[ifyoubuildit]

> Correct, it's very similar to game consoles

This doesn't explain why its _required_. It just means there is precedent.

Your other point is better, although I think you mean it would cost the consumer more for the hardware, right? The hardware would cost the same to produce, it's just that the company would miss out on surveillance based revenue.

It's a reasonable point, fb would make less money if they made an open headset, possibly to the point that they wouldn't make it all.

But the world where fb doesn't make any headset, and the world where they make an unacceptable headset are basically equivalent to me - the former might even have an edge in that shitty relationships with corporations aren't being encouraged (like they are throughout everything tech related currently). Granted, them blazing the trail has a tiny chance of enabling a reasonable alternative to come along in the future.

But I am a bit of a Luddite, and I know that people want their toys, and they want them now.

[TulliusCicero]

> the company would miss out on surveillance based revenue.

More than likely most of Meta's revenue from the Quest series other than hardware is based off of, y'know, selling games. I doubt tracking what games you play to target ads in the OS is more valuable than the money they make when people actually buy games.

In Facebook or Instagram, you're looking at a space that they can shoot lots of ads into, and it's otherwise very hard to monetize. But a gaming-focused VR headset is a different story. Most of the time you're not looking at anything that can have ads in it, but you can actually sell stuff very easily.

Maybe this'll change someday if they actually get social media shit in there that's popular, I'm sure Meta would love that, but so far that hasn't happened.

> But the world where fb doesn't make any headset, and the world where they make an unacceptable headset are basically equivalent to me

Popularizing the format is useful for pushing the tech forward. A big player pushing lots of devices means that the supply chains feeding the manufacture of those devices bulk up too, not to mention other knock-on effects like greater consumer awareness, and "free research" for whoever copies what the market leader does (at least for things that aren't IP-protected).

> But I am a bit of a Luddite, and I know that people want their toys, and they want them now.

I can hear the sneer from over here, yes.

[ifyoubuildit]

> More than likely most of Meta's revenue from the Quest series other than hardware is based off of, y'know, selling games. I doubt tracking what games you play to target ads in the OS is more valuable than the money they make when people actually buy games.

Isn't that a great argument for why they don't need to have such a hard requirement for a logged in session? Consoles didn't have an internet connection for the longest time, though only because it wasnt feasible yet. They moved a lot of games.

> I can hear the sneer from over here, yes.

I don't mean it as judgment, I know I'm the weirdo here. Sorry if that came off rude.

[TulliusCicero]

> Consoles didn't have an internet connection for the longest time, though only because it wasnt feasible yet. They moved a lot of games.

Consoles had physical games. VR headsets don't. Consoles treat digital games the same way Meta is doing them here, I think; if you get logged out, no more games.

The problem here isn't that Meta servers are merely down -- losing connection usually doesn't mean losing access to your library of games on consoles, or Steam. The problem appears to be that authentication is failing such that you're actually being essentially logged out, which would definitely lose you access to digital games on every console as well as Steam.

Which, I mean yeah, that's a big fuck-up on Meta's part.

[ifyoubuildit]

> Consoles had physical games. VR headsets don't. Consoles treat digital games the same way Meta is doing them here, I think; if you get logged out, no more games.

Again, consoles and steam do this because they want to, because it benefits them, and consumers don't put any meaningful pressure on them for doing so. It's not some kind of fundamental requirement. It's helpful for e.g. anti piracy stuff, but not necessary. It is 100% feasible to sell me a digital copy of a game and then not hang around on my system and watch me play it.

People let triple A PC games basically put rootkits on their systems. It's not like the games wouldn't work just fine (or better even!) without them. It's just that approximately nobody cares, and the companies will do whatatever you let them do.