-COOLIO-
The Everyman
the first sentence in each block is a quote that he's responding to.
-
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 denies claim it will rebrand Oculus
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
the first sentence in each block is a quote that he's responding to.
I think that's fair. For me personally however, I didn't really care about Oculus as a company or their vision really. All I really care about is VR becoming popular and widely used in more ways than just gaming certainly. I think with FB behind it as well as Sony, that will now happen. Oculus gave VR the push it needed, and now it's here. We're moving on to the next phase.
Edit: Just realized I was in the wrong thread. Thought this was the announcement thread. Ah well, still relevant.
Nocturno999
Member
Very ingenious and silly at the same time.
Goldenroad
Member
Oculus Rift is a terrible name that does nothing to describe what the product actually is. I hope someone within the Oculus or Facebook organizations has the balls to step up and suggest that maybe it does get re-branded at some point.
"In your scenario Disney is not like Facebook, a company that has next to no knowledge in hardware."???
so folk will definitely say one thing and do another, but there are a lot of people vocally reconsidering the trajectory of this device given recent events, and the pool of enthusiasts is smaller today than it was yesterday, i'd guess.
Facebook has damaged the Oculus Rift brand.
now... it's still early days and having lots of money and marketing muscle will help a consumer product here, but folk saying that there's no worries as long as Facebook doesn't meddle too much aren't paying attention.
VR is important long term, it's important within an online social context, so I can see why FB want it, but why buy Oculus instead of just funding a VR division? The only reason I can imagine is that Oculus are a year away from launching, and no one else is. The brand isn't meaningful today, but it will be two years from now. If they ever want to rebrand it, they have to do it before the Rift ships.
The Rift's market position is worth a large amount, their brand, and even device, isn't.
I guess it just comes down to would changing it hurt their market position to the point of nullifying the advantage of buying them anyway. I really don't know, but I'm sure FB execs do.
what's to say he didn't? Palmer and the gang have a very clear vision of what they want their product to do and be. I just can't imagine that they would have taken money from facebook if in the contract they knew that facebook would force them to compromise on their dreams for that product.
pretty-much. i feel "Oculus" is fine for a mass-market product (it's a bit nerdy-sounding, but not horrible). agree with folk that were arguing that "Rift" isn't likely to stick around...
Oculus was always going to sell. The talent and expertise was already there, and it made sense to acquire them and the patents they hold.
Facebook will have two brands.
Oculus is for the enthusiasts who want the best hardware for their games or whatever applications they want to use. This device will be what most of us want from virtual reality
Facebook VR would be for people who very specifically want that social experience. They want to do Second Life style experiences. They want to attend concerts without leaving home and pay $200 for VR seats on the field at the Super Bowl. These consumers don't really care about specs, so the device will be on the cheaper end. Probably subsidized with "special offers" like Amazon has with their e-readers and tablets.
Actually, it is. Even with Sony's project (which may not be ready for another 2-3 years) they're considered the leader in VR right now and the device is worth a ton. A lot of companies wanted to acquire Oculus. Many made serious offers and it seems that, for their ambitions, Facebook lines up better than others to help them see out their vision.
It wasn't just a case of Facebook offering more money, either. Other companies made larger cash offers; If they really were taking the money and running, they'd go that way.
If the devil really existed, he'd never twirl his mustache.
licktheenvelope
Member
EDIT: Damnit Gaf I even got beaten to 'facehugger' lol
Yeah, of course, I just think the sum seems extreme for what Oculus have.
But it would have cost a lot more once CV1 launches, so I can see why they'd just pay whatever to get it now.
TekGryphon
Banned
This has been an absolutely frustrating business development to watch.
Fucking NeoGAF, the one place I would expect to see rationale discourse on a technology-business event, is as full of hyperbole as 4chan.
The part that kills me is that this is the forum where people CONSTANTLY rag on the Wii U for not having developer support because of its weak install base. Now here we have Facebook offering a massive capital and resource injection to Oculus, which is exactly what it needed, and those SAME PEOPLE are losing their shit because of the possibility Candy Crush might come to the Oculus.
As a Oculus supporter, I am PRAYING that Candy Crush and Farmville come to the Oculus. That will be MILLIONS of units moved, guaranteed.
When those units are moved, developers will flood to develop for the Oculus. The ones hopping on the "fuck the man" bandwagon will swallow their pride and admit their wrong. Probably not Notch, though. That guy is a perfect caricature of how being rich does not make you good at business (or developing, in his case). Even if I didn't have a career in business and investing in technology, the moment I saw Notch say this was a bad move I would have known this was a great move.
Fucking NeoGAF, the one place I would expect to see rationale discourse on a technology-business event, is as full of hyperbole as 4chan.
The part that kills me is that this is the forum where people CONSTANTLY rag on the Wii U for not having developer support because of its weak install base. Now here we have Facebook offering a massive capital and resource injection to Oculus, which is exactly what it needed, and those SAME PEOPLE are losing their shit because of the possibility Candy Crush might come to the Oculus.
As a Oculus supporter, I am PRAYING that Candy Crush and Farmville come to the Oculus. That will be MILLIONS of units moved, guaranteed.
When those units are moved, developers will flood to develop for the Oculus. The ones hopping on the "fuck the man" bandwagon will swallow their pride and admit their wrong. Probably not Notch, though. That guy is a perfect caricature of how being rich does not make you good at business (or developing, in his case). Even if I didn't have a career in business and investing in technology, the moment I saw Notch say this was a bad move I would have known this was a great move.
You didnt expect hyperbole on NeoGAF? Do you even know where you are?
Omnistalgic
Member
hmmm...all my worries are gone...
VanCityGamer
Member
The "the" wasn't meant as part of the name (hence the lack of capitalizing the "t"). Said it similar to how one might say, "I hope they call it the PS4".
There's a shit load of FUD surrounding the Ocu-Book deal...
but I believe the noble intentions of Palmer and even Zuckerberg.
That sounds naieve - and it is a little; but I don't think this would've really happened without the genuine desire of both parties to see VR grow into the next computing paradigm.
Just as VR *was* a technology of Sci-fi, the Metaverse is an idea of sci-fi.
But if you can control the metaverse - the VR social network... it's an idea that's potentially more lucrative than social networking or search or anything else that's built the foundations of the internet to date.
It's in Facebook's best interest to ensure not just the headset, but every bit of technology surrounding the VR computing paradigm is as good as it can be, and as mainstream as it can be.
There is an existential worry though; that they take their eyes off the prize and start trying to capitalize the hardware directly, rather than focus their efforts on building up VR in its nacency so that they can really bring the sci-fi of the metaverse into reality. Those beholden by the external interests of short sighted greed (i.e. the other shareholders of a publically traded company) often fall prey to their lofty ambitions unfortunately.
But if Mark and Palmer can communicate this... and they're cognizant of the ideas; given their recognition and mention of Snowcrash and Ready Player One - then I think the potential growth and development for VR in the short and medium term will be very solid.
Of course, while Facebook will get a headstart on creating the foundations of the metaverse - I don't think for a moment that they're the only company that'll work on creating one once the rest of the world realizes how big a deal VR is; nor will it be a trivial project that they can spit out at a moments notice.
Perhaps a decade from now, we'll be jacking into different corporatized flavours of the metaverse - Google's, Apple's, Facebook's, Sony's, Microsoft's.... and each will offer a different API and method of interfacing VR applications with their VR universe - very similar to how different platforms work already.
The precedents have already been set - and with this deal, the resources to make this a reality sooner rather than later have been provided.
but I believe the noble intentions of Palmer and even Zuckerberg.
That sounds naieve - and it is a little; but I don't think this would've really happened without the genuine desire of both parties to see VR grow into the next computing paradigm.
Just as VR *was* a technology of Sci-fi, the Metaverse is an idea of sci-fi.
But if you can control the metaverse - the VR social network... it's an idea that's potentially more lucrative than social networking or search or anything else that's built the foundations of the internet to date.
It's in Facebook's best interest to ensure not just the headset, but every bit of technology surrounding the VR computing paradigm is as good as it can be, and as mainstream as it can be.
There is an existential worry though; that they take their eyes off the prize and start trying to capitalize the hardware directly, rather than focus their efforts on building up VR in its nacency so that they can really bring the sci-fi of the metaverse into reality. Those beholden by the external interests of short sighted greed (i.e. the other shareholders of a publically traded company) often fall prey to their lofty ambitions unfortunately.
But if Mark and Palmer can communicate this... and they're cognizant of the ideas; given their recognition and mention of Snowcrash and Ready Player One - then I think the potential growth and development for VR in the short and medium term will be very solid.
Of course, while Facebook will get a headstart on creating the foundations of the metaverse - I don't think for a moment that they're the only company that'll work on creating one once the rest of the world realizes how big a deal VR is; nor will it be a trivial project that they can spit out at a moments notice.
Perhaps a decade from now, we'll be jacking into different corporatized flavours of the metaverse - Google's, Apple's, Facebook's, Sony's, Microsoft's.... and each will offer a different API and method of interfacing VR applications with their VR universe - very similar to how different platforms work already.
The precedents have already been set - and with this deal, the resources to make this a reality sooner rather than later have been provided.
Oh you mean like http://imgur.com/tos
http://photobucket.com/terms
Basically if your image is hosted for free on the internet assume that they are selling it or your information. The fact that Facebook let them remove it is more a good sign if anything.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
I know this is super naive on my part, but I was hoping that this new plane would be built on an open source framework. And experience a period of complete VR freedom, as innovation would skyrocket. But now with this acquisition, it cements that as an impossibility, and it will now be fragmented, as you said, not one connected web.
You do realize McDougles point has nothing to do with "just because everyone else does it, etc". His point is that post-acquisition, Facebook quickly instituted policy changes to Instagram that were in line with their main model of generating revenue. It's common business. People with sense know that Facebook already has ideas of how to profit off of this acquisition. Regarding physical rebranding? Sounds like a possibility from Palmer's response. It would make sense to have a Facebook logo somewhere on the device/set up files, but I doubt details would be completely decided now, which is why his response was rather muted..
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
eugh, double post. sorry.
Come again? You think millions of people who play Farmville and Candy Crush will not only be interested in, but actually run out to stores to buy a >$150.00 peripheral to play games they already have access to on flexible mobile platforms, in a way that mandates an at-home experience tethered to a PC?
Candy Crush is quite literally the lowest common denominator for a platform like VR. The platform has the chance to revolutionise the landscape. Pray for a game that draws those same people away from Candy Crush to an experience only possible on and elevated by VR.
Support innovation.
The reason you should believe this is not because they are saying it, it's because it makes no sense at all for them to interfere with Oculus' plans for the next few years.
It's the standard technology distribution curve, you need early adopters in the beginning, and you don't get those from the general facebook audience.
It's the standard technology distribution curve, you need early adopters in the beginning, and you don't get those from the general facebook audience.
I mean, on one hand, it's somewhat disheartening...
But on the other hand - what's the reality today?
Programs are frequently ported across platforms. There are some exclusives dependent on the platform...
But you know; while we're still operating society under a corporatocracy paradigm, it's probably better for there to be competing platforms rather than a single unified platform.
The difficulty of the metaverse is that significantly more coding and maintenance of servers is required to set the substrate for other creative works to go on top - then simply specifying standards similar to HTML - so an open source version of the metaverse was never going to be a real thing - the best open source would've managed would've been to specify a set of standards and hope developers adopt them regularly across platforms.
Things that should be really basic and consistent - like how you dress and show your avatar - in first person and third person view, how you access inventory, how you navigate menus - stands a much better chance of consistency if there's a program large enough (like an OS) to accommodate for those factors rather than leave it up in the air and hope smaller devs will apply all those functions consistently across board, even though doing so will strain the resources of smaller devs significantly.
A policy that was quickly reversed be instagram as soon as people kicked up a stink. Facebook didn't force them to do anything.
Down the line yes. Maybe not Candy Crush in particular, or even games necessarily. But VR can definitely reach beyond just hardcore gamers. Its pretty limitless technology given the right amount of support.
Facebook is saying it and Oculus is saying it.
But I'm sure they're both just lying. That'll surely work out great for them.
Okay, so not really my point at all, but I guess...
Nope, clearly not even vaguely related to my point.
I was as put off by this news as the rest, even contributing in knee jerk reactions. But after cooling down and put some thought into this, I don't think this is a bad thing in the slightest.
You need to look and think about what Facebook is trying to do here, which is to build an ecosystem around future VR. What do you need for an eco system to flourish and become profitable? A stable platform. Facebook is a software company with no experience in hardware. It would be silly to think they would redesign everything, and strip the company for parts, they have no experience in this and its allot more cost effective to let Oculus do its thing and the long term road map of Oculus has always been to bring VR to the masses.
In the coming years VR will remain a bumpy road. Mainstream adaptation will likely take 5 years if not more (because of power requirements for example, and because the idea of presence is not something you can describe on a poster or print in a magazine). Facebook understands this and thus acquired Oculus to enable them to bring the vision of VR to life and is in it for the long road.
Sure Oculus was doing fine on its own, but it had its financial limitations. That timeline of 5 years would probably have been 10 if there wouldn't be a large company to invest some serious money into it. And if it wouldn't have been Facebook, who else would have invested in it? Hardware companies? Those are even more likely to strip Oculus to parts and build something they think how it should work. Oculus has the best minds in the industry working on VR and its rare to find this amount of talent in one company, and its good business to let them do what they are good at.
Hell in 5 years when VR is taking off because of Facebooks investment in it, there will be many more similar VR headsets, that could become allot better. Oculus managed to give large companies and even the government a run for its money by producing better VR on a budget of just $300 with the DK1 (compared to the 2000/10000 dollar costing HMD's from Professional VR hardware developers) and I am sure some new tech company could give Oculus a run for its money when the right pieces are in play.
For the coming years the rift is dependent on the user having powerful hardware to power its experiences. The audience that has this kind of hardware are PC gamers, and so it will remain a product for PC gamers for years to come. The rift will remain a peripheral for allot of years and in those years Facebook can't do shit with it. Its not a platform, there is no OS running in the rift. Its just a device attached to a wire (and in a few years, wireless) that connects to your PC running whatever you want. They can't technically apply any restrictions on it.
For VR to become the 'future' that Facebook and Oculus wants it to be, it needs to not only push its own hardware but also the tech industry around it. Having Facebook's money and support, allot more hardware companies are looking at VR with more then a mild interest. This pushes GPU hardware, pushes developers to spend more time investing in performance then just graphical splendor (allot of graphical tricks don't work in VR like normal and parallax mapping). Pushes display technologies to build custom tech made for VR, meaning higher resolution screens, faster frame rates, less latency etc. (what works for cellphones doesn't automatically work for good VR)
These tech developments aren't just good for VR, but also good for the gaming and interactive entertainment industry as a whole.
So what do I think Facebook wants to do with VR once allot more people are interested in the technology and not only the gaming community (will take 10 years if not more)?
The Metaverse, a version of the internet that uses VR to transport people into a world that's accessible by everyone. Want to hold a meeting, do so via the metaverse, where you instance an area where you and your colleagues around the world can interact naturally with each other within virtual space. Wan't to hang out and play a game? just meet up with your buddies in the strangest of worlds. It will be a place where everybody can explore, create and enjoy together the countless worlds, games and experiences. Why work trough abstract layers that are tablets, phones and PC's when you can just put on a VR headset and use your body and all your senses to interact and create.
Will there be bad experiences? sure, its unstoppable, there is always a dark side, but maybe, just maybe, having a system in place that prevents and filters out the bad stuff, like hacking, illegal virtual pornography, a sense of dis-connectivity from the real world. These are problems that come with VR that you can't stop with an open free form environment, so maybe having this global system that watches you, will make people think before they act and will prevent these dark sides of VR to become prevalent. I think in the large scale, having the risk of ads in VR is a minor issue and there will be hardware and software that will stop those ads dead in its tracks.
I don't worry about the future of VR, it can only become better and better.
You need to look and think about what Facebook is trying to do here, which is to build an ecosystem around future VR. What do you need for an eco system to flourish and become profitable? A stable platform. Facebook is a software company with no experience in hardware. It would be silly to think they would redesign everything, and strip the company for parts, they have no experience in this and its allot more cost effective to let Oculus do its thing and the long term road map of Oculus has always been to bring VR to the masses.
In the coming years VR will remain a bumpy road. Mainstream adaptation will likely take 5 years if not more (because of power requirements for example, and because the idea of presence is not something you can describe on a poster or print in a magazine). Facebook understands this and thus acquired Oculus to enable them to bring the vision of VR to life and is in it for the long road.
Sure Oculus was doing fine on its own, but it had its financial limitations. That timeline of 5 years would probably have been 10 if there wouldn't be a large company to invest some serious money into it. And if it wouldn't have been Facebook, who else would have invested in it? Hardware companies? Those are even more likely to strip Oculus to parts and build something they think how it should work. Oculus has the best minds in the industry working on VR and its rare to find this amount of talent in one company, and its good business to let them do what they are good at.
Hell in 5 years when VR is taking off because of Facebooks investment in it, there will be many more similar VR headsets, that could become allot better. Oculus managed to give large companies and even the government a run for its money by producing better VR on a budget of just $300 with the DK1 (compared to the 2000/10000 dollar costing HMD's from Professional VR hardware developers) and I am sure some new tech company could give Oculus a run for its money when the right pieces are in play.
For the coming years the rift is dependent on the user having powerful hardware to power its experiences. The audience that has this kind of hardware are PC gamers, and so it will remain a product for PC gamers for years to come. The rift will remain a peripheral for allot of years and in those years Facebook can't do shit with it. Its not a platform, there is no OS running in the rift. Its just a device attached to a wire (and in a few years, wireless) that connects to your PC running whatever you want. They can't technically apply any restrictions on it.
For VR to become the 'future' that Facebook and Oculus wants it to be, it needs to not only push its own hardware but also the tech industry around it. Having Facebook's money and support, allot more hardware companies are looking at VR with more then a mild interest. This pushes GPU hardware, pushes developers to spend more time investing in performance then just graphical splendor (allot of graphical tricks don't work in VR like normal and parallax mapping). Pushes display technologies to build custom tech made for VR, meaning higher resolution screens, faster frame rates, less latency etc. (what works for cellphones doesn't automatically work for good VR)
These tech developments aren't just good for VR, but also good for the gaming and interactive entertainment industry as a whole.
So what do I think Facebook wants to do with VR once allot more people are interested in the technology and not only the gaming community (will take 10 years if not more)?
The Metaverse, a version of the internet that uses VR to transport people into a world that's accessible by everyone. Want to hold a meeting, do so via the metaverse, where you instance an area where you and your colleagues around the world can interact naturally with each other within virtual space. Wan't to hang out and play a game? just meet up with your buddies in the strangest of worlds. It will be a place where everybody can explore, create and enjoy together the countless worlds, games and experiences. Why work trough abstract layers that are tablets, phones and PC's when you can just put on a VR headset and use your body and all your senses to interact and create.
Will there be bad experiences? sure, its unstoppable, there is always a dark side, but maybe, just maybe, having a system in place that prevents and filters out the bad stuff, like hacking, illegal virtual pornography, a sense of dis-connectivity from the real world. These are problems that come with VR that you can't stop with an open free form environment, so maybe having this global system that watches you, will make people think before they act and will prevent these dark sides of VR to become prevalent. I think in the large scale, having the risk of ads in VR is a minor issue and there will be hardware and software that will stop those ads dead in its tracks.
I don't worry about the future of VR, it can only become better and better.
I can imagine just now a team into Oculus working together with a team into Facebook creating a new VR app. Some kind of PSHome that represents a VR Universe called VRNet. That's a representation of Internet. Every street or domain, has stores, that are web sites, or VR versions of webs. For example, nike.com. Your avatar can walk into that store, the app load seamless the content of VR site of nike and can see the store catalog... you can buy shoes for your avatar at reduced prize or buy real shoes. Yeah, I know is not a new idea, but will be a new whole concept in VR.
Your avatar can run a fast travel script, the character then play a some kind of Star trek animation where he transforms to a point of light that travel quickly to the sky and then appear into another domain.
There will be theaters, stadiums, and arcade games buildings where you can buy a local copy of the game, play limited time or buy virtual merchandising of that game for your avatar into VRNet. A Facebook VR social net will be a big mall or city.
You can buy Oculus Rift to play only your games, but a lot of people will buy the Rift to enter in the social VRNet. And facebook as company will get the benefits of those people.
EDIT: Just read comments above about metaverse. That's it.
Your avatar can run a fast travel script, the character then play a some kind of Star trek animation where he transforms to a point of light that travel quickly to the sky and then appear into another domain.
There will be theaters, stadiums, and arcade games buildings where you can buy a local copy of the game, play limited time or buy virtual merchandising of that game for your avatar into VRNet. A Facebook VR social net will be a big mall or city.
You can buy Oculus Rift to play only your games, but a lot of people will buy the Rift to enter in the social VRNet. And facebook as company will get the benefits of those people.
EDIT: Just read comments above about metaverse. That's it.
Great post, I mostly agree. Particularly with the bolded.
It's impossible to build good "casual" VR without also building technology for good "core" VR. The requirements are one and the same.
TekGryphon
Banned
Yeah, we see how well that "true believer" approach worked with the Wii U. How many publishers who have been with Nintendo since the SNES have now jumped ship with no plans of putting their titles on Wii U?
This is the exact same kind of frustration I get discussing job creation with American conservatives. They never understand that jobs are created by one thing and one thing only - DEMAND. They think jobs are just created willy-nilly at the whim of rich people. Likewise, I see so many people here thinking that the "true path" to broad developer support and global success is to focus on "hardcore gamers".
Developers of "hardcore" titles will come to the Oculus on their own volition IF there is enough incentive for them to do so, that incentive being determined by the potential of sales based on the install base.
Therefore, the best way to ensure Oculus succeeds and developers support it is to make it the best product possible at the lowest price point with the largest install base.
Facebook's financial, personnel, and technological support combined with the Facebook expanding the scope of the Oculus out 360 degrees (and NOT to the exclusion of gaming), satisfies all 3 of those.
Yes, the hardware is just a useless piece of shit /s
TekGryphon
Banned
Because anonymous quasi-technology-enthusiasts with little to no business education or experience are making predictions based off hyperbole and conjecture, that's why.
It's the BitCoin environment all over again. People who I wouldn't trust to run a cash register without a week of training and non-stop supervision were suddenly proclaiming themselves experts on global currency markets, and now they're suddenly experts on acquisitions and capital investment.
And yet, "Oculus Rift" is easily one of the most terrible names for anything, ever. Yick.
jim-jam bongs
Member
If they did redesign it, everyone would get mad and abandon RiftBook for a few days; then they'd realise that it wasn't that bad, and in some ways was a genuine improvement.
Graphics Horse
Member
I thought the product was what excited people, not the name.
you must be some kind of god where you come from. your word must be taken as a law by your followers. no one is asking why. you cant just ask why when such wise words were spoken.