Salvor.Hardin
Banned
When you're signing away your company to the CEO of facebook for 2 billion dollars, you'll probably remember what he said to you
-
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.
Zuckerburg's proposition as recalled by oculus CEO
- Thread starter -COOLIO-
- Start date
When you're signing away your company to the CEO of facebook for 2 billion dollars, you'll probably remember what he said to you
eyeball_kid
Member
They said they were thinking about selling at cost, and I assume reduced cost than what it costs them now. So more like $99-$149. Sounds like a better deal than paying $300 + $60 per title. Well, if you don't mind seeing ads and having data about you sent to FB.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
When you're signing away your company to the CEO of facebook for 2 billion dollars, you'll probably remember what he said to you
I doubt he was listening after 2 billion
.QuicheFontaine
Member
When you're signing away your company to the CEO of facebook for 2 billion dollars, you'll probably remember what he said to you
Signing away?? I thought they were partners now.
King Beyond the wall
Member
Did the oculus CEO have to sign in blood as well?
He's probably recalling the sentiment. That or he has a better memory than you do.
...or he's a lying dirtbag.
Open like a computer monitor. It's a display device.
I see potential in a VR store, sure, just as there is potential in apps on TVs. I don't see it being a requirement to use it.
No it hasn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_FacebookWikipedia said:
The recent round up of acquisitions are an exception to the rule, but this certainly isn't foreign to them. Only time will tell. We won't know what they do with Whatsapp and Oculus until a year from now.
Note: I am not anti-Facebook nor do I care about OR, I am just weary of tech acquisitions. People who follow startups have seen this song and dance dozens of times.
Can't really compare Instagram and Whats app to this. Those were both already established and the meat of the sale was their userbase. Oculus doesn't have a userbase yet nor is it a final product.
No one knows the exact terms of the deal except Facebook and OVR. What we do know is that FB owns Oculus entirely now. They are 'partners' in the way ESPN and Disney are 'partners' or Bioware and EA. It might be possible for facebook to fire Palmer tomorrow and do some 180s, we don't really know. I personally think nothing is going to change that much with the first consumer version.
I think the people who are dismissing the distrust of Zuckerberg and fb as exaggeration and unfounded hipsterism need to do some research. They really are atrocious when it comes to being a "good" company. They don't give a single fuck about you, civil liberties, or anything else remotely benevolent for that matter.
Dragon Puncher
Member
I have a real hard time believing Facebook would pay 2 billion for a gaming add-on. They will try to push OR in a lot of different contexts, time will tell if the gaming side suffers because of that.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Instagram VR - with video overlaid over 3D geometry
Whatsapp VR - With Virtual avatars
All this will drive sales of the Rift, which is owned by Facebook. They are going to make so much money on this without having to fuck with Oculus much.
I hope..
Whatsapp VR - With Virtual avatars
All this will drive sales of the Rift, which is owned by Facebook. They are going to make so much money on this without having to fuck with Oculus much.
I hope..
$99-$149? Maybe in 4-5 years. Especially if they go for a top device.
And a Google Glass type of device is a totally different thing than OR. They didn't spend 2 billion for that.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
From bold to underlined, you cannot be serious now, can you? You really want to just state a thesis without any further clarification, proof or any reasons at all? Only to end your little post by basically saying "Now shut the fuck up, I know it best and you blindfucks don't know jackshit"? lol
This needs to be quoted. Oculus isn't established. It hasn't even entered the market yet, so Facebook can change everything about it and there will be little to no backlash because there are little to no fans of this product.
Except it's not just a display device like a monitor or a TV. Those display devices universally pick up any signal via pre-determined display standards. This is a interactive display, and requires its own supported SDK (and API if you want it to be plug and play for general consumers). I would absolutely expect it to require much more than a TV does. Oculus has already said as much about their interest in creating a VR API.
If Facebook wants this to appeal to general consumers (which they undoubtedly do) they aren't going to let it have the same homebrewed, tinkering feel that a core gamer would be OK with. It will be polished up with a clean, easy user interface that anyone can set up and use.
Like steam, you can use their storefront for games but also use GOG, Origin for others. My guess is they will throw heavy money around to entice devs for exclusivity to their storefront where they will also offer non-gaming related stuff.
In the case of Instagram were the previous owners lazy fucks or something? If I started a company and I was doing so well I was taking away a core demographic of another social media focused company to the point that they'd ask to buy me for one billion, why the fuck would I want to sell out?
It's not up to Palmer. He sold the company.
I would sell anything and everything I've ever had for one billion.
Because you've monetized the content and/or the user base.
Haunted
Member
because they have no idea what to actually do with it. Just sell it at cost and hope someone makes something awesome (then buy them as well)
HoodWinked
Gold Member
Because Facebook is nice and wants to help us all.
But why did you limit the possible answers to whatever the limits of your own knowledge and understanding and imagination were? I'm sure Facebook will develop aps to work with the Rift, which they apparently plan to sell at cost to establish a large user base. They can get in at the ground floor for any number of emerging uses of this technology, including subscription services or social media applications. They can put ads all over the software they sell but none of it is impossible if they don't lick it down and force you to do anything. It's like you want this to be terrible so you aren't willing to imagine anything but.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Because of the risks, and strain on you personally, the people around you, hidden facts and beliefs and a bunch of factors.
You could potentially do well, or you could potentially mess up no one knows what the future brings. That's why some cash on out now.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
So the idea is that they'll have their/facebook's storefront pre-installed, but you'd ideally be free to remove it and replace it as you please? That's the ideal in this situation right?
Not gonna lie, that sounds very fair. Didn't know that was what Luckey was referring to. However, considering how this is still being called a "buyout" what prevents Facebook from launching a second iteration (with significantly more marketing) that is a locked platform? Would that not be the clear course of action?
But yes, of course, we don't know any of the details of the deal or the fine print, but it seems like it could easily go sour against Luckey's will down the line, due to a simple loop hole. But thank you for clearing that up.
He simply didn't wait long enough before coming to that premature conclusion based on how this year is shaping up. Serious efforts for consumer level VR were made in the 90s but the technology just wasn't there yet. The best available headsets were expensive, cumbersome and made people sick from the low-res screens and disorienting lag. Hell, most of us didn't have basic computers to take advantage if anything decent ever came along during that time.
They should just admit it. Cash in while it's still hot. With Valve, Sony, Microsoft and other big companies making VR, there's not way they can't compete. Smart move.
Personally, I think VR has ways to go. Until they can get the tech down to regular glasses size and weight, it won't be comfortable for long sessions to make it worthwhile experience. So, at this stage, it's a little premature. Maybe, in another few more years before we can take it seriously.
Personally, I think VR has ways to go. Until they can get the tech down to regular glasses size and weight, it won't be comfortable for long sessions to make it worthwhile experience. So, at this stage, it's a little premature. Maybe, in another few more years before we can take it seriously.
SuicidalSteve
Member
Zucker Punch
Dr.Schlomo
Banned
Ha yeah, I completely misread your comment. Sorry about that! For what it's worth, I would like to know the answer to your question as well.
"'What if we partner with you? You stay the same. Stay who you are. You expand that vision and focus on other things also. Gaming is core. But how can we help and invest significantly into the platform, the hardware, and bring down the cost of it. We could make it more optimized, do custom silicon, make this even better. What if we also invest in the parts so you can sell the virtual reality platform at cost?,'" Iribe recalls Zuckerberg saying. "It would use the best components and build a superior technology platform. Then lets sell it at cost.
It was all plausible until the Utopian 'lets sell it at cost' comment at the end.
It was all plausible until the Utopian 'lets sell it at cost' comment at the end.
EA: "Don't worry Origin/Westwood/Mythic/Bullfrog/Bioware-- we'll let you operate the way you always have!"
See any paralells with the Occulus/Facebook deal? And I don't for a second believe that Occulus sold the company to make a better product-- they sold it to get filthy rich. Not blaming them, just calling it as I see it.
See any paralells with the Occulus/Facebook deal? And I don't for a second believe that Occulus sold the company to make a better product-- they sold it to get filthy rich. Not blaming them, just calling it as I see it.
ZehDon
Member
Haha, I get tired of people posting just its cover, as if it contributes something radical. It was a nice throw back to The Sprawl trilogy though, which as a whole deserves more recognition in these types of discussions.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Or, you could read all of my posts and see that I'm seeing how Facebook gets their money. I asked you pretty directly, what else could they do that would assuredly make their money? Designing apps won't do that. Apps fail to take off all the time. They're not funding the whole thing just to be the first one to make an app that may be ignored. But thanks to other replies, I think a pre-installed OS would do the trick of ubiquitous association of VR with Facebook. And if Luckey gets his way, it will be removable, just as planned.
But again your previous post was simply that all they can possibly do are things you're thinking up. None of these are guaranteed revenue(lol?) because it all requires people own the damn thing.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
TBF it's a valid point, those things are true but you can do many of those without taking on the risk of owning and establishing the technology. Why would you attempt to establish the format when they could just realise a Facebook app or whatever app they want after it has already been established. 2 billion is still a lot of money and a lot of risk. Simply having more apps to advertise through does not justify it Facebook is one of the most used apps in existence, they want to squash competition but they don't need to take the risk of establishing facebook vr so people using facebook move to using facebook vr.
There's something a lot more to it than that
Graphics Horse
Member
I'm struggling to think of non charity products sold at cost which aren't relying on the razorblades model. Niche exceptions like buying PS3 solely as a linux box I guess...
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
I don't think you understand what you're arguing.
He works there, sure. It's just not his decision to make. If GAF got sold to facebook and Evilore said our user data would remain separate from Facebook's I'd say the same thing. The assurances of the guy who just sold the company aren't worth very much. Zuckerburg can do what he wants, and Palmer can't stop him.