I wish I had $2 billion to invest on future technology.
But that number will go down over time. VR is here to stay and so long as they can get in on the initial hype, start penetrating mass market, not necessarily with sales, but just in terms of marketing and having people associate 'Oculus' with VR(as there's bound to be competitors down the line), they will be in a prime seat to capitalize on VR expansion.
Well, they've both taken money from Microsoft. Cliff is the one who isn't hypocritical about it.
I agree. It was an amazing technology, but it wasn't until this acquisition that mainstream news started saying "this is important".
Oculus uses an external camera for the same thing. They're pretty damn similar at this point.
People like ecosystems. It gives them an illusion of quality control, likewise for developers, they have the idea that their product will get exposure. If it remained a peripheral, it would remain hyper niche.
TLDR: I don't really know what I'm talking about but I will freely talk as if I do.
Pretty sure they've already mentioned that they're already working on an ecosystem, but it wont be mandatory. Which is quite ideal. Think something like Steam. A place to go for the games/experiences you want and to browse for new ones, where your friends will be, where your library is stored in cloud servers, etc.
It's great news actually for the whole VR movement.
I suppose you probably have a lot of experience with tech hardware startups and being bought by billion dollar companies, my bad. I shouldn't doubt your expertise in such matters.
What a stupid comment to make. Cliffy B is the real child here. He can't just send Notch an email? What a loser. "Saddens me greatly" pfft.
My argument is that making billions of dollars was not the main priority for these guys. The money is nice sure, but I don't think they would have taken it had they not also got some assurances in terms of being able to continue to work on their 'dream project' like they wanted to. This has been a passion project from the beginning, not a money making scheme. Carmack left a successful company in order to join a tech startup and Palmer was just an 18/19 year old in his garage piecing together scavenged parts because he was a big fan of HMD's and wanted a large FOV headset to do some VR applications. And since then, everything he's sold to devs/consumers has been pretty much at cost. Not exactly something somebody would do if their priority was to make big bucks.
And GFWL failed. So did Vista with DirectX 10. And now Windows 8 with it's Marketplace joined that list of failures. PC market has shown again and again that it won't allow Microsoft to enforce their inferior solutions just because they produce the dominating OS.
You have an odd definition of what it means to be a loser.
His reaction to the FB deal is just...I can't even describe it.
Eh, maybe, maybe things would have worked out even better, perhaps 3DFX would have brought MS to its knees financially ushering in an open source revolution(still gimped in 3d
). Who's to say. Probably not though.I want to know how Facebook can monopolize this. How? The Oculus Rift is just one device, many have been tried before and many can try now, buying Oculus doesn't somehow magically prohibit anyone else from entering the same market. And concerning this walled garden fear, I've no doubt that Facebook will provide some apps just from their page using their crappy app system, that much is certain, however, what precedence is there for saying the Oculus Rift would be tied to that? What peripheral has ever been so tied to a single storefront that it couldn't function with any other software? It's my belief that hardware is easier copied than software, you can have a compelling piece of kit but if everything on it is ass it's not going to go anywhere, on the other hand if you have great software people would chomp at the bit to move it over to other hardware. If Facebook did do something unprecedented and stupid so as to tie a PC peripheral to their store and apps only I guarantee you someone else would copy and make the Oculus Rift and people would port their crap over, it'd be the death of Facebook's goal. Some Taiwanese or Korean company would be shitting VR headsets by the thousands. When Facebook was rumored to be making a phone did people think it'd only run Facebook or some crap?
This is probably the closest thing to the truth or reality in this thread. It's no longer some geeky David and Goliath scenario where people can engage in self-masturbatory circle jerks and feel smug about this company while feeling they also are contributing to its success. No longer can one be an Oculus Rift Acolyte spreading the unheard, new and edgy gospel of VR. Those intangible feelings that ultimately mattered little, well yeah, those are done either way. Facebook can do this right or they can do it wrong but either way that feeling is dead.
I have tested some other Oculus Rift then, that doesn't use external camera.
Well, Nintendo was a hundred year old company, them taking their money and shifting it sideways is a good success story for sure but hardly an example relevant here. Nokia's also old as hell. As for Apple, well I don't seem to recall the tons of SK pc clones back then, I image the trade situation has changed somewhat between the 80s and now. Blame Thatcher and Reagan if you must.