We will have other VR solutions at that point
-
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.
Oculus: Palmer Luckey Trying to Answer Questions
- Thread starter Nzyme32
- Start date
Yoda
Member
The reason I don't consider them a tech company in the same veins as the two I listed is because they don't make money off their new tech. They find new ways to use tech to advertise, I suppose you can argue that is technology but its a crummy one at that. Google is in advertisement but they also produce and sell solid products (Glass/Chromebook/Nexus/etc...). Apple also uses tech to push products which further push the boundaries of what tech can do (at least when Steve Jobs was around). Facebook is like you said a giant bubble. It's business strategy is garbage and its essentially kept up by the an investor bubble which derives from their user-base.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Yea having worked closely with FB for awhile, this ultimately is kind of worrisome. They have some sketchy practices and monetization plans usually. They are good at fostering technologies and promoting brands (basically they turned Facebook into a content marketing platform) but they will inject their vision into all developmemt roadmaps they own sooner or later
Q Okay, question really all I want answered since you didn't go into detail or even really speak about it.
What will this $2 billion in investment allow you to do with VR that you could not achieve before?
Follow ups...
Is it going to rapidly expand your employee base? Do you worry that it might hurt the company culture or efficiency of a smaller team?
A We have not gotten into all the details yet, but a lot of the news is coming. The key points:
1) We can make custom hardware, not rely on the scraps of the mobile phone industry. That is insanely expensive, think hundreds of millions of dollars. More news soon.
2) We can afford to hire everyone we need, the best people that fit into our culture of excellence in all aspects.
3) We can make huge investments in content. More news soon.
What will this $2 billion in investment allow you to do with VR that you could not achieve before?
Follow ups...
Is it going to rapidly expand your employee base? Do you worry that it might hurt the company culture or efficiency of a smaller team?
A We have not gotten into all the details yet, but a lot of the news is coming. The key points:
1) We can make custom hardware, not rely on the scraps of the mobile phone industry. That is insanely expensive, think hundreds of millions of dollars. More news soon.
2) We can afford to hire everyone we need, the best people that fit into our culture of excellence in all aspects.
3) We can make huge investments in content. More news soon.
Does he even has the final say on this?
Yoda
Member
My sides, this guy is starting to get up there with Peter Monlyenux(sp?).
To that, I will link to this guy's rant (in response to Palmer's post on Reddit):
http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/21cy9n/the_future_of_vr/cgbv53d
And I will quote the most relevant part of the rant:
And on top off all of this, you're not even GOOD at selling out. A measly $2 billion? You're talking about a company that just bought a glofified fucking IM app for $20 billion. You know damn well what this technology is worth and what a future it has, and you know just how deep Facebook's pockets are and just how desperate they are to save their eviscerated whale of a megacorporation, and $2 billion is enough for you? You're not only an unprincipled sell out, you're not even any fucking good at being an unprincipled sell out.
I feel like Palmer could say what everyone wants to hear, and be 100% honest, and people would still give him shit for it.
I'm going to remain optimistic, I don't hate Facebook enough to already throw a product into the fire without giving it a chance.
And as for Notch? He's a hypocrite, pure and simple.
I'm going to remain optimistic, I don't hate Facebook enough to already throw a product into the fire without giving it a chance.
And as for Notch? He's a hypocrite, pure and simple.
aspiegamer
Member
There is absolutely no way he does, and even if he did I'd want to see the proof in writing for all these "I'll tell you exactly what you want to hear right now!" promises.
No. He doesn't own the company or have a final say in anything. You lose that when you sell. If Facebook really, really wants to do something they will just bulldoze their way to that decision, even if it means firing Luckey.
BolognaSoup
Member
I'm surprised Mark hasn't shut him up yet.
SwiftDeath
Member
What is facebooks endgame here?
At best VR could be the next TV. I cannot believe in the long term they want to make money selling hardware. They are far better positioned to sell services or push ads through it
At best VR could be the next TV. I cannot believe in the long term they want to make money selling hardware. They are far better positioned to sell services or push ads through it
The what?
Look, as far as I was aware, Rift was a very good VR headset. Just a headset. I think I might understand this better if I comprehended where these software aspirations for the project derived from. There seems to be a vision of OR being integrated with groundbreaking and exciting new software, but that's not what the project was pitched as at the outset, unless I missed something.
Edit:
See, this is what I'm talking about:
Oculus Rift is not a network. This sounds to me almost like buying a monitor manufacturer to leverage Skype.
Q Just promise me there will be no specific Facebook tech tie-ins.
A I promise.
Why would we want to sell to someone like MS or Apple? So they can tear the company apart and use the pieces to build out their own vision of virtual reality, one that fits whatever current strategy they have? Not a chance.
A I promise.
Why would we want to sell to someone like MS or Apple? So they can tear the company apart and use the pieces to build out their own vision of virtual reality, one that fits whatever current strategy they have? Not a chance.
BlackBuzzard
Banned
The poor kid either believes that or he is selling some grade A bullshit.
SwiftDeath
Member
I think people need to understand that Facebook isn't facebook.com. Zuckerberg has been really smart with acquisitions - smarter than Google, Microsoft and probably Apple.
He knows facebook.com isn't cool. He knows buying cool tech and incorporating it into facebook.com will not make facebook.com cool. He buys relevancy and keeps it separate to Facebook, just look at Instagram and Whatsapp. Instagram.com doesn't even have the Facebook name on the homepage.
Kara Swisher wrote an interesting article comparing Facebook to Disney:
Zuckerberg knows Facebook's days are numbered if it stays as facebook.com, so he's turning it into a tech conglomerate. I genuinely believe there aren't many better companies out there that Oculus could have been bought by in order to stay innovative but keep scaling.
He knows facebook.com isn't cool. He knows buying cool tech and incorporating it into facebook.com will not make facebook.com cool. He buys relevancy and keeps it separate to Facebook, just look at Instagram and Whatsapp. Instagram.com doesn't even have the Facebook name on the homepage.
Kara Swisher wrote an interesting article comparing Facebook to Disney:
Marvel flourished under Disney, because Disney knows including Mickey Mouse in Avengers won't make Mickey Mouse cool right now.Recode said:
Zuckerberg knows Facebook's days are numbered if it stays as facebook.com, so he's turning it into a tech conglomerate. I genuinely believe there aren't many better companies out there that Oculus could have been bought by in order to stay innovative but keep scaling.
Easy. They already have massive worldwide databases with people's entire life history and information, pictures, what they say, write, share etc. Now add on top of that they are pioneers in virtual reality by grabbing Oculus. Imagine they create simulated world's where you see advertisement billboards, NPC's that approach you in games and know all about you (data mining) and try to sell you products etc. The end game is similar to a Surrogates/Minority Report future I guess. Who knows.
These are the only two reasons that a "wait and see" approach is warranted. Everything else that's been said is empty promises and noise.
Also, I understand that the deep, visceral loathing I feel for Mark Zuckerberg is irrational, unfounded and probably undeserved, but that doesn't make it feel any less real to me.
Green Biker Dude
Banned
why do you assume it's that simple? it's not that simple. it's never that simple
this is like saying people could just ditch directx today and switch to opengl if something goes south with microsoft. and that's with opengl actually being a decent, mature alternative
another example would be if everyone suddenly wanted to not have games on steam anymore for whatever reason
once everyone is committed to this thing, it's not a matter of just flipping a switch. and i'm pretty sure all the people working on facebook aren't retarded. they realize they're gonna need to lock in people, not suddenly, but slowly and surely
Again, you're speaking as if you're privy to the details of an agreement that I don't believe are public.
Marc
Member
Hahaha, I completely understand him and the guy is brilliant in many ways but he can't seriously believe that?
And wow... Mark has already said they will get money from ad's. As he says, they are not a hardware company and know nothing about making money from hardware. And who does anyway, Apple and who else? Hardware is expensive in every way to R&D then produce and get customers to agree to buy it at profitable margins. Surely Palmer could understand that, just take the money and run kid, enjoy it. Stop worrying about what some guys on the internet think, not like you will be socialising with these people on a private beach.
What part of Oculus now being wholly owned by Facebook do you not understand?
Exactly.If all those answers end up being true in the long term then Facebook spent a bunch of money for no reason.
Facebook didn't spend that money for no reason.
BUSINESS AS USUAL
People being super optimistic are too naive about the distant future,
Yoda
Member
Sure he doesn't have a photo-copy but its not rocket science deducing what this is. You honestly think they'd send a check for $2billion USD without full control???
ShinMaruku
Member
While there is a bunch of overreations and the like, we know they are trying to keep facebook a tech company and they need some smart aquistions to stay relevant. On their side this is smart (If VR is smart but it's the cost thing and the software thing) However they have some bad pr. Yes the lad sold out but who would not? I'd sell out and then say nothing on the matter rather than doing what he's doing.
Good, he's either lying or completely delusional.
At this point it's not even worth trying to speak logically. Facebook is hated because Facebook is hated. It's not a bad product and Facebook does not have a history of running their acquisitions into the ground. People hate Facebook for the way that users use Facebook and how companies have forced Facebook onto nearly all of their products in an attempt to jump on the social media bandwagon.
People want him to do a PR spin...but then will blame him for doing a PR spin? Nobody will give him the benefit of the doubt. This seems completely fucked.
Sentenza
Member
So Palmer Luckey is already being contradicted by his new boss.
flyinpiranha
Member
Oculus was just the first to really get manufacturing and developing going on a visual display. There will be others that enter the fray, others that want a piece of this pie. Did you really think you'd be ONLY purchasing Oculus Rift VR headsets with absolutely no competition? This will awaken other tech companies, Samsung, Sony (already), MS (announced) are either looking at this as a) a waste of 2b on a niche product or b) a sign that this isn't just a flash in the pan.
Honestly, this shows me that this is the real deal. I always wondered how Oculus planned on getting it to the mainstream or advertising.
I am just hoping for the best, because in the end it's just the display device. Games designed for it will be able to carry over to other devices just like developers design for variation in PC power.
I'm not saying it's a 'great' thing, but I said almost verbatim his answer on that longer question in the other thread and I mostly believe it.
Honestly, this shows me that this is the real deal. I always wondered how Oculus planned on getting it to the mainstream or advertising.
I am just hoping for the best, because in the end it's just the display device. Games designed for it will be able to carry over to other devices just like developers design for variation in PC power.
I'm not saying it's a 'great' thing, but I said almost verbatim his answer on that longer question in the other thread and I mostly believe it.
I'll believe when I see it.
But I really can't believe that FB will not somehow have a presence in using the final product.
If I was offered $2B at 21 (or any age) for my game device concept (if I had one) I'd probably be open to babbling hopeful BS too, even if I knew in my heart it was probably BS.
But I really can't believe that FB will not somehow have a presence in using the final product.
If I was offered $2B at 21 (or any age) for my game device concept (if I had one) I'd probably be open to babbling hopeful BS too, even if I knew in my heart it was probably BS.
CountAntonius
Member
It is fucked and embarrassing. There is literally nothing he can say to people who have already made up their minds.
So Facebook makes it's own platform that also makes use of the Rift? Why does this mean it will be locked out from being used for everything else?
El Phenicks
Neo Member
This.
FB can't disregard the demand that already existed for Oculus to be a big player on PC gaming, they are doing this for getting a foothold there for starters, mantain user interaction within their network and in the future heavily invest in social VR applications
(read worlds)
Ads can exist within the realm of virtual markets that are independent of the hardware itself.
Sony is in and soon other companies will be too, not going to be too much longer until we see another VR display for PC and unlike directx/open go its not going to take rewriting massive lines of code to support other devices.
Don't you know, people only deal in absolutes here. You'll need to watch three 90 second ads before you're allowed to even put the Rift on your head.
Let's panic when things actually go south if they do, rather than panic at the thought of it.
He's made some promises, now let's wait and see if they hold up or get broken.
He says they will largely operate independently. Is it not possible for the details of an acquisition agreement to include some degree of autonomy? It's not like Palmer wouldn't have had his own say in the acquisition.
The man is super passionate about VR. I'm more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
He's made some promises, now let's wait and see if they hold up or get broken.
He says they will largely operate independently. Is it not possible for the details of an acquisition agreement to include some degree of autonomy? It's not like Palmer wouldn't have had his own say in the acquisition.
The man is super passionate about VR. I'm more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
That and being able to get better manufacturing is the only thing which make me think it *might* be a good thing that they were brought.