I really wish people would stop trying to make this false distinction. Most VR devices are HMDs. Including oculus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculus_Rift
-
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
I really wish people would stop trying to make this false distinction. Most VR devices are HMDs. Including oculus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oculus_Rift
Agent Gibbs
Member
And there you have it straight from the big boss himself, all this PR q&A is a puff piece, or he's supremely stupid and bought lies and now is seeing the real zuckerburg
I don't think you understand what Kickstarter is. It is not a form of investment or shareholding where you get something back later on. They outline very specifically what you can expect for your contribution.
This is why I don't understand the extreme reaction. The Rift is basically just a monitor.
In order for Facebook to have 'control' over it, the Rift needs to become a mini-computer and remove all direct inputs. The chances of that happening are fucking lol and would mean Zuckerberg just set fire to $2bn.
Facebook will release apps for the Rift. In a few years, Facebook may even release a version of the Rift with a built-in SoC so people can use their social experiences without being tethered to a computer. But the direct input will never go away, if it did, development support would end overnight.
Ding ding ding.
like google ads on andriod, itll be an app by app basis. its absolutely moronic to ad-ify hardware, as hardware companies traditionally make money off licensing - which requires them to sell as much hardware as they can. its pointless to put ads on a hardware level to turn off a large majority of buyers.
"following desktops and mobile -- and yes, talked about building Facebook's advertising into it. Specifically, he talked about the potential of a virtual communication network, buying virtual goods, and down the line, advertising."
look how vague that is. he could be talking about how bad an idea it is, about having a facebook device or facebook ads in the apps. you have absolutely no idea
It all seems really vague at this point. Plus, just like Luckey has to say things that sound good to us, Zuckerburg has to say things that sound good to his shareholders. I wouldn't take either as gospel at this point.
Basileus777
Member
The problem here is that this sort of monetization would have ended up on the Oculus regardless. The VC funding it or whatever other company bought it would have looked at those revenue streams as well. Yes, Facebook will put advertising in VR, but in all likelihood so would anyone. Sony will probably do it too. Oculus wasn't a charity, Facebook's purchase didn't introduce the need to make money off of it.
There's no reason to believe Zuckerburg is lying. Facebook is obviously going to monetize the Rift at some point, and he spoke of obvious ways to do it, ways that pretty much any company would use.
crazygambit
Member
Bravo.
Because we've already seen the prototype? By all accounts it's pretty close to the new OR in tech, while being more comfortable (and better looking IMO, but that's subjective).
Son of Cervantes
Member
I understand exactly what it is, which is why I don't back KS projects.
It is a form of investment, except you don't get a return on your investment, just a product (if you're lucky).
And meanwhile Palmer Luckey laughs all the way to the bank.
?
I got exactly what was promised when I backed the Kickstarter. An early dev kit. I was never promised return on investment, nor did I expect it.
Son of Cervantes
Member
Well, that's kind of my point. I think you (and my friend) were essentially taken for a ride.
Exactly, you don't get a return on your investment. So there's no reason for contributors to feel hard done by.
As for Palmer laughing to the bank, you really don't seem to know much about him. If you read through his initial dabblings with the Rift and his plans for the Kickstarter venture on the MTBS forums, you'll see he's incredibly humble, intelligent, ambitious and NOT greedy at all. He was just a geek passionate about VR and had come up with a really good solution for it. Being a pretty ordinary guy, he needed extra help to get off the ground, which is where Kickstarter came in. He didn't expect a whole lot, but interest was far greater than he anticipated.
Eventually, it meant that Oculus Rift could be a serious product and not just a small-time workshop product he made in his garage. The backers were responsible for making this happen and for being a very large part of this VR hype. Oculus being bought for $2 billion goes to show what a success the whole process has been. Backers should be quite proud of having contributed.
How, exactly? I got what was promised and am perfectly content with that.
Son of Cervantes
Member
I already explained how in my previous posts. I'm glad you're not upset, though.
I'm bowing out of this thread since I'm getting the vibe that folks who don't like what I said are itching to pick a fight.
You do realize the hardware was essentially provided to us at cost as part of the Kickstarter contributions, right? Why should we possibly expect a return on investment?
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Help me understand what you mean by "it's a form of investment" except it's not like an investment.
Confidence Man
Member
Interesting that zuckerberg considers it a "computing platform" alongside mobile and desktop.
Sounds like the Rift's ultimate form many years and iterations from now will be a standalone unit with built-in hardware and it's own Facebook OS and software all designed for VR.
Sounds like the Rift's ultimate form many years and iterations from now will be a standalone unit with built-in hardware and it's own Facebook OS and software all designed for VR.
You haven't made any sense, though. People getting exactly what they were told they'd get and yet you think people are being 'taken for a ride' and you feel sorry for them.
Sounds like you've just jumped on the 'Notch thinking bandwagon', but really cant articulate what you mean, which is no surprise since Notch's reasoning was lousy in the first place.
The Dutch Slayer
Member
Son of Cervantes
Member
Like I said, I'm not getting into this, because I can already see you guys sharpening your knives, lol.
What I said is pretty easy to understand if you're not willfully refusing not to so as to drag me into an argument. It's an issue plenty of people have had with Kickstarter and how it works. I'm not saying anything new, and has nothing to do with liking Facebook or not, which seems to be Notch's issue with the whole thing.
What I said is pretty easy to understand if you're not willfully refusing not to so as to drag me into an argument. It's an issue plenty of people have had with Kickstarter and how it works. I'm not saying anything new, and has nothing to do with liking Facebook or not, which seems to be Notch's issue with the whole thing.
ephemeral garbage
Member
I think a lot of people have had to resort to simplifying assumptions when trying to understand what Kickstarter is. Some people latch onto the fact that you're putting money in before there's a product and think "oh, ok, so it's like investing," and then notice that you don't get any return, and then immediately dismiss it - to them it looks like a 'bad deal'. Some people latch onto the fact that there is a mapping from the amount you contribute to the reward and go "oh, ok, so it's like preordering," and then back something that fails and flip out because they didn't get what they 'ordered'.
When you Kickstart something you are contributing money to someone who wants to do something, because you want to increase the chance that that thing might happen. This is hard to understand for the people who view Kickstarter as a shitty investment analogue, because to them, wanting to see a thing happen (without necessarily directly benefiting from it) is an alien desire to have. It's more akin to donating to PBS because you watch Downton Abbey and want to keep it on the air, and then maybe you get a tote bag. Lots of people watch PBS or listen to NPR without donating, and that's fine. Some people do. Let folks do their thing.
Dr. Zoidberg
Member
Well, people look at what happened to Kevin Rose and Digg. Kevin should have sold Digg when he had the chance at megabucks but instead he waited and lost out on a ton of cash.
Son of Cervantes
Member
I don't understand the backlash about kickstarter funders needing to be compensated for investing in the product. Nobody argues that people who used line should be getting paid money once they sold to facebook, but they were the reason it was successful and could eventually be bought by a company. With Kickstarter all you're doing is saying "Hey, I like your ideas, I want to support you", it's the equivalent of handing out money to a musician on the street. If he goes and performs in Carnegie do you deserve part of the money since you supported him until he could get that gig? No.
ephemeral garbage
Member
You didn't understand the analogy. Sorry.
I find this super interesting becasue I learned of this last night and didn't even think there would be a backlash.
It's like the internet is just one big rolling panic attack.
Anyway.. This is cool. It will be interesting to see what Oculus can do with all that cash. They are a super smart group of people, and I was worried that they were going to get crushed by someone dumping money into VR.
It's like the internet is just one big rolling panic attack.
Anyway.. This is cool. It will be interesting to see what Oculus can do with all that cash. They are a super smart group of people, and I was worried that they were going to get crushed by someone dumping money into VR.
flyinpiranha
Member
Not 'itching for a fight' but calling out incorrect information. You shouldn't use the word "investment" when speaking of Kickstarter. It's not an investment. You 'hope' to buy something. That's it. It's like bidding on ebay, you don't 'invest' in the company selling the product, you just get the product for a price you determine if it gets to the goal. Nothing more.
What do you mean by "anywhere else"? Who would have given him ROI if he bought a product off the shelf (basically what KS is, a storefront for people that don't have a store yet). I'm curious.
Somebody else mentioned (and I mentioned it also quite a few times) that the OR is a display device, it's not an encompassing device like a phone or tablet or e-reader where a "walled garden" is possible. It NEEDS a PC, it NEEDS software developed for it outside of FB and Oculus ... unless they plan on making a portable GTX 780 Ti and all the other hardware required to jam into the headset to run by itself, it's going to be an open system, who would develop for it if it couldn't run anything? It's a display!
I've not actually read anyone who pledged on the original Kickstarter feeling like they've been sold down the river, but if they do, they can take solace in the fact that without their help Oculus may well have never existed to this point to even be bought out by Facebook.
Let's face it, if a no-name startup said to us a few years ago that they would be serious about launching such a device we would have ignored it. But thanks to Kickstarter they were able to provide a working prototype and have built hype to the max in doing so. They may well have defined the directions that Sony and other competitors may be going in the VR space. This is what kickstarting is all about.
Let's face it, if a no-name startup said to us a few years ago that they would be serious about launching such a device we would have ignored it. But thanks to Kickstarter they were able to provide a working prototype and have built hype to the max in doing so. They may well have defined the directions that Sony and other competitors may be going in the VR space. This is what kickstarting is all about.
People seem to enjoy their google phones just fine though..
zephervack
Member
Based off of Zuckerbergs words above, I think we will see the true nature of this acquisition once cell phones can drive the Rift by themselves.
Anything before that will remain an experience for Hardcore gamers.
They just got Oculus while they could get it "cheap"
What happened to the DieH@rd who was earlier all sunshine and roses about the Facebook acquisition?
And very many of those backers never would have put a dime toward the project if they knew at the time they were funding Facebook R&D.
Well his answers relieve me, or well if hes lying, I'm sure it'll end up worse or him in the end seeing we've got proof he'll lie, and he seems a smart guy, so don't think he'd do that. What question I do want answering though... is why Facebook invested? What are they getting out of this? Or will this simply something no one other than Facebook will know when they choose to activate their plan....
Ads, ads, ads. Everyone's afraid of the ads.
I'm struggling to see how Facebook could funnel ads into the Oculus Rift.... ads in Oculus Rift means ads in games in general, which currently doesn't really happen in most games
In order for Facebook to deliver any ads to Oculus Rift, they would need some platform that delivers content catering to the device. The scary part of all of this is whether or not Facebook will use their control over Oculus to restrict developing for the device so that games satisfy the requirements of whatever gaming platform Facebook comes up with.
But even then, what kind of platform would this be? I don't see VR being marketed as a casual pick-up-and-play experience, certainly not to the degree where you can shove an ad in the corner like the Facebook website does.
I can see Facebook delivering ads to the device if there were some sort of VR television-like service in place where intermittent ads could be delivered. In immersive game experiences, though? I really don't see it happening. After all, wouldn't that really go against the holy grail of vr, presence?
I'm struggling to see how Facebook could funnel ads into the Oculus Rift.... ads in Oculus Rift means ads in games in general, which currently doesn't really happen in most games
In order for Facebook to deliver any ads to Oculus Rift, they would need some platform that delivers content catering to the device. The scary part of all of this is whether or not Facebook will use their control over Oculus to restrict developing for the device so that games satisfy the requirements of whatever gaming platform Facebook comes up with.
But even then, what kind of platform would this be? I don't see VR being marketed as a casual pick-up-and-play experience, certainly not to the degree where you can shove an ad in the corner like the Facebook website does.
I can see Facebook delivering ads to the device if there were some sort of VR television-like service in place where intermittent ads could be delivered. In immersive game experiences, though? I really don't see it happening. After all, wouldn't that really go against the holy grail of vr, presence?
Fried Food
Banned
KS backers have no right to be upset. They got what they signed up for.
SkeptiMism
Member
Facebook doesn't simply want to remain as a website that eventually gets forgotten. They need to expand. This is most likely a fairly smart move for them, because VR is the future.Well his answers relieve me, or well if hes lying, I'm sure it'll end up worse or him in the end seeing we've got proof he'll lie, and he seems a smart guy, so don't think he'd do that. What question I do want answering though... is why Facebook invested? What are they getting out of this? Or will this simply something no one other than Facebook will know when they choose to activate their plan....
SkeptiMism
Member
And Facebook wouldn't have bought the company if it hadn't been kickstarted and there would be no VR for quite a while longer. The donators ensured that VR will be the future and it'll happen a lot sooner than it'd have otherwise.
edit: sorry 2 posts in a row
Yup, and everyone knows the real money is in OS. If they can position themselves as a great VR dedicated OS (probably in 3-6 years), they'll be sitting pretty.
What is the doomsday scenario everyone keeps worrying about? I keep hearing ads get thrown around, but what do you actually expect to happen with those ads? Do you think you're gonna be in the middle of playing some OR game and all of a sudden you're going to be inundated with pop-ups?
Azure Dream
Member
Dread has nothing to do with "lol popups", at least directly, for me. It's more about the data-mining, which Facebook is a king at. It's about the fears of the Rift switching to closed APIs that Facebook completely controls and requires, and can alter at their will at any time to inject anything they desire. Perhaps all avenues of Rift-compatible software distribution will be required to go through a walled garden. 30% of the profit, and nothing too naughty, of course. Maybe it's even about not widening the content approach to the Rift, as many VR fans ultimately hope for, but instead shifting the direction away from the hardcore gaming market.
Palmer Luckey can come out and swear up and down that nothing's going to change, except the resources available to them... But he just sold his company for 2 Billion dollars. To Facebook. No matter what the outcome will actually be, he's going to placate consumers. He can't expect us to take him completely to his word. Not yet.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Zuckerberg is gambling on VR allowing him to laugh all the way to the bank in the long term, and Palmer gets enough of a serious cash injection to make CK1 the best it can possibly be. Cheaper with better content support and superior tech.
Because of this acquisition, GAF will get VR cheaper and better than it could have been without the cash injection caused by the purchase.
GAF bursts into salty tears anyway.
Google's phones and tablets get eaten up on here in OT. Google also target ads, sell data and all the fun stuff Facebook do. Do you hate using your Nexus 7 because it is owned by an ad company? I sure as hell don't.
Because of this acquisition, GAF will get VR cheaper and better than it could have been without the cash injection caused by the purchase.
GAF bursts into salty tears anyway.
Google's phones and tablets get eaten up on here in OT. Google also target ads, sell data and all the fun stuff Facebook do. Do you hate using your Nexus 7 because it is owned by an ad company? I sure as hell don't.
Azure Dream
Member
Google is perhaps not your best example, as they increasingly force people into their social network in order to continue using products that existed far beforehand.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
OMG!!!! Unbelievable.
RedHotChimiChanga
Banned
Neo? Or NeoGAF?