It is fun but not worth integrating Facebook into your life. Better use the alternatives. Sadly I own 2 devices from oculus. Will use them until they don't work anymore and then they are headed to scrap. Would have a bad conscience selling the devices and maybe that doesn't even work.
I'm also looking forward to alternatives. Pico VR seems to be the only standalone headset? Don't worry about selling them, there were no reported problems with switching Quest/Rift to a different account.
I still expect existing devices will continue to work with Oculus account. The FB account will be required for slew of upcoming social features, like using same avatar across different games, group of people moving between games, the Horizon and other social content... If they make existing HW unusable without switching to FB account, they would face class-action lawsuit and media backlash. I think they want to self-regulate as much as possible so they'll try to avoid those pesky court rulings.
As for your original question, FB doesn't care about few hundered dollars across few tens of thousand users that are reluctant to switch to FB accounts. They are playing the long game of becoming the only relevant player in VR/AR market.
I don't understand why Oculus, being owned by Facebook, should not be allowed to require a Facebook login. I don't like it much, but it is their company. They invested shitloads of money in it, too.
Afaik such things happen, although I don't know about Sweden. But many reports that induced panic were just things that happen from time to time, only the population was not used to seeing it (no reporting). There were other aspects, too, like morgues closing out of fear or because of regulation (can't handle the dead because of risk of infection).
Edit: HN doesn't let me post more comments atm, so here is my reply to "needs citations":
They "need" citations? Why do they need them, because it is my duty to convince you? Why?
If you are interested, you can ask if I have citations, or you can google yourself. But there is no "need" as such, because it is not my duty to convince you.
These things made the rounds at the high time early in the pandemic. Maybe if I have time I'll google them later. Maybe you could google for "Morgues closing corona" or something like that.
New York especially afaik has a problem with Morgues, even in normal times there are not enough of them, and it is not easy to build more because of regulations.
Not exactly new. Partial immunity to many strains of flu is common and widespread. Not so much to SARS family coronaviruses. (Which are very different from other coronaviruses, much more than flu strains between each other.)
Nevertheless, isn't the latest finding that many people already seem to be partially immune - perhaps because there are some similarities to other Corona viruses that the immune system can latch on to?
So did they test every dying person on influenza, and if they died, cause of death was "influenza"? What if they tested positive for both influenza and Covid-19, what cause would be listed?
I'm just not convinced the comparison is very meaningful, as I suspect many more people were tested for Covid-19 than for influenza. The testing strategy may have been completely different, making the comparison meaningless.
