Support NeoGAF

[mAcOdIn]

I have no problem with this.

Lets not lie, the social aspects of VR are huge and ingrained in our pop-culture, with stuff like the Matrix, Neuromancer, Snow Crash and the like there's undoubtedly some underlying interest in the idea even if most people outwardly dismiss it currently or find it illogical or unfeasible at this point in time. At some point it will be a reality.

So I don't find it that odd that Facebook would invest in a company that is related to that scene.

And I don't feel that Facebook would have anything to gain by locking down the platform, the platform being the headset, it is after all just a PC peripheral. At present it'd be idiotic because Facebook probably wouldn't be in a position to sell it based on their offerings alone come release and in that distant future where you can log into a VR Second Life with hyper realistic graphics, well, why lock it down at that point when they can: a) Still make some money from the headset and b) Possibly bring in new customers who've experienced it first hand, had the peripheral and decided to try some Facebook app crap since they had it lying around?

 

[alejo0121]

VRMMORPG on the way...

Sword Art Online?

Log Horizon

*Adding anime to queue*

 

[Bsigg12]

VRMMORPG on the way...

Sword Art Online?

Log Horizon

 

[Phades]

Log Horizon

I'd expect something along the lines of summer wars long before log horizon given the nature of how things are shaking out currently.

Input to command action wise, the concepts of both log horizon and sword art seem rather compelling since they give some detail how they are applied, opposed to say .//hack where they just seem to happen on the fly regardless.

Any attempt to move away from menu systems and UI overlay would be a huge plus in general.

 

[plagiarize]

What would be in it for them? They've stated they plan on releasing at or below cost. There's no backend on that investment for PC. They could make money on DS4 sales by pushing out a properly dongled/drivered DS4 for PC, but they don't do that either.

NV has Light Field. Wonder if they plan on going anywhere with it.

Hypothetically Oculus leave the high end PC gaming in a few years. Sony could release a PC version of their headset and sell it for a profit at that point, with a price tag still in the region of $300. They could port over their VR experiences they've already built on PS4 to a new audience and sell them for a profit.

I'm not saying they will, but if the market is there and Facebook / Oculus abandon it, SOMEONE will step in.

 

[NaughtyCalibur]

It's definitely about this, but it's also about the rather unrepentant exploitation of personal information. I would say that getting children to also effectively do work for you is rather questionable as well.

I don't exactly disagree with you here -- I've typically found viral marketing to be a bit skeevy in that regard; however, this has all existed long before Facebook and will continue to do so long after. When enough people are brought together on a single platform advertisers will find a way to turn those people into dollar signs. Facebook may be complicit in enabling the marketers assistance to generate the maximum impressions, but Facebook isn't the one putting these kids to work -- Pepsi, Universal Studios, EA, Sony, Disney, and practically every other company on the face of the Earth are the ones who are telling kids to "Like" this and "Share" that.

If that makes Facebook non-reputable, then we're talking about quite the ripple effect.

 

[todahawk]

*enough*

 

[SNIKT!]

 

[lazybones18]

Talk about perfect timing

http://consumerist.com/2014/03/26/f...-final-spot-in-worst-company-not-so-sweet-16/

 

[kodecraft]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmjqudbf_RE

This is what Oculus will become with FB over its head.

I'm actually a fan of this.

 

[Betta Lines]

I'm actually a fan of this.

This is NeoGAF, Facebook is your other tab.

 

[kodecraft]

waste of money. really think the future relies on an augmented future no a virtual. no one wants to be isolated and closed off from the real world wearing a vr helmet. i couldn't use the rift for over an hour. I'd rather be wearing google glass 7.0 watching a game courtside augmented over my pool.

Augmented is really cooler than VR imo. Maybe this could Google, MS, Amazon, to go this route while FB went the VR route.

 

[BabyFaceKillah]

Just another way for Zuckerberg to keep his garbage website/company relevant.

 

[Cyrano]

I don't exactly disagree with you here -- I've typically found viral marketing to be a bit skeevy in that regard; however, this has all existed long before Facebook and will continue to do so long after. When enough people are brought together on a single platform advertisers will find a way to turn those people into dollar signs. Facebook may be complicit in enabling the marketers assistance to generate the maximum impressions, but Facebook isn't the one putting these kids to work -- Pepsi, Universal Studios, EA, Sony, Disney, and practically every other company on the face of the Earth are the ones who are telling kids to "Like" this and "Share" that.

If that makes Facebook non-reputable, then we're talking about quite the ripple effect.

I don't see how being a facilitator of these practices can be defended as responsible or reputable.

Everyone doing the wrong thing doesn't make it acceptable (and yeah, the larger thesis here is probably that capitalism makes us into horrible people, consciously or unconsciously). Maybe a bit too heady for a conversation about a Facebook acquisition though, I can agree to that much. Still, it does call into question why consumers and companies seem to be so constantly misaligned in what they want.

 

[GDJustin]

I spoke to 10 indie Oculus Rift developers:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/26/oculus-rift-developers-unphased-by-facebook-buyout

Spoilers: 9/10 stand by Oculus and have 0 plans to shift development away.

 

[KennyL]

I spoke to 10 indie Oculus Rift developers:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/26/oculus-rift-developers-unphased-by-facebook-buyout

Spoilers: 9/10 stand by Oculus and have 0 plans to shift development away.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...Facebook_deal_game_devs_ponder_whats_next.php

 

[EVIL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmjqudbf_RE

This is what Oculus will become with FB over its head.

Sure thing Nostradamus

 

[Rafy]

I don't know if this has been posted before or whether it's thread worthy:

According to a person involved in the deal who was not allowed to speak publicly because he was not authorized by either company, Facebook eventually plans to redesign the Oculus hardware and rebrand it with a Facebook interface and logo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/t...l-reality-headset.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=4

 

[Zeth]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...Facebook_deal_game_devs_ponder_whats_next.php

More people saying basically the same thing, that they are not altering their plans in any way?

 

[NaughtyCalibur]

I don't see how being a facilitator of these practices can be defended as responsible or reputable.

Everyone doing the wrong thing doesn't make it acceptable (and yeah, the larger thesis here is probably that capitalism makes us into horrible people, consciously or unconsciously). Maybe a bit too heady for a conversation about a Facebook acquisition though, I can agree to that much. Still, it does call into question why consumers and companies seem to be so constantly misaligned in what they want.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. You asked if they couldn't have found a more reputable company to sell out to, but it's slim pickings out here, especially when dealing with ten figure acquisitions.

Look, I'm hardly the biggest Facebook supporter, but considering the crazy potential VR tech can have in the future of social media I'm pretty excited to see where this goes.

 

[Waveset]

Wow, the last 24 hours are the most entertaining I've spent on Gaf. Thank you.

So with a huge pile of shares forming part of the deal, can anyone say what percentage of Facebook, Oculus Rift will own?

 

[Chili]

Wow, the last 24 hours are the most entertaining I've spent on Gaf. Thank you.

So with a huge pile of shares forming part of the deal, can anyone say what percentage of Facebook, Oculus Rift will own?

The shares probably went to the executives, founders and investors and would be around 0.001% of the company.

 

[Retrocide]

The shares probably went to the executives, founders and investors and would be around 0.001% of the company.

?
Just checked, Facebook has Market Cap of $153.97 Billion, the deal calls for Oculus to receive $2 Billion with $1.6 Billion of the the purchase with stock....so about 1.04% of the Facebook.

 

[exmachina64]

I don't know if this has been posted before or whether it's thread worthy:



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/t...l-reality-headset.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=4

It's already been a separate thread.

 

[Platy]

 

[Chili]

?
Just checked, Facebook has Market Cap of $153.97 Billion, the deal calls for Oculus to receive $2 Billion with $1.6 Billion of the the purchase with stock....so about 1.04% of the Facebook.

You're right, I mistakenly used $1.6m in the calculation.

 

[Cyrano]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. You asked if they couldn't have found a more reputable company to sell out to, but it's slim pickings out here, especially when dealing with ten figure acquisitions.

Look, I'm hardly the biggest Facebook supporter, but considering the crazy potential VR tech can have in the future of social media I'm pretty excited to see where this goes.

I dunno. I'm with notch in generally being creeped out by Facebook.

I think in my own head, I often ask myself, "what is it that I could do with 2 billion dollars that I couldn't do with 1 billion?" Then I cut it down more. 500 million? 200 million?

Maybe you have to make compromises at a certain dollar amount, but I oftentimes in my head see these huge investments, such as the $200 million for Final Fantasy XIV, and see a product that no one wanted. I don't know if that's a result of the money involved, but it's strange to see companies spending huge dollar amounts to make something no one wants. How do you justify spending billions of dollars on a product that you can't sell? Or on a userbase that is entirely imagined?

All of that's just hypothetical of course. At least for Oculus Rift--for now.

I did find this Radiolab about Games really interesting, specifically the part where they do research and find that 80% of the population roots for the underdog, while 20% of the population roots for the "overdog." And what I find interesting about those numbers is that those numbers closely coincide with our society's wealth distribution patterns.

If you're interested: http://www.radiolab.org/story/153799-games/

 

[rekameohs]

If I have to choose, I'll take the anonymous source every time in that scenario.

PR and doubletalk are joined at the hip. Doesn't matter what company we're talking about.

what

 

[kehs]

I wonder if he is contractually obligated to stay at Oculus though. Couldn't he just jump ship if things get bad and take his knowledge and clout and start a competing VR product?

A two billion dollar contract probably has a non-compete clause that spans the solar system.

Unless he's sharing lawyers with Conan.

 

[Cuburt]

Anyone think this is a move to keep the tech out of the hands of competitors or something along those lines? I can't see Facebook meaningfully doing anything with this that helps them and I don't think VR will be quite as big as some people think it will be.

This move just doesn't seem to make sense and for that reason, I think the plan was just to scoop them up while they were "cheap" (before any potential real boom in popularity once the first commerical VR product hits shelves) and do something short term. If that's true, this sort of confirms it's flash in the pan/fad potential even more unless Facebook is really willing to go all in with the gamble of potential utility beyond gaming, but I don't see that happening. At least Sony has their hands in gaming and other forms of media and entertainment, so Project Morpheus could get a big push from them. I don't see what Facebook has to gain.

 

[Cyrano]

Anyone think this is a move to keep the tech out of the hands of competitors or something along those lines? I can't see Facebook meaningfully doing anything with this that helps them and I don't think VR will be quite as big as some people think it will be.

If this becomes a patent war it will be genuinely shitty for the future of VR.

 

[BigTnaples]

Unexpected.


Hope this ends up being a good thing.

Live Occulus Rift NFL, NBA, etc games would be amazing.

 

[AmyS]

Eurogamer: Oculus Rift: Step into the game, step out with two billion dollars

When Palmer Luckey and his colleagues set up their famous Kickstarter campaign back in 2012, they introduced Oculus Rift as "a new virtual reality (VR) headset designed specifically for video games that will change the way you think about gaming forever". Their convincing pitch raised $2.4m to build the first development kits, despite only asking for $250,000.

I was one of the 9522 people who bought into it, despite my personal scepticism about Kickstarter, a service that offers very little recourse to people who pledge money if things then go sour. For whatever reason, I had $300 that I could bear to part with at the time, I looked at the materials and judged that I would probably get the development kit I was being told would be manufactured, and it all worked out. When my kit turned up some months later and, after a bit of faffing around, I was able to walk around the train station in Half-Life 2 as though I was really there, I had no regrets.

Two years later, Palmer Luckey still talks about how his "foray into virtual reality was driven by a desire to enhance my gaming experience", even as he posts on Reddit explaining that Oculus has sold itself for $2bn to Facebook, a company whose main relationship with games is helping the people who make horrendous ones become extraordinarily rich. I still have no regrets, because I got what I wanted, but the whole episode will be a cautionary tale for anyone who thought Oculus' Kickstarter was more like a pinky-promise to put gaming at the centre of the next generation of virtual reality.

The rest here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...to-the-game-step-out-with-two-billion-dollars

 

[Jarmel]

Eurogamer: Oculus Rift: Step into the game, step out with two billion dollars

The rest here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...to-the-game-step-out-with-two-billion-dollars

Why somebody would expect a company or another person to ever not sell out, is beyond me.

 

[NaughtyCalibur]

Why somebody would expect a company or another person to ever not sell out, is beyond me.

Pretty much. Not only that, but anybody who seriously thought VR tech would remain entirely within the gaming bubble is bananas.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8965-So-That-Facebook-And-Oculus-Rift-Thing

Jim Sterling appears to share our sentiments as well on this. Facebook is not some saintly corporation by any stretch, but could it be worse? Oh yeah.

 

[Cuburt]

If this becomes a patent war it will be genuinely shitty for the future of VR.

I think you might be on to something considering how much patent wars play a role in so much of the tech industry.

 

[A-V-B]

Pretty much. Not only that, but anybody who seriously thought VR tech would remain entirely within the gaming bubble is bananas.

I don't think a ton did. People were already hearing about how it was being utilized by architects and car companies and stuff. Facebook has nothing to do with the initial possibilities and understanding of it expanding "outside games." To try and link those two together to support an argument is, I think, sort of false.

 

[mjontrix]

Unexpected.


Hope this ends up being a good thing.

Live Occulus Rift NFL, NBA, etc games would be amazing.

Would be good, but any sort of lag would destroy the immersion.

 

[Bsigg12]

I don't think a ton did. People were already hearing about how it was being utilized by architects and car companies and stuff. Facebook has nothing to do with the initial possibilities and understanding of it expanding "outside games." To try and link those two together to support an argument is, I think, sort of false.

People aren't thinking outside of the box though. They are stuck thinking Facebook is stuck as a social network when instead they are trying to diversify like Google. Google is a company built on a search engine that has grown to many other things. Facebook is trying to replicate that. It is in their best interest to make Oculus the best company possible to make VR a reality and affordable because then they'll be seen as the company that brought the tech to the masses.

 

[Elfforkusu]

People aren't thinking outside of the box though. They are stuck thinking Facebook is stuck as a social network when instead they are trying to diversify like Google. Google is a company built on a search engine that has grown to many other things. Facebook is trying to replicate that. It is in their best interest to make Oculus the best company possible to make VR a reality and affordable because then they'll be seen as the company for really bringing the tech to the masses.

This is a legitimate possibility, and I want to believe it. But I can't picture a reasonable revenue stream (especially w/ selling the equipment at cost) that doesn't involve a locked ecosystem and either ads, data gathering, or both.

 

[NaughtyCalibur]

I don't think a ton did. People were already hearing about how it was being utilized by architects and car companies and stuff. Facebook has nothing to do with the initial possibilities and understanding of it expanding "outside games." To try and link those two together to support an argument is, I think, sort of false.

And that is exactly why Facebook is probably one of the best companies to aqcuire this tech, as they will be the ones to give it the capital needed to go well beyond gaming applications and do so feasibly and timely.

Like Jim Sterling more or less said: Facebook may be a shit company at its core, but when they acquire something they rarely do anything to hinder its natural progression. What more could you want?

 

[Kyzer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmYzjjSfT8s

 

[Bsigg12]

This is aolsonegitimate possibility, and I want to believe it. But I can't picture a reasonable revenue stream (especially w/ selling the equipment at cost) that doesn't involve a locked ecosystem and either ads, data gathering, or both.

They don't need to close anything. All they need to do is offer an innovative store front with curated games and specialized ads in that space. Imagine a VR "mall" that acts as both a store and launching area for games. You could wander around the mall to see new things and see ads while you wander looking at games that Oculus sees as the cream of the crop VR experiences. This wouldn't be required though for games though just those who want to be featured.

People will say why would any person want to use that? Well it's the infancy of VR, they aren't going to be able to close anything off without developers pushing back. They have to support devs as much as possible. Give them incentives to make having their game featured in the interactive storefront to help convince the ultra stubborn side of gamers to actually explore it.

From here, Facebook over the next 10 years can build on these spaces and start making them social. Give players private spaces that they can spend money to increase size. Have air hockey tables and shit you can play with others. Have TVs where they can pull Twitch or other video services so people can watch together. Think PS Home.

 

[Doc Holliday]

On a side note I wonder how much The Social Network has affected facebooks reputation and business dealings. I know it's a movie but If were dealing with Zuckenberg how do I not think of how douchey he was portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg LOL

Then i'm sure if got slapped by 2 bil i would not think about it much.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

This is a legitimate possibility, and I want to believe it. But I can't picture a reasonable revenue stream (especially w/ selling the equipment at cost) that doesn't involve a locked ecosystem and either ads, data gathering, or both.

As long as Luckey honors his claim that it can stay open, and even if there is an installed OS/processor, that enthusiasts can hook it up, tinker with it, and play as a monitor, it could be an utterly massive win-win.

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

PS Home... *shudders*

 

[kittens]

WHAT THE HELL

:-(

 

[Cyrano]

And that is exactly why Facebook is probably one of the best companies to aqcuire this tech, as they will be the ones to give it the capital needed to go well beyond gaming applications and do so feasibly and timely.

Like Jim Sterling more or less said: Facebook may be a shit company at its core, but when they acquire something they rarely do anything to hinder its natural progression. What more could you want?

I'm not actually sure what the natural progression of VR tech is at this point. Though whatever it becomes, I do think that Facebook will try to shape it, due to its vested interest.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Cliffy's blog post about the whole thing

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/80832803371/riftbook

 

[SaberEdge]

I have no problem with this.

Lets not lie, the social aspects of VR are huge and ingrained in our pop-culture, with stuff like the Matrix, Neuromancer, Snow Crash and the like there's undoubtedly some underlying interest in the idea even if most people outwardly dismiss it currently or find it illogical or unfeasible at this point in time. At some point it will be a reality.

So I don't find it that odd that Facebook would invest in a company that is related to that scene.

And I don't feel that Facebook would have anything to gain by locking down the platform, the platform being the headset, it is after all just a PC peripheral. At present it'd be idiotic because Facebook probably wouldn't be in a position to sell it based on their offerings alone come release and in that distant future where you can log into a VR Second Life with hyper realistic graphics, well, why lock it down at that point when they can: a) Still make some money from the headset and b) Possibly bring in new customers who've experienced it first hand, had the peripheral and decided to try some Facebook app crap since they had it lying around?

This is exactly how I see it as well.

I also have to say, way to go, gaf! I've visited NeoGAF for years, but I only recently got my account. And I'm happy I did. The level of conversation on this subject and any other is way above any other gaming site I have been on. You still have your crazies and differences of opinion on all sides, but the important thing is that actual discussion is possible. And that is refreshing.