I think I use the term I think as a way of saying these are just my opinions and not fact.
I think it's a way to soften a statement but it's interesting you interpret it in another way. I think I'll try not to use the term excessively in the future.
Some people make statements in ways that sound like they're more than just opinion, I think I try to avoid that.
I think I'll continue to use the term though 🙂
Intel 5820K OC@4Ghz, Titan X (Maxwell), 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v20H2 (19043.1081)
Greatly appreciate that @DaftnDirect
Thank you for taking this onboard.
Always want to keep this valuable forum open to great discussions.
Just to clarify - I do not really appreciate the use of labeling terms such as "haters", or "insiders" or "outsiders" - I know you have not always used them, but the tone is feeling grating. The excessive use of "I think" kind of illustrates my feeling that you are "interpreting to try and prove a point", rather than giving your own view on the topic.
Hmm, how is this different than your own commentary? Such as here:
"offering another informed observation from those actually working in the sector"
For years you have made it a point to separate everyone in to categories:
Even with the score keeping, where you call out anyone who got a speculation wrong, those all fall under the same category of labeling. And it is a tool that you seem to proudly use often.
As I have always recommended, you should consider leading by example. If there is a behavior that you do not like, then try not to act on that behavior yourself. This idea that only you can label everyone but nobody can offer up labels in return has never worked. Perhaps taking this approach for the last 5 years can be retired? Try a different approach going in to 2022?
As we saw with Oculus, for many it was a surprise when the company focused on a seated only experience with Microsoft - but eventually pivoted to Room Scale. The same way to pivot away from a partnership on CV1 / Xbone as many though the direction had been suggested.
All of that is completely false though. For starters, you openly admitted that you never owned a Rift. So it seems that you keep getting information about the Rift wrong, as you rely on speculation.
The initial release of the Rift CV1 was NOT a "seated only" experience. It was very much a standing experience, and you could walk around your room. Even with the free Demo that comes with the Rift, Oculus Dream Deck, there were experiences where you can stand and walk in a 6D0F environment.
So it is 100% false to proclaim that Rift CV1 was seated-only at launch. And it is from this false claim that you try to manufacture a "pivot." There was no pivot.
Oculus always planned to release the Oculus Touch hand-controllers. The problem is that they were not ready at launch of the HMD, so the release of Touch was delayed. You are calling this a "pivot" which is false speculation. Releasing Touch was simply a follow-up release of technology. For those of us working in the Development Sector, this is simply called a: Phased Deployment.
To call it a pivot to release further products and updates is a huge error in understanding how product development works.
Lastly, the idea that going from a Gamepad to a VR Hand-Controller is a "pivot" in experiences is also immensely inaccurate; as it is the software itself that dictates which controllers are supported. Take Obduction, for example. It can be played with both a Gamepad and VR Hand-Controllers.
Peripheral support has been common for decades, such as playing a Racing SIM with either mouse/keyboard, gamepad, or Steering Column. Nobody has ever accused Racing SIM devs, of either hardware or software, of "pivoting" their strategy just because they support new hardware.
Overall, it does appear that you go to interesting lengths to criticize the community for "speculation that amounted to nothing" as well as anything related to Oculus and Facebook that may have been "a pivot." Yet the irony is that your criticisms stem from inaccurate speculation on your part.
This is why it is best to just lead by example, and discuss things more constructively and objectively. There is no point is constantly trying to twist every bit of news in to something negative. Especially if the act of twisting relies so heavily on.... false speculation.