Support NeoGAF

[Throwaway123456789]

The instagram example doesn't really hold weight though because they've been anti-competitive with removal of twitter, etc as pointed out in another thread.

Removal of Twitter from where, exactly? Instagram has the exact same sharing options as when FB bought it - including Twitter.

 

[BocoDragon]

Ya know, even if Oculus had stayed independent, how long would it have been before they become an "evil empire" all by themselves?

It was a mere 10 years ago when Facebook itself was the underdog, the creation of a young entrepreneur not unlike Palmer Luckey. Or look at the example of Apple, Google, Microsoft. All garage wizkids we cheered in their early days. Valve is the best case scenario, and I've even seen concern over their domination of PC gaming.

Shit was gonna get corporate one way or the other, and somewhere down the line someone was eventually going to groan at Oculus' actions and see them as a Big Bad, lets at least acknowledge that. We merely jumped ahead in the game.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

I missed the part mentioning why it is a good thing for VR gaming.

Because the Oculus team, more than anyone else in the industry right now, is dedicated to making an incredible vr gaming experience. Now they have the means to make an actual retail product that they can sell at an affordable price to more than just hobbyists, while financing technological advances along the way.

Having the backing and marketing prowess of a company like Facebook is invaluable. I've seen more articles about the Rift from non gaming friends in the last day than I've seen from any group of friends ever.

To really put this in perspective, it's the equivalent of Apple picking up touch screen technology. Apple propelled adoption rate to a ridiculous level, and developers of all kinds who had any interest in the technology benefited immensely.

At the end of the day, the headset is simply a portal. The Oculus team was never going to be responsible for developing incredible software. That was always up to the third party devs. And it still is. That hasn't changed. So what has apart from the Oculus team having more money to make the product we've so enthusiastically supported them up until this point. What significant change in the last 24 hours makes the Oculus Rift a lesser product to develop for?

 

[Vow of Silence]

everything you mentioned was going to happen once VR took off. everything. it was never going to be just for games and it wasn't going to provide true "freedom" unless you believe the Oculus people wanted to have their product remain niche?

It's more the cultural shift that's the issue. I agree, games are actually conceptually one of the least interesting areas if VR, even though they're what I personally am most interested in. You also can't say that everything I said would happen would happen. Kickstarter is like a blueprint for a new type of economy, one where people invest for the return of the vision being realised rather than a return on their money. The whole VR renaissance around the rift was initiated in an unusual way, driven by passion and belief. That informed everything that was happening, and made people excited. Now dirty old money has got involved and everything seems thrown back in the mire.

Think about facebook's economy. They allow you to buy 'likes'. What is a 'like' if not a vote, and what is buying votes but corrupt? On the other hand, Kickstarters truly allows people to vote with their wallets, and contribute whatever they choose, which is closer to what I would consider real democracy than any government currently existing. We were co-creators, and now we're just consumers. It could have gone another way. They could have remained independent, sure they would have been slower to market and the first consumer version wouldn't have been as good, but who gives a fuck when you're a beacon of so much possibility and excitement? Now they're just a Facebook acquisition. It's so flattening, such a loss.

At least it'll be shiny or something.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

There are some people in this world with a thing called integrity. When Oculus sold their concept to Facebook, everything changed for these people. Hypocrites won't understand.

I'm all for healthy skepticism, but what has Oculus explicitly done that was outright hypocritical? Be honest.

They have lost a lot of faith, due to their direction, but nothing about what they did makes them hypocrites. They wanted to provide the best VR experience, and they're still doing that. They wanted to work on gaming applications first, and they're still doing that. I understand that Facebook, as a company, represents an entity that goes against the core principles of Oculus' dream for VR. But Facebook, as a company, has also assured Palmer that he'll be able to keep the device open. Whether you and I believe that or not? Now that's something entirely different. But apparently Palmer believes Zuckerberg will honor that agreement.

 

[kartu]

Because the Oculus team, more than anyone else in the industry right now, is dedicated to making an incredible vr gaming experience.

How is this related to being bought by FB?

Now they have the means to make an actual retail product that they can sell at an affordable price to more than just hobbyists, while financing technological advances along the way.

In other words 93 million investment that they've got could barely cover their R&D, despite the fact that most components that they've used, were standard serial stuff which is already produced in mass and is as cheap as it gets, so they needed billions of investments to progress. OK.

Having the backing and marketing prowess of a company like Facebook is invaluable. I've seen more articles about the Rift from non gaming friends in the last day than I've seen from any group of friends ever.

In other words, OR somehow lacked in publicity and press so FB will be a huge boost to it. Oh I beg to differ. Most tech sites I know kept writing articles about OR, despite the fact that their devkit didn't change for the 19 month.

At the end of the day, the headset is simply a portal. The Oculus team was never going to be responsible for developing incredible software. That was always up to the third party devs. And it still is. That hasn't changed. So what has apart from the Oculus team having more money to make the product we've so enthusiastically supported them up until this point. What significant change in the last 24 hours makes the Oculus Rift a lesser product to develop for?

Facebook has no interest in having VR for games. They can't make money on that. That's a major shift in what OR is about. It's not mainly for gamers anymore. It might be good for something else, but not for gamers.

On top of it, NOT making money on hardware would mean non-service oriented companies cannot compete. Again, bad for VR development.

 

[piratethingy]

What can go wrong when dealing with a man like this?

Spoiler

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/w...s-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5

I'm REALLY glad that every instant message and email I sent in college isn't analyzed to this day.

 

[piratethingy]

Facebook has no interest in having VR for games. They can't make money on that.

Says who? Zuckerberg doesn't have to develop Minecraft 2.0 for FB VR in his basement to make money off this. Why can't he own the company and have that company make money in the same way it was already going to?

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

... he chuckled, whilst stroking the white cat that sat comfortably in his lap. Taking a sip of cognac, he noticed the bead of perspiration travelling down the forehead of Brendan Iribe. This was a moment Zuckerberg would savour. He was so going to share this on Facebook later.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

How is this related to being bought by FB?

The Oculus team is still in charge of the Rift?

In other words 93 million investment that they've got could barely cover their R&D, despite the fact that most components that they've used, were standard serial stuff which is already produced in mass and is as cheap as it gets, so they needed billions of investments to progress. OK.

That's rather short sighted. R&D for a product like VR is an ongoing process.

In other words, OR somehow lacked in publicity and press so FB will be a huge boost to it. Oh I beg to differ. Most tech sites I know kept writing articles about OR, despite the fact that their devkit didn't change for the 19 month.

Do you honestly think tech sites can lead to the same enthusiasm and adoption rates as a solid marketing campaign?

Facebook has no interest in having VR for games. They can't make money on that. That's a major shift in what OR is about. It's not mainly for gamers anymore. It might be good for something else, but not for gamers.

On top of it, NOT making money on hardware would mean non-service oriented companies cannot compete. Again, bad for VR development.

VR technology can and should be used for as many things as is possible. Explain to me why it matters if it's not JUST for gamers anymore. Are you equally upset that television sets aren't made JUST for gaming? Or that touch screen technology isn't used JUST for gaming? It's immature to restrict the technology to games when broadening its usage won't affect game development for VR in the slightest.

In any case, how in the world do you back up your statement? Mark has gone on the record to say that gaming on Oculus is top priority. Provide evidence that refutes him. If you can't, then you're spewing shit for no reason.

 

[Marvel]

... he chuckled, whilst stroking the white cat that sat comfortably in his lap. Taking a sip of cognac, he noticed the bead of perspiration travelling down the forehead of Brendan Iribe. This was a moment Zuckerberg would savour. He was so going to share this on Facebook later.

 

[SparkTR]

Let's use Valve as an example. Let's say years ago they were acquired by a company like Facebook. Would Steam be what it is today?

Independent companies don't always need to be acquired to be successful.

If Gaben wasn't a millionaire Valve would have been bought out a long time ago, Oculus never had that luxury.

In other words 93 million investment that they've got could barely cover their R&D, despite the fact that most components that they've used, were standard serial stuff which is already produced in mass and is as cheap as it gets, so they needed billions of investments to progress. OK.

That 93 million is why Oculus is with Facebook. Palmer and his team sold out the minute Series A funding was finished, this was a necessity. They were answering to investors before, now they're answering to Facebook.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

How is this related to being bought by FB?


In other words 93 million investment that they've got could barely cover their R&D, despite the fact that most components that they've used, were standard serial stuff which is already produced in mass and is as cheap as it gets, so they needed billions of investments to progress. OK.

Are we sure that they needed money just for R&D? I think the reason they took the money and the deal is because they no longer had to worry about production caps and supply lines, etc.

Says who? Zuckerberg doesn't have to develop Minecraft 2.0 for FB VR in his basement to make money off this. Why can't he own the company and have that company make money in the same way it was already going to?

Because he just changed how Oculus was fundamentally supposed to make money.

"At Cost"

Oculus was going to generate any return they could by selling hardware for a profit, and selling it bare naked as a simple piece of hardware. Facebook now wants to sell at cost. This means the venture makes exactly $0, unless they find a way make their returns through service, which is what is likely going to happen.

The only real question mark is how and when? It could be super benign or it could be crazy satanic, no one speaking on this forum knows. Anyone who doesn't work for Oculus or Facebook, who says they do know, is speaking out of their ass. We're all just speculating here.

 

[Boss Mog]

Even though I hate Facebook and will never have an account there, I think Zuckerberg is an okay dude. The fact that he lives very modestly for a billionaire says a lot about the man and plus he only gives himself a salary of $1/year. He just doesn't seem like the greedy asshole CEO type to me.

I think he's investing in this because he wants to see VR move forward in a big way as a gamer and not as a CEO trying to shove more Facebook down our throats.

Spoiler

I could be totally wrong though. Time will tell...

 

[Dire]

I'm all for healthy skepticism, but what has Oculus explicitly done that was outright hypocritical? Be honest.

They have lost a lot of faith, due to their direction, but nothing about what they did makes them hypocrites. ....

It's a bit difficult to dig up his quotes at the moment since Google is prioritizing post-news articles a million times over dated stuff but he, Luckey that is, has previous specifically stated his vision was to grow Oculus without having to sell out to a large corporation - to effectively make OR a completely open concept. What he did is pretty much the exact opposite of that. While he "owned" OR, it seems kind of strange to put it that way since it was an open concept being driven and developed by thousands. Now OR belongs to the company that this article is about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook Basically every ideal that helped OR to get where it is today just got completely shit on.

All of this could be completely cleared up if Facebook simply publicly posted the contract they signed in the buy out of OR, but they won't.

 

[Shengar]

The Devil always said the same to anyone who make deal with him, that they can stay as it were the same until he take what they owes to him.

 

[Rixa]

My Zuckerburgervision is ready for this.

Can I update my virtual glasses with abp+?

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

It's a bit difficult to dig up his quotes at the moment since Google is prioritizing post-news articles a million times over dated stuff but he, Luckey that is, has previous specifically stated his vision was to grow Oculus without having to sell out to a large corporation - to effectively make OR a completely open concept. What he did is pretty much the exact opposite of that. While he "owned" OR, it seems kind of strange to put it that way since it was an open concept being driven and developed by thousands. Now OR belongs to the company that this article is about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook Basically every ideal that helped OR to get where it is today just got completely shit on.

All of this could be completely cleared up if Facebook simply publicly posted the contract they signed in the buy out of OR, but they won't.

Well, I stand super corrected, if you can dig up that link. That's no good. Yea, I feel like a less rose-tinted account is definitely needed. Palmer did answer questions on Reddit (pretty brave to venture there), but his answers lacked any real meat and was padded with a lot of "more details coming soon!" While I do believe the details are coming as they're finalized, I think he really needs to get to the nitty gritty of why this acquisition happened.

And he also really needs to stop saying acquisition/partnership. It's an acquisition, just tell us what rights/power over the brand you still retain.

 

[jeremiahg]

So. Why is the immediate response to the Facebook/Oculus Rift news for so many people a giant, Vader-esque NOOOO! It’s a gut reaction, an instinctual rejection. Is it without merit? Are the cool heads who enter the discussion with talk of capitalisation, lowering of risk, facebook's non-interference with acquisitions and time-to-market the people who we should defer to when it comes to making a judgement about it? The role of this smooth negotiation is to talk down the gut response, which has not been given sufficient time to express itself coherently. It's still in the emotional stage, and it's so strong that it's lost some credibility - accusations of overreaction and entitlement are all over the place now, and there's a backlash against the initial backlash.

I've thought about why I feel negative about the acquisition, and tried to translate this into some coherent thoughts.

VR is the closest thing we’ve got to a new frontier, a world ready to be shaped and populated by raw ideas. The world was there before the Oculus Rift came along, we just couldn’t access it very well. We populated it in novels, films, we populated it in late night conversations with our friends about the future. We had freedom to do that. Our imagination was free to do that. But we couldn’t visit it. Then the Oculus Rift came along and suddenly this world has become accessible. The Oculus Rift is significant in how it emerged, through Kickstarter, backed by everyone, championed by John Carmack, crowds and figureheads cheering it on. In spirit, it felt like it was 'ours', and by approximation, so were the virtual worlds we were going to create and explore together.

The Rift is perhaps a modern day equivalent to the Caravel, the first ship that was capable of crossing the ocean to discover new lands, an explorer that allows us to voyage into the previously unknown climes of Virtual Reality. It's not a brand. It’s not beholden to any messaging or corporate line. It’s a piece of engineering, of human creation. It allows us to do something. It's defined purely by its capabilities, and so is neutral, allowing us room to simply use it creatively.

And now facebook has bought it and the whole virtual landscape feels tainted with the corporation’s metallic tang.

I don’t like facebook because I don’t like the way it frames, co-opts and claims human interaction and friendship under a brand, and loads that brand with creepy, cult-like messaging. ‘Our mission is to make the world more open and connected’. Imagine an aircraft hanger full of people standing in line, wearing facebook hoodies, saying in monotone unison ‘Our mission is to make the world more open and connected’. And repeating it, hundreds of times. We all know that, really, that message is ‘We’re going to co-opt and direct all technology centred around human social interaction to make as much money out of the human farm that use it as possible’.

What facebook has done with its acquisition of Oculus is attempt to claim the Wild West before the wagons have got there. It's tied its brand to the future of our imaginations and what they can achieve. As a company they've always relied on the audience to provide all their content and co-opted it within their ecosystem to make money out of it, but this is on another level entirely. This is more significant than WhatsApp, or Instagram. Those weren’t new things that gave access to a new world of possibilities. Facebook’s acquisition of Oculus VR is the stuff of science fiction dystopias. It alters the whole conversation. The talk about markets and consumers and costs and being 'professional' misses the point. This is about the democratic envisioning and creation of our future world being bought by a corporation that wants to own, mediate and control how we communicate with each other, for monetary gain, and has a history of dubious behaviour to that end. That may sound dramatic, but VR’s potential to be revolutionary in human culture is that strong. It’s the closest we’re going to come to accessing and co-creating another dimension, cyberspace, and what happens on that dimension will feed back into the real world, and change that in turn. New political economies could arise. New visions of what humanity could achieve. This is Gutenberg Printing Press level stuff here. But now Facebook is there already, waiting for us all, prepping their targeted ad system and virtual shopping malls, ready to re-create the current paradigm of consumerism and ad-riven marketing bullshit for us to finally arrive in and go and ‘like’.

If I may allow myself a momentary emotional outburst to sum up: fuck that.

Well said. The vision we had for VR being open and independent is being derailed in its infancy. The fact that we had so much talent concentrated on it makes it even more a shame.

 

[kartu]

The Oculus team is still in charge of the Rift?

So it merely didn't change then, did it? Remember, we are talking about things that have improved.

That's rather short sighted. R&D for a product like VR is an ongoing process.

So is R&D done by, say theoretical physicist. Being an ongoing process doesn't make it expensive though. Usage of expensive materials/equipment does and none of the stuff OR team uses is expensive.

Do you honestly think tech sites can lead to the same enthusiasm and adoption rates as a solid marketing campaign?

VR being used in "second life" kind of "games" is one thing, actual gaming is another. Some things simply do not need marketing campaigns, because the wow effect is so strong there is mass press about it anyway.

VR technology can and should be used for as many things as is possible. Explain to me why it matters if it's not JUST for gamers anymore. Are you equally upset that television sets aren't made JUST for gaming? Or that touch screen technology isn't used JUST for gaming? It's immature to restrict the technology to games when broadening its usage won't affect game development for VR in the slightest.

OR is not working on "VR technology". The "technology" itself is quite old. They are working on cheap product, that uses that technology. A product has goals. Having TVs an examples, some are better for gaming than others (input lag etc).

In any case, how in the world do you back up your statement? Mark has gone on the record to say that gaming on Oculus is top priority. Provide evidence that refutes him. If you can't, then you're spewing shit for no reason.

So "FB said he cares soo much about gaming" sounds like true statement to you?
It doesn't sound like that to me. At all. FB is a company that earns money by showing targeted ads to its customers. What does VR gaming helm have to do with it?

That 93 million is why Oculus is with Facebook. Palmer and his team sold out the minute Series A funding was finished, this was a necessity. They were answering to investors before, now they're answering to Facebook.

May I ask where you got "funding was finished" information from?

OR that kickstarted with 2.4$ million, got 90 million on top of and is suddenly running dry in one year after that sounds rather unusual to me.

Are we sure that they needed money just for R&D? I think the reason they took the money and the deal is because they no longer had to worry about production caps and supply lines, etc.

Are we sure that they needed money for anything, besides earning money? (like, cough, any other company out there)

Anyone who doesn't work for Oculus or Facebook, who says they do know, is speaking out of their ass. We're all just speculating here.

Mr Zuckerberg himself doesn't sound like a person who knows wtf to do with it.
I recall there was a "facebook smartphone" which didn't really take off for some reason. Is there any non FB ting that Zuckerberg bought and made a success?

 

[Zaptruder]

Angry irrational gamers are going to be angry irrational gamers.

They'll wail and gnash their teeth, shake their angry little fists about and make a lot of noise.

And then they'll run out of breath and move onto something else to get angry and irrational about...

These guys will truck along and do their thing, now with a lot more money to do it with - they'll release hardware, because that's what they'll do, and other companies will release hardware too, because it's now a legit growing market and any technologist worth their salt can see the potential for VR (i.e. not the troglodyte 'VR is cyclical' industry analysts)...

And devs will dev for VR - because who cares who owns what - the hardware is hardware and there's multiple makers, and because VR is still *fucking awesome*.

Then people that haven't bunched their panties up into their assholes will buy and play VR games - and the people that have bunched their panties into their butts will pretend they never shook their little fists, because VR will be awesome - and they'll want to try it out.

 

[SparkTR]

May I ask where you got "funding was finished" information from?

OR that kickstarted with 2.4$ million, got 90 million on top of and is suddenly running dry in one year after that sounds rather unusual to me.

Funding wasn't finished, but interest/patience from Oculus's stakeholders were. I guess fears of profitability due to Sony's announcement as well. Palmer posted this on his forum recently, back in June 2013 (and December as well) Palmer and his team sold out to opportunistic investors, they obviously didn't share his ideals due to the buy-out. He's just answering to a different panel of 'visionaries' now, I wouldn't know which is worse but at least the team has more resources.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

Are we sure that they needed money for anything, besides earning money? (like, cough, any other company out there)


Mr Zuckerberg himself doesn't sound like a person who knows wtf to do with it.
I recall there was a "facebook smartphone" which didn't really take off for some reason. Is there any non FB ting that Zuckerberg bought and made a success?

To your first point, all I can really say is I don't believe that's the case. I don't want to believe someone like Carmack, someone as tried and proven to be dedicated to the pursuit of technological advancement, would still be on board, if it was largely just a cash out. I was seriously waiting for his response before I let my theories form. He doesn't seem to be overly thrilled about the current state of affairs, but he seems to genuinely believe that they could greatly benefit from the resources.

As for your second point, it's funny that you say that. I actually held back from typing the same thing in my previous comment. I don't think Mark knows exactly what to do with it. While that sounds potentially terrifying, I could also see that resulting in a more hands-off approach, so he can "let the professionals" handle it. But yes, make no mistake, eventually when the idea starts to coalesce, he'll have his say on monetization strategies.

***Extremely eloquent exposition of the very raw flood of emotions that instantly jolted through my body, when I read the initial headline***

Wow. The moment I read about the acquisition, this exact feeling hit me. The dramatic feeling of "we lost something today". I've since calmed down and am trying to pragmatically speculate about the future, but I love this post so so much. Thank you for writing this.

 

[Zaptruder]

So is R&D done by, say theoretical physicist. Being an ongoing process doesn't make it expensive though. Usage of expensive materials/equipment does and none of the stuff OR team uses is expensive.

What does require money is custom production. Using left over parts from cellphones is how they've achieved VR to date - but to really do it well... to really do it right; you want display screens that are tailored to the needs and requirements of VR - while there's an obvious synergy between cellphones and VR headsets - their needs do diverge.

Specifically; you'd want 90-120hz refresh rate curved OLED, with low persistence, probably in a custom aspect ratio (because you want to have a wider horizontal field of view).

That last one especially would improve that immersion feeling significantly, but is just not at all required for phone devices (who wants to hold a long and thin phone? It's impractical).

Another expensive component to develop would've been wireless and battery tech; to have it at the latency requirements they needed, with the kind of safety requirements that you'd need for a battery equipped device next to your head - isn't a cost trivial project - but is now more achievable with more money; because they can hire more people to work on those areas simultaneously and in parallel.

Moreover, VR isn't just a headset - you need the input side of the equation for VR to really work well. This was a longer term goal that they can now work on in parallel with the headset.

VR being used in "second life" kind of "games" is one thing, actual gaming is another. Some things simply do not need marketing campaigns, because the wow effect is so strong there is mass press about it anyway.

Actually, second life and games are kinda similar... at least in the sense that they're both dependent on 3D rendering technologies and interaction paradigms.

Certainly most people would say that Second Life is more similar to a game then it is to facebook - even though it's in a real sense, a social network as well.

OR is not working on "VR technology". The "technology" itself is quite old. They are working on cheap product, that uses that technology. A product has goals. Having TVs an examples, some are better for gaming than others (input lag etc).

Of course they're working on the technology of VR - this point is as assinine and incorrect as saying that car manufacturers don't work on the technology of cars, because the automobile was invented in the 19th century.

So "FB said he cares soo much about gaming" sounds like true statement to you?
It doesn't sound like that to me. At all. FB is a company that earns money by showing targeted ads to its customers. What does VR gaming helm have to do with it?

He cares about gaming... because it's a strong market driver for the technologies he'll need in place for VR to really expand and grow into the mainstream.

Is there any non FB ting that Zuckerberg bought and made a success?

Instagram is bigger now then when they bought it - and largely free of Facebook's influence (from the user perspective anyway).

 

[Rawket Lawnchair]

edit: nvm

 

[Mantrox]

His plans for the product also reminded me of the reality described in that book.
It would be fun for sure, but it gets kind of scary when you think of the repercussions of having a global addiction/dependance to the "matrix".

It also reminded me that the author missed a good opportunity to expand on the world outside the virtual reality, wich would be IMO a much better plot device than the pure nostalgia fest, wich gets kind of exausted quickly, on top of thin characters and all that jazz.

Anyway, /offtopic..

 

[Lé Blade Runner]

As always, there are two sides to this. As a positive, VR needs to be mass-marketed in order to become a platform that can eventually replace or become as common as the tv-set. The best way to market it to the masses is to attach it to a service that is already a significant part of people's everyday lives. And Facebook is that. I don't update my FB profile much, but I have a lot of friends that tend to use Facebook as an extension of themselves. FB is so integrated to the daily lives of these people that it has become a part of them. They don't think about the implications of this fact any further - it just is so to them. VR can become a much stronger extension of everyday reality, and Facebook wants to be a part of that. In fact, that has always been their goal.

The negative side is the scary notion that everything is becoming integrated with either Facebook or Google. The frontier of technology will be dictated by a few major corporations. Who knows how this all affects the future of technology, which the virtual reality represents to a large degree? It is up to Zuck and co.

 

[Zaptruder]

His plans for the product also reminded me of the reality described in that book.
It would be fun for sure, but it gets kind of scary when you think of the repercussions of having a global addiction/dependance to the "matrix".

It also reminded me that the author missed a good opportunity to expand on the world outside the virtual reality, wich would be IMO a much better plot device than the pure nostalgia fest, wich gets kind of exausted quickly, on top of thin characters and all that jazz.

Anyway, /offtopic..

Do we have a global addiction or dependence to the internet?

Do we have a global addiction or dependence to computers?

Do we have a global addiction or dependence to electricity?

Do we have a global addiction or dependence to automobiles?

Do we have a global addiction or dependence to plumbing and sanitation?

Do we have a global addiction or dependence to written language?


Once a form of technology becomes widespread and ubiquitous enough... it forms a technological substrate for society to build further ideas, functions, and technologies upon.

A matrix level VR is the ultimate goal here - a congruent sensory reality that is independent of physical material requirements and limitations.

What a world we could build on that - without destroying our own world in the process - preserving it in the best state that we can by minimizing our impact in the search for sensory experiences (because ultimately, our human social reality boils down to contiguous sensory experiences in billions of human brains).

The fear of The Matrix is that we were entrapped in a dystopian meat grinder VR against our will. Useful for its narrative purposes.

But the reality is, we'll be able to move between physical and virtual reality easily - and often, just as we move between using computers and not using computers easily.

 

[KingSnake]

There are some people in this world with a thing called integrity. When Oculus sold their concept to Facebook, everything changed for these people. Hypocrites won't understand.

So, what changed for the developers in such a way that threatens their integrity? Do you have a clear example of something really bad that was asked from the developers after the buy out?

 

[NingenJanai]

"And all I ask in return... IS YOUR FIRST-BORN!"

 

[DryvBy]

Zuckerburg at a meeting afterwards: "And I said they could stay who they are. The dumbfucks trust me".

This probably is word for word given his other gaf.

 

[RoadHazard]

What does Facebook want to gain from this, though? They're not doing it just to be cool, that's for sure.

 

[entremet]

Ya know, even if Oculus had stayed independent, how long would it have been before they become an "evil empire" all by themselves?

It was a mere 10 years ago when Facebook itself was the underdog, the creation of a young entrepreneur not unlike Palmer Luckey. Or look at the example of Apple, Google, Microsoft. All garage wizkids we cheered in their early days. Valve is the best case scenario, and I've even seen concern over their domination of PC gaming.

Shit was gonna get corporate one way or the other, and somewhere down the line someone was eventually going to groan at Oculus' actions and see them as a Big Bad, lets at least acknowledge that. We merely jumped ahead in the game.

There's a reason why Valve is an outlier. It's a privately held company. No big investor pressures.

 

[KHarvey16]

There are some people in this world with a thing called integrity. When Oculus sold their concept to Facebook, everything changed for these people. Hypocrites won't understand.

Integrity? Hahahaha! It's so hilarious to see you people try to specify what the impetus for this vague, ridiculous sense of indignation should be called.

 

[plagiarize]

What does Facebook want to gain from this, though? They're not doing it just to be cool, that's for sure.

They're trying to break into new markets that can then be leveraged to make money and/or build their core business.

It's not like this is unprecedented. How much money did Microsoft make on the original Xbox? How did they build their user base to the point where they could leverage it for things that have nothing to do with gaming?

My point is, that whether or not we like where Microsoft ended up long term, what happened in the short term was a fantastic thing for hardcore gamers.

They'll sell VR at cost *to start out* in order to build a user base, and demonstrate demand. Costs will come down and the hardware will start turning a profit. Having built a new market there will be opportunities to exploit that new market that don't currently exist.

Social VR experiences aren't going to build the market, but they're going to be a lucrative sector within it, and owning the team that have the best handle on VR is going to put them in an excellent position to make sure that they are the people that benefit the most financially.

And honestly, a lot of people that think 'social VR experiences' are going to be the equivalent of angry birds or Farmville, are incredibly short sighted. Huge numbers of the skeptics won't just be hardcore gaming on their headsets in the future, they'll be enjoying virtual tourism, and virtual hangouts too.

 

[larrybird33]

Can't wait for the marketing. facebook users having vr sex with each other.

Tinder just got a whole lot more saucy.

 

[Diprosalic]

Zuckerberg hmmhmhhhm

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Selling at cost is the most interesting detail.

Should mean something reasonable for the consumer.

 

[Ventilaator]

"Let us give you money and you can keep on doing what you do"

Wow, sure haven't heard that one before.

 

[LiK]

"$2 BILLION"

 

[hooijdonk17]

What we really need to hear is Zuckerberg's proposition as recalled by Zuckerberg...

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

They're trying to break into new markets that can then be leveraged to make money and/or build their core business.

It's not like this is unprecedented. How much money did Microsoft make on the original Xbox? How did they build their user base to the point where they could leverage it for things that have nothing to do with gaming?

My point is, that whether or not we like where Microsoft ended up long term, what happened in the short term was a fantastic thing for hardcore gamers.

They'll sell VR at cost *to start out* in order to build a user base, and demonstrate demand. Costs will come down and the hardware will start turning a profit. Having built a new market there will be opportunities to exploit that new market that don't currently exist.

Social VR experiences aren't going to build the market, but they're going to be a lucrative sector within it, and owning the team that have the best handle on VR is going to put them in an excellent position to make sure that they are the people that benefit the most financially.

And honestly, a lot of people that think 'social VR experiences' are going to be the equivalent of angry birds or Farmville, are incredibly short sighted. Huge numbers of the skeptics won't just be hardcore gaming on their headsets in the future, they'll be enjoying virtual tourism, and virtual hangouts too.

That's not how it works in anything that isn't a console, though. There is steady iteration and improvements (something Oculus is already committed to and plans to implement). They will keep selling at cost over the years, while pushing the "cutting edge" hardware to new extremes. And even if they adopted a long console like cycle, a huge part of revenue comes from games sold on a closed OS, with ads (in the current console space).

There's no holy grail. Facebook isn't throwing money in, just to watch it blossom, and then possibly come out even in the end. They're a publicly traded company, so they care about big returns. The idea of an custom Facebook (company, not social site) launcher and pre-installed 1st party content is the most obvious outcome. However, this does not violate the base principle of the Rift as long as Facebook allows you to simply manually launch the Rift as a monitor.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Anyone actually got a watertight reason this is a bad thing for Oculus and VR in general, or is this all still gut instinct and doomsday scenarios?

 

[LogicStep]

People have the right to be upset. As for myself, I'm still getting the CV day 1. To me, this means the OR will have all the resources it needs to make and release a polished product.

 

[Dire]

Well, I stand super corrected, if you can dig up that link. That's no good. Yea, I feel like a less rose-tinted account is definitely needed. Palmer did answer questions on Reddit (pretty brave to venture there), but his answers lacked any real meat and was padded with a lot of "more details coming soon!" While I do believe the details are coming as they're finalized, I think he really needs to get to the nitty gritty of why this acquisition happened.

And he also really needs to stop saying acquisition/partnership. It's an acquisition, just tell us what rights/power over the brand you still retain.

It's really tough to dig up the exact post right now since all the terms are hitting every single news piece right now. Here are a few bits and pieces:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1NwG7OkREOQ#t=605

Luckey: "...Right now today, that crystal crove prototype is the best of everything that's available to us. If you said okay you now have 100x more money, there's not like more expensive components you'd be able to go and buy. These are the best things you can build...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NwG7OkREOQ&feature=youtu.be

Luckey: "We are very much believers in open software. We are also believers in open hardware." Nate: "Community is a huge reason we are even here today. That's in our company's DNA - sharing back with the community. You'll continue to see that in everything we do."

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/commen...uckey_designer_of_the_oculus_rift_ama/c602me4

Q: Will the SDK be released as open source? What platforms will it initially work with? Linux, Mac, Windows, OpenGL, DirectX? Languages, I'm guessing c?

palmerluckey: Probably not. We are planning to open up as much as we can, but some pieces (Like the tracker code) cannot be released since we are not the exclusive rights holders. It will be open enough that you can do pretty much anything you want except make a clone of the product.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/commen...uckey_designer_of_the_oculus_rift_ama/c602b5b

Q: What are your thoughts about gaming and Linux in general? Do you consider games, software and hardware compatible with Linux profitable? What is your opinion about the state of graphics driver on Linux?
almerluckey: I use Linux on a few of my rigs, and I definitely want to make the Rift compatible with Linux! I want to do that because I like Linux, though, not because it will be profitable....

That's not the best stuff as again he has directly commented on the issue of his vision of not requiring a big company to bring Oculus to the masses, but yeah I think the overall picture should be reasonably clear even from just those messages. Now that facebook owns OR I find it extremely difficult to believe it will end up an open device. I'm not just basing that on Facebook's history but also really straight forward logic. Facebook would have been free to market their products/ads/services (which Zuck is already claiming how they intend to monetize OR) in the open market. Instead they decided to buy OR for $2billion. It's fairly clear that they want to do something different than just freely compete as a third party software/ad/service provider.

 

[POWERSPHERE]

It's because Facebook (and other companies) expect VR to be the next major computing growth market. Facebook missed mobile, as Google and Apple were software gatekeepers into their respective platforms (30%? cut from each app sale). Facebook wants to be a major gatekeeper for VR software. Instead of buying stuff through the App Store, you buy it through the Rift Store.

Investment return comes from this software revenue, and I imagine their own original software like a Second Life alternative. But again, this won't happen for years, as the consumer VR market for Oculus will be delegated to high-end PCs for the next 5 years.

That makes sense, but still has me worried that it might close it off from possibilities or tie it to a bad gaming platform. We can only wait and see though.

Facebook wants to BE the internet.
Oculus presents the first real possibility for something like the metaverse/Oasis/Secondlifebutgood to exist.

Imagine how much money a company could make if they held the keys to such a creation.

It seems like there will be competing VR headsets though, but I guess Facebook would be running the patenting it to death race right now.

 

[Dire]

...

It seems like there will be competing VR headsets though, but I guess Facebook would be running the patenting it to death race right now.

Yeah the absurd patent stuff seems likely to play a huge role in the future of VR. It's a sad state of America that there are already literally hundreds of VR related patents (http://greenbaumpatent.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/a-virtual-reality-patent-landscape-analysis/) that companies, including some patent trolls among the more expected names like Microsoft, have just been sitting on for decades doing basically nothing but completely retarding any potential for VR. I wonder how OR planned to handle this issue and now how Facebook plans to handle it.

 

[todahawk]

The last 24 hours have been an incredible whirlwind of hyperbole and sensationalism. It reminds me just how immature and blindfolded some gamers can be. That incredible news for Oculus and VR gaming in general was met with the confused jingoism of duders who refuse to understand how the tech industry works is deplorable.

This investment is a good thing for VR gaming. Understand it and accept it.

You are either naive or a troll... This is Zuck & Facebook we're talking about.

 

[Sinecat]

To really put this in perspective, it's the equivalent of Apple picking up touch screen technology. Apple propelled adoption rate to a ridiculous level, and developers of all kinds who had any interest in the technology benefited immensely.

Apple is an experienced hardware company that is INCREDIBLY good and consistent at making a certain technology mainstream and standard.
Facebook buys shit that is already immensely popular and it remains popular.

So no.. It's not equivalent AT ALL. Like absolutely ZERO similarity.

 

[entremet]

Apple is an experienced hardware company that is INCREDIBLY good and consistent at making a certain technology mainstream and standard.
Facebook buys shit that is already immensely popular and it remains popular.

So no.. It's not equivalent AT ALL. Like absolutely ZERO similarity.

Well more accurately. Apple is a products business. They make money selling hardware.

Facebook like Google are ad companies. They sell you! To advertisers of course.