Dorimukyasuto
Member
the feel when MySpace
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Facebook has acquired Oculus VR for 2 Billion US Dollars
- Thread starter ShogunDarius
- Start date
MaritalWheat
Member
That's a very measured post, and one I largely agree with.
This idea does not require paying 2 billion dollars for the company, only developing software for it.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
good stuff
maabus1999
Member
Haha, this is great...
In the Private Equity world, if Oculus raised 2.5 million that way for a % of the company, they would've been entitled to a portion of the 2 Billion sale.
In the kickstarter world, he bypasses giving up a share of his company, still gets the money to make the tech (which he may or may not have needed in developing the tech), then sells out for a massive profit. Everyone who donated on kickstarter pretty much made this guy rich.
It's funny, if all the kickstarter money was correlated to say 20% of the company (reasonable % if not low), then all the kickstarters in theory would have a pool of 200 million dollars to share from.
Fun with numbers.
In the Private Equity world, if Oculus raised 2.5 million that way for a % of the company, they would've been entitled to a portion of the 2 Billion sale.
In the kickstarter world, he bypasses giving up a share of his company, still gets the money to make the tech (which he may or may not have needed in developing the tech), then sells out for a massive profit. Everyone who donated on kickstarter pretty much made this guy rich.
It's funny, if all the kickstarter money was correlated to say 20% of the company (reasonable % if not low), then all the kickstarters in theory would have a pool of 200 million dollars to share from.
Fun with numbers.
indigo-cyclops
Member
Didn't realize he was actually an investor on Oculus; good post though. But that doesn't calm all the fear that a company like Facebook might change the trajectory of the Rift to suit THEIR needs. As a gamer, if that happens, it won't likely match mine.
Mr. Waffle
Member
Facebook can add Retina scans to the vast amount of information people willingly/unknowingly give to them.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Really great post.
i guess ultimately my feeling is simply that it would have been fun to incubate VR for a while in a kind of niche, indie PC gaming sort of sphere. VR is just going to blow past that stage faster now and end up where it inevitably would have anyways. a bit sad that the journey will be lost, but the destination remains the same, and I'm definitely still excited about what's in store.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Same. This quote in particular is pretty telling.
Pretty sure most people around these parts (and most of the kickstarter backers) didn't really know this. Then again was it Oculus' job to educate those of us not in the know about how these kinds of things usually play out? That's up to debate.
The following is his stance on the backlash from KS backers
CountAntonius
Member
If the Oculus was to ship the new and improved Rift most people who had interest before would still buy it and I'm pretty sure they know that.
yeah im glad gaf didnt turn out to be the cesspool of reinforcing opinions that is reddit
er dont make it sound like he exploited people here.
how did you even get 20% ownership just from 2.5 mil KS money?
Good thing that everyone realizes that panhandling isn't a proper investment channel.
EmptySpace
Banned
rofl so he basically used the kickstarter money to make a prototype that he can use as a sales pitch to facebook?
hahahaha. he got money for free from people, he was able to make his hardware while having food on his table, and that now made him a very rich man. what happened to those who chipped in? the backers gave him capital so he can do labour. that's like you giving money to someone to make a product and then he sells the product for $2 billion and you got what, a thank you note?
and to think he wasn't the only one working on a vr headset. damn, the dude has some mad skillz.
hahahaha. he got money for free from people, he was able to make his hardware while having food on his table, and that now made him a very rich man. what happened to those who chipped in? the backers gave him capital so he can do labour. that's like you giving money to someone to make a product and then he sells the product for $2 billion and you got what, a thank you note?
and to think he wasn't the only one working on a vr headset. damn, the dude has some mad skillz.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
People speculate it would run off of software such as the ones provided by 360 Heroes and other 360 video streaming providers. But that doesn't seem like "true" VR. It would be one HELL of an experience to control the cursor with your head/eyes, tho.
I've been going back and forth and talking it over with people since the news broke out, and we always came back to one agreement: That could very well happen, but it won't happen in the immediate future. The short term plan of the Rift is still exactly the same + better funding. The long term is when things can get hazy. However, if you're simply in this for "just" games, you'll get the product you're hoping for with the CV1. Where they go from there, as primary focus, no one can tell you, because everything about CV1's reception, adoption, and general success will decide what happens next.
maabus1999
Member
When they just started out, 12.5 million valuation for an unproven but promising tech idea would've been reasonable in the private equity world. They have no sales data to really project a future growth plan. Again though it is just fun with numbers and I think too many people on here will take it seriously.
The kickstarter folks might have gotten something out of it, like a headset, so its fine. I'm just laughing at crowdsourcing. And yes, crowdsourcing is exploiting a resource. You can determine on your own if it was a good or bad one.
Just got through reading and was about to post. I always value Cliff's educated opinion.
EmptySpace
Banned
"i stand to make a very sizable chunk of money from this acquisition."
ehhhhh....he wouldn't be saying good things if oculus were in the red.
that post is all about convincing people that oculus isn't going to abandon them. if he were a "huge fan of vr", there are a lot of other devices right now which can offer the same core experience so the people who will abandon oculus would just go someplace else. guess what, he still wants people to use the oculus. i wonder why.
maabus1999
Member
Being that other companies are quickly creating their own VR ideas, and Oculus really doesn't have any major patents that I know of them separate themselves from other vendors to a high degree, I'm not sure how the heck Facebook valued this company at 2 Billion dollars.
This tech could easily be copied, and companies with access to content could easily undercut Facebook in user value.
Of course I think Facebook is greatly over valued just due to the fact of the size of their acquisitions. It does not equate with a company forecasting "fast growth" but more of one that is seeing slowing growth in the next few years (where you go out and "buy" growth). We'll see though.
This tech could easily be copied, and companies with access to content could easily undercut Facebook in user value.
Of course I think Facebook is greatly over valued just due to the fact of the size of their acquisitions. It does not equate with a company forecasting "fast growth" but more of one that is seeing slowing growth in the next few years (where you go out and "buy" growth). We'll see though.
BabySlayer
Banned
I was heartbroken yesterday but I am feeling better about it now.... it is what it is fellas. I will miss supporting the underdog team, and I fucking hate facebook, but let's see how this turns out.
I'm still excited to get my DK2 in June
I'm still excited to get my DK2 in June
there is already an 360 degree 3D movie for oculus in the works, so i would say use same stuff to stream events
http://www.businessinsider.com/zero-point-oculus-rift-movie-trailer-2014-2
And Oculus was even on Sundance, a Movie event.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
There are? What are they? Aside from Morpheus (which is just a prototype currently) what is actually available for people to use right now on the consumer level that's comparable to DK1 prices/specs?
maabus1999
Member
Being Sony and Valve have quickly shown similar devices, I don't see anything worth that much in their tech patent wise. Also, being this is in the tech space, it is very possibly being a "first mover" in this space will not pay dividends (very high risk here).
EmptySpace
Banned
morpheus? valve's supposed vr tech? any upcoming devices we have yet to hear about?
you make it sound as if oculus is readily available to mass consumption. it doesn't even have a release year. a devkit does not count. morpheus has devkits. i'm pretty sure valve has already sent devkits of their own.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Valve isn't planning on producing their own VR solution so that doesn't count. And morpheus devkits aren't available to the general public, the Rift ones are. My issue was with your use of "a lot". Two companies with publicly announced hmds isn't much. I'm sure we'll see more enter the market in the next year or two though, but the options for people right now are limited and mostly on paper.
Valve said they have no plans to produce and sell their own VR HMD
Majukun
Member
Problem with that reasoning is that the 2.5 mln they got with kickstarter was nowhere near enough to become the asset that facebook just bought.after the KS they got dozens of millions and millions from private investments.
Also,they didn't paid for shares,but for a prototype.they were just the first customers
EmptySpace
Banned
and? what happened to the people who bought versions 1 and 2 of oculus rifts?
they are prototypes for tech demos. the point of the post was, oculus is not and will not going to be the only option. so what if there are oculus rifts in the wild right now? those hardware are not final versions, if there's going to be programs for them those are all going to be alpha/beta tests. when the real oculus launches, there will be competition launching with it. to say oculus is the only viable option right now is irrelevant, because "right now" isn't the time when vr is launching. "right now" is about people buying version 2 of oculus days before it gets sold to facebook. that's the "right now" for vr. no games, no apps, nothing. a prototype (read: not final) that will be obsolete and useless in the next few months or so. how many people played hawken with oculus? how many people even play hawken?
Do you keep up? Valve was pretty specific when they said they are not making VR hardware. Sony is only giving Morpheus to certain devs.
Literally anyone can order a Rift.
And there is quite a lot of fully realized software for DK1. Not all of it is tech demos.
Not to mention I've had more fun on my Rift the past year than I had with any game console, or game.
maabus1999
Member
Again, missed the point, since many funders actually were going to get something out of it as I stated earlier. More a comment how great it is for companies to literally take advantage of the cheapest form of money ever created.
And you make a good point about private equity after the KS. If crowdsourcing had a share, which it doesn't, then their value would be worth more (usually) as it would've garnered a larger % of the company for the price then future investments would've.
Again, My overall point is how advantageous crowdsourcing is right now to someone with an idea.
People backed the original kickstarter and got exactly what they were promised, a chance to help him bring VR back in a big way and make it stay and an early prototype to give people a taste in what the end product would be (and get it out to developers to start creating experiences). This kickstarter was very successful and took off in a big way, dev kits got out to developers, people started taking notice and lots of big names jumped on board.. This was everything that kickstarter is about. Funding ideas you believe in and being given a prototype or other reward in return. There was no bait and switch here. Palmer took what he believes in and made it work, asking anyone who wants to make VR a thing to help him out. Now VR is looking to EXPLODE with financial support from Facebook and the internet is acting like a collective group of teenagers whose favourite band signed to a label. This is great for the future of VR. People will get extremely advanced VR experiences extremely soon with the potential for the market to skyrocket into mainstream (In turn creating far more competition and better products).
The VR dream is coming to fruition and all the internet can do is get butt hurt and make FaceRift memes about Farmville. Its sad.
maabus1999
Member
He's point, which is very valid, is the tech is EASILY reproducible. Easily.
I'll add more: Oculus does not have 2 Billion in patents or future sales to justify FBs price, and is why there is a LOT of grumbling starting among investors. FB is spending massive amounts of money on buying risky companies.
Contrast Apple with Facebook's acquisition strategies, then look at where companies usually lie in their "growth cycle" normally before they started making large acquisitions, and you can see why Facebook is starting to sell off. Probably a bridge too far now.
EmptySpace
Banned
and why would anyone who's not a dev (read: consumer) spend $350 for unfinished tech? to beta test it? anyone can buy a rift, sure. will those people spend the money to buy that thing right now? they won't. even within the gaming enthusiasts, not everyone bought the rift in its two outings. dare i say it's the minority of the gaming populace who bought rift. and for what? for the early experience of a vr? the compatible games aren't even designed for vr at all. that's what early access is. paying and testing a buggy version just so you can experience it first. for most people that's not an option at all.
Because it's awesome. Have you tried it?
I have probably 100 different games/demos. They are extremely fun.
So far all of the competition has been incredibly weak, with Sony being the exception(which still apparently doesn't have low persistence).
Tertullian
Member
I couldn't stop thinking about this all day today, and my perspective hasn't mellowed at all. The Oculus Rift is the first prominent VR device. It is the flagship. The model. It will set the tone for VR for the next decade.
Until yesterday, it was entirely in the hands of fellow gamers who cared more than anything about gaming. The plan was to sell a piece of hardware for a single, fair, up-front price. It was a device specifically for playing video games, with everything else strictly provisional. We had every reason to believe it was as pro-consumer as such a device could get, and would remain so throughout its life: a self-contained product, devoid of ads and of anti-consumer business models of all kinds.
The Rift is now exclusively in the control of one of the most despicable software giants in the entire industry. A company whose entire business for nearly its whole life has been to sucker you in by overwhelming all the alternatives to its service, and then bombard you with intrusive ads while mining your personal information and selling it to the highest bidder. A company that has openly dedicated itself to eliminating privacy in the virtual world. A company led by an amoral scumbag sociopath who considers anyone who trust him to be a "dumb fuck." That same sociopath who essentially confirmed on the very day the deal closed that the Rift would be sold cheap and then subsidized by ads once people had bought it en masse.
I don't know exactly how Facebook will warp the promising future of VR to force its vision on consumers. I'm sure they will be very clever about it. I'm sure any explicitly anti-consumer or anti-competitive practices will not become apparent for at least a year or two after the thing launches. But I am absolutely certain that Facebook didn't buy Oculus because they just loved where VR was going and wanted to be an passive part of it. They bought Oculus because they wanted to control the future of VR and twist it to their advantage.
VR was always going to take off. It was always going to be mainstream. It's been the ultimate sci-fi fantasy of the video gaming world for decades. The only question was: who would set the tone? Who would decide what consumers could expect from a VR device?
I suppose this acquisition may have sped up the mainstreaming process by a year or two. But it won't have been worth it. I would much, much rather have VR take an extra two years to hit the mainstream than have Facebook control and manipulate its first flowering. I would much rather have a weaker, crappier first edition Oculus that sets a strictly pro-consumer, transparent, ad-free, hardware-based standard in VR for years to come. But that won't happen now.
Until yesterday, it was entirely in the hands of fellow gamers who cared more than anything about gaming. The plan was to sell a piece of hardware for a single, fair, up-front price. It was a device specifically for playing video games, with everything else strictly provisional. We had every reason to believe it was as pro-consumer as such a device could get, and would remain so throughout its life: a self-contained product, devoid of ads and of anti-consumer business models of all kinds.
The Rift is now exclusively in the control of one of the most despicable software giants in the entire industry. A company whose entire business for nearly its whole life has been to sucker you in by overwhelming all the alternatives to its service, and then bombard you with intrusive ads while mining your personal information and selling it to the highest bidder. A company that has openly dedicated itself to eliminating privacy in the virtual world. A company led by an amoral scumbag sociopath who considers anyone who trust him to be a "dumb fuck." That same sociopath who essentially confirmed on the very day the deal closed that the Rift would be sold cheap and then subsidized by ads once people had bought it en masse.
I don't know exactly how Facebook will warp the promising future of VR to force its vision on consumers. I'm sure they will be very clever about it. I'm sure any explicitly anti-consumer or anti-competitive practices will not become apparent for at least a year or two after the thing launches. But I am absolutely certain that Facebook didn't buy Oculus because they just loved where VR was going and wanted to be an passive part of it. They bought Oculus because they wanted to control the future of VR and twist it to their advantage.
VR was always going to take off. It was always going to be mainstream. It's been the ultimate sci-fi fantasy of the video gaming world for decades. The only question was: who would set the tone? Who would decide what consumers could expect from a VR device?
I suppose this acquisition may have sped up the mainstreaming process by a year or two. But it won't have been worth it. I would much, much rather have VR take an extra two years to hit the mainstream than have Facebook control and manipulate its first flowering. I would much rather have a weaker, crappier first edition Oculus that sets a strictly pro-consumer, transparent, ad-free, hardware-based standard in VR for years to come. But that won't happen now.
BrickArmour
Member
Cliff's post was well written
Palmer Lucky and Oculus were the vanguard for all this new interest in virtual reality, before the kickstarter a workable VR solution wasn't even on my radar and I'm not surprised that sony, facebook, google, razor etc all want a piece of the action cause I believe this tech is going to revolutionise everything.
Oculus got in there first and that for me counts for something, its easy to say "yeah we we're planning to do this all along" Palmer Lucky deserves his day in the sun, he played his hand splendidly.
EmptySpace
Banned
please. morpheus was in dev since 2010. it just wasn't public like oculus. yes, oculus was out there first "publicly", that does not mean they pioneered vr in a big way. in hindsight, all the things sony was doing was to prepare for morpheus. gaming in 3d, move, the original eyetoy, the cyclops headgear, etc. when you combine all those together you get the morpheus.
we will be going on this same path regardless of oculus being kickstarted. not because of morpheus or oculus or spartacus, but because vr has always been the goal of interactivity in games. remember virtua boy? we just came to the point that the tech is there so vr can be a viable device, much like how 2d games back in the 16bit era were doing pseudo-3d until the tech was there (affordable for consumers) to actually render vectors and polygons. this is the same thing. even in this forum there's been talks of vr way before oculus even popped up. why? it's the next logical step.
The 2010 pics of their R&D showed an HMZ with move strapped to the top for tracking. Not until the Rift did anyone use the one screen design as far as I'm aware. It's basic and brilliant.
I didnt even bring up Morpheus, has nothing to do with the argument I was trying to make. What I was trying to get accross is the majority of the Kickstarter backers (and internet) of this particular project are being rediculous.
VR has always been attempted but always failed, the tech wasn't there or a combination of many factors always made it fizzle out..
The project Palmer proposed on Kickstarter was to bring it back, with new advanced in technology and get it into the mainstream. Make it an actual viable thing that not only the extremely niche, cashed up tech heads could configure. It was to bring VR to the masses at an affordable price point with immersive technology that just made it 'work'. People loved that idea (initially), they donated money to this concept and in return got an early prototype. They were the first ones to experience this new technology with so much potential. The kickstarter delivered, people got their dev kits and the buzz grew to a fever pitch. Carmack jumped on board, Valve threw in support and publicly hyped it, the team grew and a company formed. All out of a little kickstarter! This is what Kickstarter is about, you like an idea so you support it.. People should be so proud of what has happened. A small start up has turned into something that could potentially make VR mainstream in the same way smart phones are now.. But instead people are having a massive cry.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
I think your definition of unfinished is different from others. Does dk2 have presence? No, but that doesn't make the experience not compelling. Your example of Hawken is poor, it's a shoddily implemented use of the tech with little in the way of optimization and proper scaling of objects. There are lots of unity made demos that have great performance on mid range systems and are very immersive experiences. Minecrift is absolutely amazing with a DK1. I'm still downloading demos almost a year into having a DK and they're still compelling experiences. DK2 is a considerable leap over this and for many will be good enough. Most people won't be able to afford high end rigs that can render modern games at 95hz at 1440p which is what Oculus is likely targeting for CV1. You have a narrow definition of what's acceptable at our current state of consumer VR.
plagiarize
Banned
Minecrift remains hilarious to me. Notch's tantrum is completely pointless. Minecraft already works brilliantly with the Rift in VR, so who gives a hoot about his position.
Lunar Flight is a finished indie game with fantastic Rift support. I'm sure there are others. Half Life 2 and it's episodes have official support that works excellently. By the time the consumer version ships there is going to be a lot of finished software available.
Deuterium
Member
I apologize in advance if this has already been posted...
However, it looks like Oculus has only one patent, and it appears to be so ridiculously generic, that I don't see how it could be enforceable. In fact, I don't understand why the USPTO even granted the patent.
Here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/lbat3ku
In typical Patent filings, the "Claim" is usually quite specific. In fact, Claims are usually quite detailed, including any and all supporting information. The more specific and delineated the claim, the better chance the patent assignee has in maintaining enforcement through legal action.
In Oculus' case, it is just the opposite:
CLAIM: "The ornamental design of a virtual reality headset, as shown and described."
The rest of the patent filing consists of drawings of the headset. Nowhere is there any claim for proprietary technology. I find this most unusual. Facebook certainly didn't purchase Oculus VR for their patent.
However, it looks like Oculus has only one patent, and it appears to be so ridiculously generic, that I don't see how it could be enforceable. In fact, I don't understand why the USPTO even granted the patent.
Here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/lbat3ku
In typical Patent filings, the "Claim" is usually quite specific. In fact, Claims are usually quite detailed, including any and all supporting information. The more specific and delineated the claim, the better chance the patent assignee has in maintaining enforcement through legal action.
In Oculus' case, it is just the opposite:
CLAIM: "The ornamental design of a virtual reality headset, as shown and described."
The rest of the patent filing consists of drawings of the headset. Nowhere is there any claim for proprietary technology. I find this most unusual. Facebook certainly didn't purchase Oculus VR for their patent.