Thursday, October 22nd 2020

Looking for a Paperweight? Buy an Oculus Quest 2 and Get Your Facebook Account Locked

We've all been there - we've all looked longingly at someone elses' flashy paperweight - an Escher puzzle, a coffee mug, a smartphone, a badly flashed GPU or even a face mask are all worthy contenders vying for our attention. Facebook, however, has been turning the paperweight game on its head, and in the real world too - some users who bought the most recent Quest 2 headset (which is apparently selling pretty well) are being given the opportunity to adorn their desks with this high-tech, low-key paperweight due to its Facebook-required integration. Essentially, users who have their Facebook accounts banned (or, more specifically, with pending verification) have been met with difficulties in actually using their Quest 2 (which, by all accounts, is a huge step forward for the VR space).
Facebook's integration with Oculus was something that was guaranteed not to happen back during the acquisition; however, recently, we've discovered that Facebook integration would become mandatory for all Oculus headsets (previous models will be grandfathered via their Oculus accounts until 2023), and that the Quest 2 would be the first headset to mandate that users link their Facebook accounts. The problem stems from Facebook flagging accounts for verification - if that user has an Oculus Quest 2, they won't be able to use the device until the account has been successfully verified. This can be a lengthy process, as Facebook employs a photograph verification process that can sometimes take upwards of three months to get human validation form Facebook's side. Users trying to reactivate old Facebook accounts to use with the Quest 2 have been successfully linked, only to be immediately locked out due to identity verification requirements.

Facebook's idea on Real Identity (where any one account actually fully represents a single person that exists in the non-digital world, and is thus much more valuable for data gathering and advertising revenue) is partly to blame here, as it may bring an overzealous disposition to the table - at least when it comes to Oculus Quest 2 paperweights. For now, Facebook is directing Quest 2 users who have run into these account verification issues to try and clear them with Oculus support. here's hoping that process takes a little less than three months.
Source: Upload VR
Add your own comment

104 Comments on Looking for a Paperweight? Buy an Oculus Quest 2 and Get Your Facebook Account Locked

#51
Turmania
Can`t you use it, without logging on to your facebook? surely, this must be illegal.
Posted on Reply
#52
hat
Enthusiast
ValantarSued on what basis? That would essentially set a legal precedent where it's no longer allowed to require an account to use a device, which ... well, ain't gonna happen.
And that wouldn't be a good thing?

Buy an Occulus, you must create a Facebook account and open yourself up to the largest data mining project in the world.
Buy an Android, you almost have to use a Google account to even have a functional device, and get data mined there, too.
Want to use Windows? You can use a local account, but MS is pushing that Microsoft Account pretty hard. Not that you don't get data mined by the OS regardless of whether you use a MS account or not.
Posted on Reply
#53
RedelZaVedno
TurmaniaCan`t you use it, without logging on to your facebook? surely, this must be illegal.
It's illegal in Germany that's why Oculus is banned from selling Quest 2 on their market, but not in US Inc, I'm afraid.
Posted on Reply
#54
windwhirl
hatAnd that wouldn't be a good thing?
That they get sued? I think most at least a few of us here would like that lol, but it's unlikely that it will get anywhere.

If nothing else, it's gonna be interesting for antitrust and GDPR regulators, which are probably better suited to this kind of issue.
Posted on Reply
#55
OGoc
I'm a bit older than many of you but we used to have "community standards" back in the day (circa 80's and 90's)... you look through my garbage or peak through my cedar hedge, you're out of the community. Shunned as the neighbourhood creep.

Facebook is way creepier and violates many, if not most, "community standards". It's really a shame that junkies are keeping them afloat instead of their deserved boycott.
Posted on Reply
#56
OneMoar
There is Always Moar
Looking for Clickbait? Visit techpowerup.com....
Posted on Reply
#57
xrobwx71
ValantarPeople at the parties I go to generally don't make jokes where the punchline has logical flaws that clear - unless that's the point, of course. At least I've yet to experience that. Sorry for actually paying attention to what I read, I guess?
Is this Khan Noonien Singh? :p
Posted on Reply
#58
wickerman
I bought into oculus with the first Kickstarter, and have 3 since (the latest being rift s). I really enjoy VR - particularly in racing sims. But requiring all owners to have a Facebook was the end for me. I don’t have one, I don’t want one, and I have no interest in their tech if it’s required for anything. I’m just glad I bought almost all my games from steam.
Posted on Reply
#59
TheUn4seen
wickermanI bought into oculus with the first Kickstarter, and have 3 since (the latest being rift s). I really enjoy VR - particularly in racing sims. But requiring all owners to have a Facebook was the end for me. I don’t have one, I don’t want one, and I have no interest in their tech if it’s required for anything. I’m just glad I bought almost all my games from steam.
I had a DK2 back in the day. After Oculus sold to Facebook my first thought was "thay will ruin this sooner or later". So I immediately sold the DK2, bought Vive not long after and never looked back. Facebook is one of the companies I prefer to have nothing in common with.
Posted on Reply
#60
BArms
Facebook's hivemind thinks they're running an MMO: "You're in our world now" seems to be their slogan.
Posted on Reply
#61
Daisho11
Imagine still having a Facebook account.
Posted on Reply
#62
rtwjunkie
PC Gaming Enthusiast
biffzinkerAre these Facebook accounts that were already banned in violation of rules on the social side?
I think you’ve also made a great point. What FB has said applies in other areas too if you look at it.

There are many people that have not succumbed to FB’s mind control that has quashed all points of view that don’t conform to theirs and banned those accounts. Those people will also have paperweights, as they will not be allowed to use the gear they purchased that requires a FB account to operate.
Posted on Reply
#63
Valantar
windwhirlI think that came from a "promise" that the Oculus ecosystem would not require integration with Facebook...

oculus/comments/21cy9n/_/cgbz2vw
IMO, if it's not in written down in the documents of the deal, there is no basis for suing.
This might be a tad pedantic, but Rift /= Quest.
hatAnd that wouldn't be a good thing?

Buy an Occulus, you must create a Facebook account and open yourself up to the largest data mining project in the world.
Buy an Android, you almost have to use a Google account to even have a functional device, and get data mined there, too.
Want to use Windows? You can use a local account, but MS is pushing that Microsoft Account pretty hard. Not that you don't get data mined by the OS regardless of whether you use a MS account or not.
I wasn't commenting on whether or not it was a good thing. I said it's not going to happen. Which it isn't. Ever. I can't imagine any legal reasoning for why a service provider wouldn't be allowed to require registration to provide their service. The only feasible means of alleviating stuff like this is regulating what data they are allowed to collect and how they can use it, and then enforcing these rules strictly (after all, such measures would pay for themselves given the high likelihood of enormous fines).
Posted on Reply
#64
lexluthermiester
Gee wiz, who could have seen this crap coming... No, it couldn't have been me a few weeks ago in another thread... not at all... :wtf::rolleyes:

Frak Facebook. Pathetic losers.
Posted on Reply
#65
Sybaris_Caesar
lexluthermiesterGee wiz, who could have seen this crap coming... No, it couldn't have been me... not at all... :wtf::rolleyes:

Frak Facebook. Pathetic losers.
I couldn’t foresee the reaction from TPU userbase if I'm being honest. Criticising Quest 2 is like now considered criticising VR as a whole. Kinda akin to some people who cry anti-semitism when people criticise Israeli policies.
Posted on Reply
#66
lexluthermiester
KhonjelCriticising Quest 2 is like now considered criticising VR as a whole.
Not really, there are other options and many of them offering a better experience.
KhonjelKinda akin to some people who cry anti-semitism when people criticise Israeli policies.
No politics here please.
Posted on Reply
#67
bug
KhonjelI couldn’t foresee the reaction from TPU userbase if I'm being honest. Criticising Quest 2 is like now considered criticising VR as a whole. Kinda akin to some people who cry anti-semitism when people criticise Israeli policies.
I take it in your head a toy and a nation are roughly the same thing. Ouch.
Posted on Reply
#68
Raevenlord
News Editor
neatfeatguyI'd agree it's a clickbait title. This article is horribly titled and should be changed.

In all my English classes up through freshman year of college (even my mom that minored in English drilled this into my head) it was always taught to have a title that showcases what you're paper is about and then the first paragraph should be designed to grab the attention of the reader and provide all the pertinent information: who, what, when, where and why that makes your title legit. After the first paragraph it's then your job throughout the rest of the paper to drive home your idea to convince the reader that your paper is correct and they should believe your work.

It's become the acceptable norm these days to design a title that kind of touches on the information provided in the article, but more so to grab your attention simply so you click on it to produce traffic. Now that you've clicked on the article, the information provided isn't substantial to the reader nor does it actually really pertain to the title given. It's generally misleading or so vague, the only real reason behind the title is simply to get people to click on it - hence reason why folks would consider this title to be "clickbait".

"Buy an Oculus Quest 2 and Get Your Facebook Account Locked" - reading the title it leads the reader to believe that if you simply buy an Oculus Quest 2 that your Facebook account will be locked. However, reading through the article it kind of touches on the reason why your account could be locked. "Could" be locked and "Get Your Facebook Account Locked" simply by buying a Oculus Quest 2 are two very different things.

Sorry for the off topic, but folks posting here can do better. This isn't a shot at the OP, others that post news articles here are also to blame for click bait titles. Then again, maybe the problem is with me and I'm just reluctant to change, roll over and accept this is how the rest of the world now operates???
The way the title is written out is pretty clear. It's that If you are looking for a paperweight (as in, getting your own because you don't have any), you can buy the Quest 2 and then simply act in a way so that your Facebook account gets locked. You, as a reader, are creating a causal, certain relationship (buy a quest 2, get your facebook account locked) where none exists. If the "looking for a Paperweight" wasn't there, I'd agree with you. Clickbait and misleading. As it's written? Sorry, but no. Nor does the content of the news post coincide with your extensively typed clickbait description. The title and initial sentences are also meant to be sarcastic in tone.

I'm all for constructive criticism, but I'm also all for convincing arguments. And I know how I wrote the title; how you read it, however, is out of my control.
Posted on Reply
#69
Sybaris_Caesar
bugI take it in your head a toy and a nation are roughly the same thing. Ouch.
Ouch what? Your attempt to make a fallacy of my comment went over my head. Since I'm not a native English-speaker can you succinctly explain to me what hurt you?
Posted on Reply
#70
InVasMani
lexluthermiesterNot really, there are other options and many of them offering a better experience.

No politics here please.
May insert a whole heap of politics on this Facebook gas fire...
Posted on Reply
#71
Raevenlord
News Editor
xkm1948What do you expect? TPU news staff have ALWAYS been viewing VR with a strong negative bias, ever since 2016 when Vive and Rift CV1 first came out. They take every oppotunity they can to bash it or mock it. I have grown tired of arguing with comments in news sections for anything related to VR. Sensationalized title attracts VR haters who celebrate and parroting the "TOLD YA IT SUCKS" narrative.
I haven't been viewing VR with a strong negative bias, and neither have my fellow news editors. It's one thing to have a negative bias, it's another to mention facts: technology and pricing limitations in the first generation devices; low mainstream adoption because of that; and an ecosystem that clearly hasn't grown as it was supposed (and had potential) to. And now, when there is an adequately-priced solution with great performance and rave reviews, which could bolster mainstream adoption and bring VR towards what it Could be, it's locked behind a social network's intention of having every human being in their grasp by activelly locking device access should you not conform to the social network aspect.

I love VR and its immense possibilities, and I see it as the future of experiences. There is no negative bias. What there sometimes is is overt, extreme optimism that doesn't look at the actual state of the industry, and its adoption.
Posted on Reply
#72
lexluthermiester
KhonjelOuch what? Your attempt to make a fallacy of my comment went over my head. Since I'm not a native English-speaker can you succinctly explain to me what hurt you?
You made a political statement in reference and comparison to a piece of technology. Such was both seriously misguided and wildly inappropriate.
OneMoarLooking for Clickbait? Visit techpowerup.com....
Your reading comprehension needs improvement.
ValantarSued on what basis? That would essentially set a legal precedent where it's no longer allowed to require an account to use a device, which ... well, ain't gonna happen.
Actually, that would be a very good legal precedent. People have the right to use their own property with or without the involvement of the manufacturer.
Posted on Reply
#73
bug
lexluthermiesterActually, that would be a very good legal precedent. People have the right to use their own property with or without the involvement of the manufacturer.
It's complicated. You already can't use your TV in its own right without subscribing to few companies that have nothing do to with TV manufacturing, the precedent is already there. I'm not saying the line shouldn't be drawn somewhere, just pointing out it's not straightforward to do it.
Posted on Reply
#74
lexluthermiester
bugYou already can't use your TV in its own right without subscribing to few companies that have nothing do to with TV manufacturing
Wait, what TV did YOU buy? No TV I've ever bought requires anything other then it being plugged into the wall and an antenna.
Posted on Reply
#75
Sybaris_Caesar
lexluthermiesterYou made a political statement in reference and comparison to a piece of technology. Such was both seriously misguided and wildly inappropriate.
I made a comparison sure but to a phenomena that some people deem political. I neither claimed the phenomena is good nor bad to complicit myself. Regardless the news-piece writer wrote better replies to his criticisms and I feel like my recent comments are not adding anything to the discussion so I'll take my leave. Sayonara.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 20th, 2024 02:15 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts