus: we lived, dreamed, and breathed VR. We worked to build something that would make the community proud, and it wasn’t easy nor without mistakes. VR has always been much bigger than just Oculus, and I’m looking forward to what this community builds together in the next 10 year chapter.

Harris sent an email late last week circulating with Facebook employees working on the VR and AR teams. I read the email, which is included at the bottom of this post, and based on my reading of Harris’ book and that email, I originally put the following questions to Facebook:

  • Did Facebook representatives give false information to Blake Harris in characterizing certain aspects of Palmer Luckey’s last eight months at Facebook?
  • Did Mark Zuckerberg (or anyone above Luckey in the reporting structure) have any input, prior to publication, on the content of Luckey’s misleading public statement?

Responses I received from Facebook do not answer those questions. Instead, I received statements which rephrase earlier positions expressed through Bosworth.

“We told Palmer that any mention of politics and who he’s voting for was up to him,” one recent statement reads.

Prior to the Mitchell statement a Facebook spokesperson wrote in a message  “The book doesn’t get everything right,” without providing a specific example.

Below is Harris’ email to Facebook VR/AR employees. I’ve removed Harris’ personal contact information from the email but it is otherwise presented verbatim:

Dear Intrepid Oculus and/or Facebook Employee,

By design, this email is going out to a combination of people I know and people I don’t. It is my hope, however, that this message and/or the chapter attached finds its way to anyone who might find the details relevant…

In fact, I should probably begin by introducing myself: I’m the author of a book called Console Wars (which came out in 2014) and I’ve spent the last few years conducting hundreds of interviews and doing extensive research for a book about Oculus/Facebook (which comes out later this month). And as some of you may also know: for 2+ years of that time, I did so with the support of Oculus/Facebook.

In April 2018, however, my access came to an abrupt halt. I’ll get to why below, but I wanted to first address some of the talking points that I know certain managers have already started deploying to describe me and my work: [For those of you short on time, I’ve put some of the most salient points in BLUE]

1) “We’re very curious to see how accurate it ends up being once we have a copy.” 

Facebook has had a copy of my book since early January. And not only have numerous people already read through it, but select employees have already received reports about content that pertains to them.

2) “We’ve heard from some folks that the book will focus heavily on (sometimes manufactured) drama, particularly around Palmer.” 

The book is primarily a founding story, so—unsurprisingly—there is a lot about Palmer Luckey in the first third of the book. And—given how much effort went in to suppressing the details of his final months at Facebook—there is a lot of Palmer Luckey in the final third of the book.

But the suggestion that I “manufactured” drama is as silly as it is false. Because the truth is that—much to the chagrin of my publisher!—I turned in my finished manuscript two years late (and twice as long as expected) because I had too much drama to work with. Between the unusual origins of Oculus, the unlikely resurrection of virtual reality and the unexpected multi-billion-dollar acquisition (followed by an even more unexpected multi-billion-dollar lawsuit), I had an embarrassment of riches to work with. And in the end, my most difficult challenge was paring things down, not making things up!

Not only that, but in the course of my researching this book, I managed to obtain thousands upon thousands of archival documents. Emails, text messages, internal memos, etc. In fact, I found so much of this material to be so engaging that—as often as wouldn’t disrupt flow—I directly inserted these emails/messages/memos into the book verbatim.

That said, as with any book, all my research does not guarantee 100% accuracy. In fact, part of the reason I wanted to write this email is to let employees know that if they end up reading my book and discover any factual (or even contextual) errors, I absolutely welcome their feedback. It will be embarrassing for me, of course, to learn that after so much work I still may have missed a few things; but at the end of the day I care way more about the integrity of this book than me ego so please, if you see something that looks inaccurate, flag it for my attention so that I may further research the situation and make any necessary changes for further editions of the book.

For example, the 39th chapter of the book (entitled “Lockdown”) deals with the behind-the-scenes drama that stemmed from the differing views of Oculus leadership and Mark Zuckerberg with regards to the openness of Oculus’s platform. Even though that chapter alone is based on hundreds of emails and numerous interviews about the situation, it has been brought to my attention that the conclusion of that chapter (i.e. the resolution that led to allowing “Unknown Sources” to run on the platform) does not match with the recollection of all those involved. So that is something that I will be further researching and, if change is warranted, I’ll note this (along with any others) on my website so that it’ll be properly disclosed until an official revision can be made in the next edition of my book.

Typically, to minimize potential inaccuracies, I try to share in advance portions of my work with those that the work is about. This, of course, bestows them with no editorial power, but it does provide a chance to catch possible errors so that I may do further research/fact-check prior to publication. And—as with every piece of non-fiction that I’ve ever written—it was my plan to do the same here. But that plan came to an end in April 2018, when Facebook instructed their employees to cease “any and all contact” with me. Which I’ll explain in more detail here…

3) “We worked with Blake early on, but we stopped when he broke trust with us more than once”

Historically, when a journalist is said to have “broken trust,” it means that they either outed anonymous sources, or they published off-the-record information. That, however, is not at all the case here. I am pleased to say that nowhere in my book does it include any information that was obtained off-the-record; nor does any of the content threaten to out the identities of the many, many sources who shared critical details and/or documents with me.

So what then, here, is meant by “broke trust with us”? Easy: “broke trust” is a euphemism for “wouldn’t print what we wanted.” And the reason why I wouldn’t print what Facebook wanted (and what was being told me to me from a variety of sources [several of whom rank high enough to officially speak on behalf of the company) was because many of the things that I was being told turned out to be untrue—particularly with regards to the termination of Palmer Luckey, and his final six months at the company. 

To be clear: this was not a “he said, she said” situation; if for no other reason than the fact that Palmer was legally prohibited from talking to anyone about what had happened, so I didn’t even have a “she said” side of the story. Instead, what I had were firsthand archival documents that contradicted so much of what I was being told. 

I’ll spare naming the sources of the quotes below, but here is just a small sampling of what I was told: 

  • “We don’t discuss personnel issues” [which, of course, would soon be followed by “on background” discussions about personnel issues]
  • “Palmer didn’t follow proper protocols” [which, I would later learn, directly contradicts the results of the internal investigation that concluded in November 2016]
  • “I don’t even know if he supports Trump” [said by people who, in the months prior to the 2016 election, had directly asked Palmer if he supported Trump and were told “yes”]
  • [re: why, if Palmer supported Trump, he would then write a statement alleging plans to  vote for Gary Johnson] “This was all his call. That was his idea.”
  • “Obviously, we can confirm that he did write that statement. That was his statement. It was his idea.”
  • [re: the days, weeks and months after The Daily Beast article in September 2016] “It wasn’t like he just disappeared and never came back.”
  • “It wasn’t as though [this were] Soviet Russia, where he just disappeared one day”
  • “He chose to go on leave” [No, he did not]
  • “He continued making internal posts during that time” [No, he did not]
  • “And then ultimately, he decided it was time to move on” [I mean…come on! The guy wanted to remain at Oculus so badly that he literally offered to continue working there for free]

Now the question you’re probably wondering: why would high-level executives and otherwise generally smart people think that such obvious lies would make it to print? For a comprehensive answer, you’d have to ask them, but my suspicion would be that its due to a combination of the following:

  • They believed that if enough people told me the same lies over a long enough period of time then I’d have no choice but to believe and/or print what I was told.
  • They believed that since Palmer (and a handful of others) were blocked from speaking with me, then I’d receive minimal pushback to a false narrative.
  • In certain high-profile media situations—like when Mark Zuckerberg appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair—Facebook negotiates with journalists ahead of time to have approval over which quotes may be printed, and it is possible they assumed that such an agreement had been struck here.  
  • My narrative non-fiction writing style—which, by the design, does not directly source the information—made for the perfect opportunity to launder lies to the general public.

In fact, with regards to that last point, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that what ultimately triggered the dissolution of my access to Oculus/Facebook employees was my sharing a draft of a chapter written outside of my typical style. Within days of my sharing that chapter (which was essentially a straight-forward transcript-style Q&A), I was told by numerous employees that they had been barred from speaking with me.

That was very disappointing for me, but fortunately—by this point in the process—I had obtained more than enough information to capably tell this story. And though I am certain that my book is not without flaws (remember: if you see any, tell me!), I am incredibly proud of the work that I have done.

It is a great privilege to be the custodian of other people’s life stories, and—to me—it is also a great responsibility. For that reason, I wanted to write this email and let all of you know that if you have any questions, suggestions, or just want to shoot the shit about some of your experiences, I will always make myself available.

Thank you for your time, and for the great work you do with a technology I care deeply about.

Best,
Blake

P.S. Over the past two years, the number one question I’ve gotten asked by Oculus folks is “So…what really did happen with Palmer” In hopes of finally providing some of the answers that you’ve long-long-deserved, I’ve attached one of the chapters from towards the end of my book.

Tagged with: , , , ,

The post ‘So…What Really Did Happen With Palmer [Luckey]’ appeared first on UploadVR.

Oculus Founder: Price Isn’t What’s Holding VR Back From Mass Adoption

Palmer Luckey, the founder of Oculus who left the company in 2017, recently published an article with his thoughts on what it will take for VR to reach the mainstream. Price, he argues, matters little if the experience is not keeping people coming back to the technology on a regular basis.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the piece published on Luckey’s personal blog this week comes just after reported priority shuffling at his former company, Oculus. Last week saw the departure of co-founder Brendan Iribe amidst reports that a significant upgrade to the Rift headset was cancelled in favor of a lesser iteration focused on keeping costs down.

Luckey’s piece, titled ‘Free isn’t Cheap Enough‘, argues that the number of headsets sold doesn’t matter if customers aren’t staying engaged with the product and using it on a consistent basis. “Engagement is Everything,” he writes.

“You could give a Rift+PC to every single person in the developed world for free, and the vast majority would cease to use it in a matter of weeks or months,” Luckey writes to illustrate his point. “I know this from seeing the results of large scale real-world market testing, not just my own imagination [his emphasis] – hardcore gamers and technology enthusiasts are entranced by the VR of today, as am I, but stickiness drops off steeply outside of that core demographic. Free is still not cheap enough for most people, because cost is not what holds them back actively or passively.”

SEE ALSO
Taking After 'Sword Art Online', Oculus Founder Wants to Make a VR Game With Serious Consequences

The “stickiness” he refers to is whether or not people are staying engaged and making regular use of the product. Engagement on a user-to-user basis doesn’t necessarily increase as cost decreases, he argues. Thus, making cost cutting a top priority doesn’t help in the long run.

Image courtesy HTC / Panora

“Recent market experiments with cheap VR hardware have shown that there are millions of people willing to buy said hardware, but very few among them continue to use the hardware or invest in the software ecosystem for very long. […] Why the lack of use?  Quality of experience. [his emphasis]”

Furthermore, Luckey believes that “No existing or imminent VR hardware is good enough to go truly mainstream, even at a price of $0.00. [his emphasis].”

He does however acknowledge that cutting costs can grow the size of the engaged audience, but “not to nearly the degree many people would expect,” he says. “Price is certainly a relevant factor in the rate of VR adoption, but not a dominant one.”

We reached out to Luckey to understand what obstacles he sees that are standing in the way of engagement, be they hardware, ease of use, content quality, etc.

“Most near-future major hardware advancements will be coming from the big players. The good news there is that most of the big players working on HMDs also run content platforms, so there is built-in incentive to make hardware that drives better engagement, even at the cost of sales or margin.” Luckey tells Road to VR. “On the developer side, people who focus on making engaging content that keeps users coming back despite the current limitations of VR stand to gain the most in the long run – keeping users will only get easier as time goes on and the hardware gets better. Five percent of a one million user market may not seem like a lot, but the network effects are likely to carry forward as the market scales to much larger numbers. This is one of the main reasons I am so bullish on Rec Room, VRChat, etc.”

He says that advancing the hardware and content is key, more important than just cutting costs on the same experience that’s been available for a few years now.

“Higher resolution, improved ergonomics that cater to a wide variety of users, and enough deep content to engage that same wide variety of users are all key factors.”

SEE ALSO
Oculus Founder Backs 'Revive'—a Hack for Vive to Play Rift-exclusive Games—With $2K in Monthly Funding

Luckey founded Oculus back in 2012, which was just a rag tag startup at the time it pitched the Oculus Rift DK1 development kit to Kickstarter. After quickly raising additional investment following the Kickstarter, Oculus was acquired just two years later by Facebook.

While Oculus was left well enough alone for a while, Facebook’s influence on the company has become increasingly apparent. Following a 2016 report which put Luckey’s polarizing political stance in the spotlight, he was shuffled within the company; around the same time Oculus CEO Brendan Iribe stepped down to head the PC VR division. In 2017, Luckey departed Oculus and Facebook entirely, and is presently building a new company, Anduril, which focuses on defense technologies, though he still regularly wades into discussion about the VR industry.

Luckey and Iribe, when both were still at Oculus

After moving to head Oculus’ PC division at the end of 2016, we learned just last week that Iribe himself is departing Oculus amid reports that an overhauled ‘Rift 2′ headset was shelved in favor of a more modest—and perhaps less expensive—’Rift S’ upgrade that’s purportedly due out next year. An anonymous source “close to the matter” told TechCrunch that Iribe wasn’t interested in a “race to the bottom” in terms of hardware and performance, but it seems that the higher-ups disagreed with his approach.

With that context, it seems that Luckey’s piece may be advocating for Iribe’s purported stance of wanting to push the hardware and experience further—with a focus on growing engagement over sales—before focusing on cost cutting.

The post Oculus Founder: Price Isn’t What’s Holding VR Back From Mass Adoption appeared first on Road to VR.

Report: Oculus Planning ‘Rift S’ Iterative Upgrade For 2019

Report: Oculus Planning ‘Rift S’ Iterative Upgrade For 2019

TechCrunch is reporting Facebook’s leadership chose not to pursue former Oculus CEO Brendan Iribe’s “complete redesign” of the Oculus Rift in favor of a “Rift S” that could arrive in 2019 and would likely feature a tracking system similar to the one on Oculus Quest.

The narrative TechCrunch writer Lucas Matney is reporting across two stories suggests the Oculus co-founder is leaving Facebook “partially” due to “decisions surrounding the cancellation of a next-generation” project with the code name of “Caspar.”

In its place will be a project “possibly” called the “Rift S”, according to Matney’s reporting, which includes a “minor” upgrade to resolution.

We know a lot of our readers were hoping for dramatic resolution upgrades and wireless in the next version of the Oculus Rift, but frankly what’s being described is exactly what we expected Facebook to pursue in a follow-up to the PC-powered Oculus Rift — something slimmer, lighter, easier to set up and works on at least as many PCs as the first generation.

Facebook’s VR leaders made clear at OC4 they believed four wide-angle cameras at the corners of a headset would provide the field of view needed to track controllers a majority of the time.

Placing that same Insight tracking system on the Oculus Rift will make it dramatically easier to set up a Rift. In fact, such a next generation Rift could even be used tethered to a backpack PC for the first time without any additional equipment. That’s been impossible with Rift’s current tracking system, which relies on specialized cameras placed around the room and wired by USB back to the PC.

Questions still remain, however, about whether the Insight tracking system will work well enough for all Rift developers.

Tagged with: , , , , ,

The post Report: Oculus Planning ‘Rift S’ Iterative Upgrade For 2019 appeared first on UploadVR.

Oculus Rift 2: Now More Fact Than Fiction

It came as quite a shock this week when one of Oculus’ founders, Brendan Iribe, confirmed that he would be leaving his position within Facebook/Oculus after six years. With Palmer Lucky having departed around the same time last year the original group that started this immersive journey has begun to dwindle, but it wasn’t so much Iribe’s departure more so his possible reasoning that caught people’s attention, the cancellation of Oculus Rift 2.

Oculus Half Dome headset

Will there be a Rift 2?

As I’m sure you’re aware by now Iribe announced his leaving via a Facebook post which led to TechCrunch reporting this was partially to do with an internal shake up that’s seen the second generation of Oculus Rift being abandoned.

Well what a furore that created, with Oculus responding with: “we are planning a future version of Rift,” going on to cite Mark Zuckerberg’s comments at Oculus Connect 5 (OC5) which were: “when we release the next version of Rift—which isn’t this year—all of the content that works for Rift will also work on the next version.”

What’s been great to take away from all this is the fact that Oculus have concretely stated a second generation Oculus Rift is in development. This you may say is unsurprising as hardware can take years to develop so of course Oculus would be working on one. However, the leap from experimental to consumer version is massive so for a global company to say that is still very important. Plus there’s the little fact that two new headsets will be released within a year of each other.

Oculus Quest (OC5)

Present Hardware

For ease of use let’s call it the Oculus Rift 2. Currently Oculus has the Gear VR, Oculus Go, Oculus Rift and Oculus Quest in its stable of hardware. Oculus Go certainly impressed when it launched during F8 2018, going on to see decent sales success as a media device rather than gaming unit. Oculus Quest looks set to be the big driving force for 2019 offering a ‘near Rift experience’ whilst being standalone with Oculus Touch controllers and inside-out tracking.

Oculus Quest’s arrival in Spring next year is likely to kill many Oculus Rift sales as consumers want to go tangle free, no longer shackled to their PC’s – or needing a VR-ready one for that matter. This will obviously see a drop in graphics quality due to the Qualcomm processor inside. So if Oculus Quest can do almost everything its PC-based brother can do where would the sequel venture?

Oculus Go GDC Promo Hero

What the second gen needs to succeed

Firstly, Oculus Rift 2 would need to offer greatly improved graphics over the other models, this would require an even beefier PC using the latest graphics cards – possibly NVIDIA’s RTX 2070 as a bare minimum? And how would this get to the headset. The new VirtualLink standard could be one way, but that then leads down a tethered system route which consumers may not want to put up with by then.

Wireless would be the way to go so long as were possible to transmit the increased amount of data whilst keeping factors like form and weight to a minimum.

The new headset would likely feature the latest cutting-edge technologies which we’re already familiar with. Eye-tracking and foveated rendering to make graphical processing easier whilst improving social interaction, and hand tracking to make physical interaction with virtual environments even more lifelike.

What about the experiments we’re only just learning about. Oculus Half Dome for example was a varifocal mechanism showcased during F8 2018 to make it easier for user’s eyes to focus. This also had the added benefit of improve the field of view (FoV) from 110 degrees to 140 degrees. FoV isn’t something Oculus discusses very often yet it’s an important vertical to consider when the likes of Pimax are aiming of 200-degrees.

Oculus Rift 2 is on the cards with a release no earlier than 2020 by the sounds of it. Having that plus Oculus Quest in 2019 would be too much for one year, innovation is great just not too quickly. Oculus Rift found a pricing sweet spot when it finally hit $399. Hopefully its successor will be priced at a similar level, although with all the new tech it needs to include that might be tricky.

The Future Of Virtual Reality Is Wireless

The Future Of Virtual Reality Is Wireless

In recent months we’ve been talking about some new definitions and marketing terms that are coming into more popular use — “wireless” and “standalone” VR. While we’ve seen hints of it in 2018, next year is when the technology will really take off.

Before I get into why that’s going to be the case, here’s an overview of where everything is for VR near the end of 2018:

  • We’ve tested the “Vive Wireless Adapter” and Vive Pro powered by Intel’s WiGig technology, as well as the forthcoming Oculus Quest headset and its truly wireless “Insight” tracking system. They both seem to work well.
  • Google’s head of VR and AR Clay Bavor made clear to us in a 2017 interview that Google could pursue its own devices in VR and AR. Google’s hiring of teams working on software like Tilt Brush, Soundstage and Job Simulator join home-grown projects like Blocks that generally indicate awareness of a consumer desire for intuitive hand-based input in VR. Most recently, Google signaled its intent to power a wireless standalone VR system with the kind of hand input we’ve come to expect from Vive, Rift, PSVR and even Windows-based headsets.
  • We know PlayStation VR sold 3 million headsets over two years and that Gear VR eclipsed that figure, but fewer people use those phone-powered headsets which are often bundled with a phone.
  • Former VR development companies like CCP Games have executives who now say they’d hoped the PC market they were selling into would be 2-3 times as large as it is. Some independent developers, however, can clear milestones like selling 100,000 copies of their game in a single month of 2018 available only on PC VR systems.
  • Valve continues to push input forward with the Knuckles controllers — while also building its own VR games — but partner HTC is charging a premium to get wireless VR or large-scale tracking with a PC in 2018.
  • Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg didn’t say much about Rift at the Oculus Connect 5 developer conference, except to say that a “new version” of the Rift would likely be “for experiences that need a PC to push the edge of what’s possible.”
  • We’re excited to see how the new Samsung Odyssey+ performs with SteamVR games, but it fundamentally still operates with a tethered connection to a PC.

The state of VR after the first two years of broad consumer availability is a complicated story not many understand, but the underlying pressure at play right now is that some money-strapped developers working at technology’s cutting edge in the last few months of 2018 need to decide whether to suffer the arduous process of porting their work to standalone VR headsets like Quest or the Mirage Solo, or to push development forward with their PC-based VR games. The first option means betting Facebook or Google will get a sufficient install base willing to pay $20+ for content, while the second option means developing games in hope that future PC-powered hardware will open the market up to more people.

With news yesterday that Brendan Iribe was departing Facebook amid a report of a cancelled “Rift 2”, the future of PC VR itself was called into question. After all, Valve head Gabe Newell is on record as saying, “We’re optimistic. We think VR is going great. It’s going in a way that’s consistent with our expectations…We’re also pretty comfortable with the idea that it will turn out to be a complete failure.”

Is The Next Oculus Rift Wireless?

After OC5, Games Editor David Jagneaux and I were livestreaming our takeaways from the conference and I found myself questioning whether Oculus would ever ship a Rift 2, or whether the popularity of Quest would cause them to reconsider their entire plan.

Here you can see the discussion at 43 minutes into the stream:

No headsets yet support the VirtualLink connector for next generation VR headsets. Meanwhile, the WiGig standard seems to do a pretty good job of delivering wireless VR from a PC to a headset nearby. This means there could be a lot of options for pushing PC-based VR into its next steps in 2019 and 2020. A future Oculus Rift could adopt Quest’s “Insight” tracking system with new lenses, but would such a system be any better than a Samsung Odyssey+?

There’s also the avenue of developing wireless streaming systems for PCs, or developing new kinds of PCs themselves that are light enough to be worn on the side or clipped to a pocket and wired to the lightweight headset. Will Facebook, Microsoft, Sony or Valve support the development of these new kinds of PCs (or  game consoles)? Or will these companies push wireless technologies in place of VirtualLink? The future of PC-powered VR may depend on the answer to those questions, because the high price (and installation involved) in getting an HTC Vive setup and wireless in 2018 is keeping VR away from many would-be buyers.

The Master Plan

Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook to make next generation personal computers and he spent many billions of dollars betting that VR headsets would be his entry point into that market. Facebook didn’t make its first true entry into that market in 2016 with Oculus Rift and its gamepad. Nor did it really redefine computing with 2018’s Oculus Go standalone, because that system doesn’t let buyers do as many of the things they’ve indicated they’ll pay to do in VR headsets — make a world, fire an arrow, shoot a gun, punch a face or swipe a sword.

No, the Oculus Quest shipping in 2019 represents the realization of Mark Zuckerberg’s dream to revolutionize personal computing and communication. It is notable that co-founders Palmer Luckey and Brendan Iribe aren’t along for that stage of the journey, but I doubt anyone would say they weren’t paid handsomely for their contributions. Personnel-wise, Oculus CTO John Carmack indicated he wants to stick around, Michael Abrash continues to lead research efforts looking into the long-term technologies that could push VR forward over the long term and co-founder Nate Mitchell continues to work on Rift efforts.

“We buy companies to get excellent people,” Zuckerberg said in 2010. “We want to build a very entrepreneurial company…and one way to do this is to focus on great companies with great founders.”

I wonder if that was still true in 2014 when Zuckerberg acquired Oculus, or whether it was still true in 2017 and 2018 when Luckey and Iribe departed.

Maybe Facebook did kill a version of the Rift that Brendan Iribe worked on, as TechCrunch reported. If that prototype’s end makes way for more accessible PC-powered Rift as a result, though, that’s going to help developers who’ve invested in developing PC-based VR games. There are a lot of ways Rift can improve without adding 4K or eye tracking, but Facebook still hasn’t made clear whether it will make those improvements in 2019 — a full three years after the Rift’s initial release. Will the company simply push out potential upgrades to Rift until 2020 or 2021 and wait to see what happens with Oculus Quest before making final calls about the next generation of PC VR hardware?

We’ll of course have to wait and see.

Tagged with: , , ,

The post The Future Of Virtual Reality Is Wireless appeared first on UploadVR.

Oculus Co-Founder Said To Be Leaving Facebook

Brendan Iribe was one of the founding members of Oculus, and headed up the company from 2012, keeping his position even after the Facebook buy out until he moved to take command of the PC division. Now it seems Iribe has cut ties with Facebook, even as rumours swirl that Facebook has abandoned work on a successor to the Oculus Rift.

Iribe has said on Facebook that he is intending to depart from Facebook, stating that he is proud of the work done by Oculus and thanking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for his confidence in virtual reality (VR) development.

Brendan Iribe

A report from TechCrunch said that the reasons for Iribe’s departure were related to the alleged cancellation of the Oculus rift 2 headset, though Facebook has been quick to deny this part of the report.

Speaking with Road to VR, a Spokeperson from Oculus denied that the TechCrunch report was accurate, saying: “[We are confirming that] we are planning a future version of Rift. You may remember Mark saying this at OC5: “… when we release the next version of Rift—which isn’t this year—all of the content that works for Rift will also work on the next version. So while we aren’t quite ready to talk about the next version of Rift, PC VR is still a category we are investing in. It’s still a part of our strategy – we’re continuing work across product and content and you’ll see this manifest next year. Additionally, Nate [Mitchell, another Oculus co-founder,] continues to lead the Rift/PC team and there are no changes there.”

The author of the TechCrunch piece, Lucas Matney, took to Twitter to claim the report was indeed accurate, saying Facebook were avoiding addressing the central claim, saying: “Plans to build a PC headset further down the line is a different clarification than them shelving plans for a productized “Rift 2” headset. There may be future PC headset with the Rift name, but the next-generation that was being planned has been cancelled.”

Oculus Half Dome headset

As usual, VRFocus will be keeping a close eye on this issue and will continue to bring you updates.

Oculus Co-Gründer Brendan Iribe verlässt Facebook; Folgt ein Rift-Nachfolger?

Brendan Iribe, der Co-Gründer von Oculus, verlässt Facebook. Angeblich sind Uneinigkeiten und ein möglicher Abbruch des Oculus-Rift-2-Projekts Grund für den schwerwiegenden Schritt. Facebook selbst gibt Entwarnung im Bezug zur nächsten Rift-Generation: Ein Nachfolger der PC-Brille ist auch weiterhin geplant.

Oculus Go-Gründer Brendan Iribe trennt sich von Facebook

Gemeinsam mit Palmer Luckey sammelte Brendan Iribe im Jahr 2012 per Kickstarter-Kampagne über 2,4 Milionen US-Dollar zur Entwicklung der Oculus Rift. Daraufhin gründeten die beiden Oculus, wo Iribe bis 2016 als CEO fungierte. Aufgrund einer internen Umstrukturierung übergab er das Amt schließlich an Hugo Barra und kümmerte sich fortan um seine eigene PC-Divison im Unternehmen mit Fokus auf der Entwicklung eines Rift-Nachfolgers.

Nun trennen sich die Wege des visionären Entwicklers vom Unternehmen, wie er selbst in einem Statement verkündet. Zwar äußert er sich nicht persönlich zu den Hintergründen, doch TechCrunch berichtet, dass interne Unstimmigkeiten über das Projekt “Oculus Rift 2″ Grund für diese Entscheidung seien. Angeblich soll die Entwicklung der nächsten Generation der VR-Brille abgebrochen werden. So seien “fundamental unterschiedliche Sichtweisen über die Zukunft von Oculus entstanden, die sich über die Zeit hinweg immer tief greifender verfestigten.”

Mark-Zuckerberg-Brendan-Iribe

Image courtesy: Facebook

Er selbst bedankt sich in seinem Abschiedspost über die Zusammenarbeit mit seinen Entwickler/-innen sowie Mark Zuckerberg, der stets an die Zukunft der Virtual Reality glaubte.

Auch Facebook äußerte sich zu den angeblichen Insider-Informationen und dementiert das Ende der Rift 2:

Wir arbeiten immer noch an einer zukünftiven Rift-Version. Ihr könnt ihr euch bestimmt darin erinnern, wie Mark auf der OC5 ankündigte: “Wenn wir die nächste Version der Rift veröffentlichen, was nicht in diesem Jahr passiert, wird sämtlicher bisheriger Content auch mit dem Nachfolger kompatibel sein.

Entsprechend können wir jetzt noch nicht über die kommende Version der Rift sprechen, aber die Abteilung PC-VR ist immer noch ein wichtiger Arbeitsbereich. Die Kategorie ist weiterhin Teil unserer Marktstrategie, für die wir auch zukünftige Produkte und Content im nächsten Jahr produzieren. Zusätzlich wird Nate [Mitchell] die Führung des Rift/PC-Teams übernehmen.”

Auch Nate Mitchell, ein weiterer Co-Gründer von Oculus, äußert sich per Twitter zu den Ereignissen:

Ob die geplante Version der Oculus Rift 2 nun wirklich abgebrochen wurde, bleibt zunächst wohl unklar. Ein Nachfolger soll jedoch definitiv folgen. Wir dürfen gespannt sein, wie sich die Zukunft des Unternehmens entwickeln wird und welche VR-Hardware uns erwarten wird.

(Quellen: TechCrunch | Road to VR | Nate Mitchell Twitter)

 

Der Beitrag Oculus Co-Gründer Brendan Iribe verlässt Facebook; Folgt ein Rift-Nachfolger? zuerst gesehen auf VR∙Nerds. VR·Nerds am Werk!

Community Download: What Would You Want Out Of A Rift 2?

Community Download: What Would You Want Out Of A Rift 2?

Community Download is a weekly discussion-focused articles series published every Monday in which we pose a single, core question to you all, our readers, in the spirit of fostering discussion and debate.


Tons of technology companies around the world are actively working on VR whether it be from a software or hardware perspective. HTC has already released both the standard Vive and Vive Pro headsets and even Sony did a small update to the PSVR — as well as Samsung’s new iteration of the Gear  VR. Facebook has stayed awfully quiet about future Rift plans, though.

After the announcement that Brendan Iribe is officially leaving Oculus, rumors swirled about the cancellation of a ‘Rift 2’ PC-based VR headset. Facebook has since stated that future versions of Rift are still coming, but didn’t provide any details beyond that.

Oculus has always been notoriously tight-lipped about not only sales figures, but also its product roadmap. At Oculus Connect 5 we learned a bit about the company’s long-term vision in regards to a three-pronged approach with the Oculus Go, Oculus Quest, and Oculus Rift.

Ultimately, the question boils down to this: What would you want out of a Rift 2 or the next version of the Rift? As a consumer, what would you prefer — waiting longer for a bigger upgrade (foveated rendering, built-in wireless, wider FOV and higher resolution) or would you rather have a small upgrade in the near-term that only improves things marginally, like the Vive Pro.

Let us know your thoughts down in the comments below!

Tagged with: , ,

The post Community Download: What Would You Want Out Of A Rift 2? appeared first on UploadVR.

Oculus Co-founder Departs Facebook Amidst Rumor of Rift 2 Cancellation

Oculus co-founder Brendan Iribe is leaving Facebook. Citing “a source close to the matter,” a report from TechCrunch indicates his departure is related to the cancellation of a Rift 2 headset, though Facebook has denied that element of the report.

Brendan Iribe (right) with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (left) | Image courtesy Facebook

Brendan Iribe was among the founding members of Oculus, and held the role of CEO from the 2012 inception of the company, through the 2014 Facebook acquisition, until the end of 2016 when he stepped down to head the PC division of Oculus as Hugo Barra took over as head of Oculus.

Now Iribe says he’s departing Facebook entirely. On the surface, it looks like an amicable split, with Iribe saying on Facebook that he was proud of the work Oculus has done and thanking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for believing in the future of VR:

So much has happened since the day we founded Oculus in July 2012. I never could have imagined how much we would accomplish and how far we would come. And now, after six incredible years, I am moving on.

I’m deeply proud and grateful for all that we’ve done together. We assembled one of the greatest research and engineering teams in history, delivered the first step of true virtual presence with Oculus Rift and Touch, and inspired an entirely new industry. We started a revolution that will change the world in ways we can’t even envision.

Yet, as far as we’ve come, the journey has just begun. Michael Abrash is right: “These are the good old days”. Now is when we get to pioneer the foundation of the next great computing platform and medium – this is our time to be pushing the state-of-the-art onward and upward. Every part of VR and AR needs to improve, especially the hardware and core technology, and Oculus has the best team in the world to do that. Although we’re still far from delivering the magical smart glasses we all dream about, now they are nearly within our reach.

Working alongside so many talented people at Oculus and Facebook has been the most transformative experience of my career. We have a saying when someone compliments or thanks you – “Team effort”. The success of Oculus was only possible because of such an extraordinary team effort. I’d like to sincerely thank everyone that’s been a part of this amazing journey, especially Mark for believing in this team and the future of VR and AR.

As for me, this will be the first real break I’ve taken in over 20 years. It’s time to recharge, reflect and be creative. I’m excited for the next chapter.

Key executives from Facebook’s VR team thanked Iribe for his work, vision, and leadership.

But a report from TechCrunch, citing “a source close to the matter,” suggests that Iribe’s departure was directly related to the (unconfirmed) cancellation of the Rift 2.

Iribe is leaving Facebook following some internal shake-ups in the company’s virtual reality arm last week that saw the cancellation of the company’s next generation “Rift 2” PC-powered virtual reality headset, which he had been leading development of, a source close to the matter told TechCrunch.

Iribe and the Facebook executive team had “fundamentally different views on the future of Oculus that grew deeper over time,” and Iribe wasn’t interested in a “race to the bottom” in terms of performance, we are told.

We’ve gone about this afternoon trying to verify or debunk this information. Speaking to Road to VR, a spokesperson for Oculus denied the TechCrunch report:

[We are confirming that] we are planning a future version of Rift. You may remember Mark saying this at OC5: “… when we release the next version of Rift—which isn’t this year—all of the content that works for Rift will also work on the next version.”

So while we aren’t quite ready to talk about the next version of Rift, PC VR is still a category we are investing in. It’s still a part of our strategy – we’re continuing work across product and content and you’ll see this manifest next year. Additionally, Nate [Mitchell, another Oculus co-founder,] continues to lead the Rift/PC team and there are no changes there.

Andrew “Boz” Bosworth, the VP of AR and VR at Facebook, affirmed a similar denial to Variety on Twitter.

Though it stands to reason that if the Rift 2 has indeed been canceled, Facebook would not want to announce this information as it could have a major impact on existing Rift sales and software ecosystem, including developers whose livelihoods are dependent on its continued existence.

Nate Mitchell, another Oculus co-founder who is still with the company, said that they are “driving forward” with the Rift, but didn’t mention a “Rift 2” specifically:

A lot of questions today about the future of Rift — we’re still driving forward on the Rift/PC platform with new hardware, software, and content.

Lots of great stuff in the works. More to share in the months ahead.

Another source at Oculus also tells us that the TechCrunch report isn’t accurate.

Lucas Matney, the author of the TechCrunch piece, doubled down on the authenticity of his report, suggesting that the official denials are using vagary to obfuscate the underlying claim.

– – — – –

With the Rift launched in 2016 and Oculus not so much as uttering the words “Rift 2” in the time since, rumblings began among Rift enthusiasts that Facebook’s priorities may have shifted away from PC VR. Back in March, Oculus confronted that notion directly, with the company’s Head of Content, Jason Rubin, affirming the continued importance of PC VR to the company.

“I want to be really really clear here: PC is vital to the VR business. We think PC will lead the industry for the next decade or more,” he said. “There’s so much more we’re going to be able to do with VR, and PC is where we figure that out. So Oculus is investing just as much in PC as ever. We’re in all three categories [PC, mobile, and standalone], and plan to stay there.”

Even still, he steered clear of “Rift 2.”

Image courtesy Facebook

More recently, back in May, Oculus showed off a brand new prototype PC VR headset (the first since the Rift launched) called Half Dome, which showcased much of the company’s recent R&D work. Half Dome is the clearest picture yet of what a Rift 2 could look like, and the company put it right in the spotlight.

Even more recently, Mark Zuckerberg got up on stage at Oculus Connect last month and clearly stated that the company was focusing on three distinct product categories, PC VR among them.

The TechCrunch report, however, indicates that the cancellation of the Rift 2, which purportedly led to Iribe’s departure, happened just last week.

The post Oculus Co-founder Departs Facebook Amidst Rumor of Rift 2 Cancellation appeared first on Road to VR.