Have you read any reporting on the acquisition or the comments by Zuckerberg/Luckey? Virtually nothing is changing in the short term. You're trumping up the worst and most far-off speculation as fact.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Facebook has acquired Oculus VR for 2 Billion US Dollars
- Thread starter ShogunDarius
- Start date
Have you read any reporting on the acquisition or the comments by Zuckerberg/Luckey? Virtually nothing is changing in the short term. You're trumping up the worst and most far-off speculation as fact.
Wiktor
Member
Well...no device can be used with everything, but Rift will be able to be used with any pcgame that supports it. Whether it's on Facebook, Steam or retail disc.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
if the oculus rift works as advertised it could have a big dick plastered across it for all i care.
plagiarize
Banned
Again, no one is going to buy a $200 to $300 headset and a high end gaming PC (since they'll need to run those facebook games at 90 fps and 1440p in stereoscopic 3D) next year to play facebook games.
Facebook ultimately want to be involved in VR to do all the other stuff that can be done with it, alongside games, I am sure. But you don't get to the point where VR is a mass market product affordable to all for a few years. In the meantime, you make a product for the core gamer.
Whatever happens then doesn't matter. Either Facebook turn their back on hardcore gamers and Sony or Nvidia or someone else pick up that market, or they don't.
But no one is going to launch a VR headset next year for Facebook games. Because there is literally zero market for it. That market will only come into existence if the hardcore gaming market builds excitement for the medium, and as PC power continues to increase to the point where a cheap tablet or a smartphone can easily power a VR device.
Yeah there's no way to put micro transactions in a high end FPS. It's scientifically impossible.
SkeptiMism
Member
Why would they own even ethically anything? They betrayed nobody. They had already taken dozens of millions before this, and there's no way they could've moved on with just the kickstarter money.
The people who funded literally kickstarted the company so that it got forward. They are the reason we will have VR a lot sooner than it would've otherwise come, and they should be proud.
MemoryHumanity
Member
So what's with the 100 pages of outrage? What the fuck is wrong with people? They think Facebook have spent $2bn so people can look around their Farmville with an Oculus? The fuck...
Wiktor
Member
No, I think people who are angry are the ones who betrayed the whole idea of VR just because they're delusional hipsters, who would rather see the whole movement die out than to see it become mainstream.
More_Badass
Member
And how did they betray them? By acquiring funding that allows them to make a better product faster and without any financial roadbumps to delay production and development?
plagiarize
Banned
A kickstarter is a project. Once that project is finished, you are not ethically bound to make sure that every other project you do ever will continue to appeal to the people that supported your first project.
And let me guess, you weren't a backer. So guess what, they definitely don't have to give a shit what you think. I haven't seen a single GAF backer that thinks they were screwed over.
No one Kickstarted Oculus the company. You don't kickstart COMPANIES. You kickstart PROJECTS. Kickstarting a business is implicitly against Kickstarter's own rules.
Elfforkusu
Member
Browsers (javascript) are still singlethreaded, VR requires greater graphical fidelity (in regards to framerate in particular) than current gaming platforms are accustomed to generating, and VR requires sufficiently small input lag that cloud gaming is rendered impotent. The best path on the browser is asm.js, but it's still years away from running crysis at acceptable speeds. Decades from running it on an arm cpu.
TBH, my gut is that facebook (will) set VR back by about 5 years thanks to this purchase. The innovation will be a slow burn rather than a magnificent explosion. it is what it is. Helps sony and ms, hurts valve...
If they stayed totally hands off? No shift to OR web services, unyielding focus on cutting edge gaming? Sky would still be the limit. I just can't see facebook going down that path for more than 12 months. IMO the talent (Carmack, etc) will start to bleed away by then.
I think your right. this is not going to be released (in the masses) till its cheap enough to produce. I expect facebook is long to have a wifi set top box which it links to or make it like direct to tablets over wifi (instead of pcs)
I think facebook has long term plans.
Let's assume that Facebook wants to charge fees for any content that's published for its VR system. Could it not make drivers that check whether an application is "Facebook approved"?
plagiarize
Banned
Their longterm plans, whatever they are, go through PC gaming first. Mark my words. Whatever happens after that, VR will remain a part of the PC gaming landscape, even if we're buying headsets from a different company. CV1 is still going to be a gaming peripheral, where ever Oculus end up going after that.
a game that costs $20m+ cant be released hoping someone might make a micro transaction.
Nydius
Member
I think your optimism has a fundamental misunderstanding of how publicly traded corporations work.
I don't blame you for not reading all 100+ pages of this topic, but most of what you've mentioned has already been discussed. Oculus had plenty of funding before this acquisition. There had been talks prior to GDC about an acquisition for $1.5bn, and investors wanted them not to do it. Finally, as several people here posted who have lived through similar acquisitions (myself included), you're delusional if you think Oculus will "remain independent".
Facebook lives for one reason: To make a profit. This is especially true after their rocky IPO. Investors want Facebook to keep delivering the "next big thing" and monetizing it for their profit. VR is not a commodity? You understand what a commodity IS, correct, because Oculus VR just became one.
Edit: Jesus Christ, P.T. Barnum is proven right time and time again. The comments made by Zuckerberg and Luckey are typical PR (both internal and external) statements made during any major acquisition. It is literally the acquisition PR playbook and it never turns out the way it's presented. The first, major, responsibility of a public corporation is its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Everything else is meaningless. It baffles me how people can still get sucked into the same crap year after year, decade after decade, and still act surprised when they find out they were swindled.
stufte
Member
lol. This isn't highschool. Nobody is "betraying" anyone. The rift could have happened without the kickstarter. Easily.
I don't see how they can argue it's a good move for the rift in every possible sense, when the fact remains Facebook had to give them 2billion for them to agree to it. If it was really such a common sense mutually beneficial move as they suggest, why did extreme quantities of money change hands?
If they implemented your assumption, do you think that would help or hurt the product? I'm just trying to inject some reason here.
SuicidalSteve
Member
Oh my
You can play Battlefield on the Chrome browser.
plagiarize
Banned
there is already a $40 + million dollar PC exclusive (which is part FPS) that is going to support the Rift (hell it already kind of does). big budget VR games are not threatened by this. again, they just might not be coming to Oculus/Facebook hardware after the first few years.
they'll continue to exist though.
The added resources (IE the money) are part what made it a good fit. A lot of that money is going into the company.
Of course it can. But beyond that, why don't they just charge to play the game? $60 and you get log in credentials.
The point, Ganondolf, is that the reason high end games don't really exist on Facebook is because smaller games work best on that platform. Such restrictions have nothing to do with the Rift.
Elfforkusu
Member
Sure. At what fidelity compared to native code?
95 fps? (lol)
You can also play battlefield on a ps2, right?
SkeptiMism
Member
Uhm.. Sorry can you clarify please? Do you think OR will run only on Facebook's browser version or something? Because it obviously won't do that. It'll run on your PC just normally. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
How on earth would the purchase VR back at all?
I agree that VR headsets for pc will be there in the future but I don't think that's facebooks plan.
pc gaming using their tech would have to pay facebook or facebook would need to get money somehow. facebook making their own pc store (like steam) is not an option. maybe a steam deal early on is an option.
I think it provides some short term PR benefits in return for completely destroying the platform's potential and creating very significant negative societal effects - much like the App Store.
Lol
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
wouldn't letting the original grand vision die a slow death due to lack of capital be a bigger betrayal?
So instead of reason, you're using conjecture while disregarding evidence in Facebook's other acquisitions as to how they will act. Sorry your bosses were stupid, but you have to apply the evidence given, not personal anecdotes.
And please again, explain how Facebook profit off an intangible substance?
Because that is what both parties agreed was a reasonable price based on the potential market for VR, balanced with Oculus's place in said market, balanced with a shit-ton of other stuff you don't understand. Quit reframing the argument to fit your biases.
Guiberu
Member
I'm thoroughly unhappy about this.
I know it's unlikely Facebook would fuck this up, given how much potential the tech has, but christ.
Facebook to me is a "stupid-enabling" construct. I really hope this doesn't bleed over to the rift.
Now your significant other can stalk old flames in full virtual reality!
Spice up your attention seeking posts by including a fully explorable, angsty environment!
I know it's unlikely Facebook would fuck this up, given how much potential the tech has, but christ.
Facebook to me is a "stupid-enabling" construct. I really hope this doesn't bleed over to the rift.
Now your significant other can stalk old flames in full virtual reality!
Spice up your attention seeking posts by including a fully explorable, angsty environment!
Elfforkusu
Member
Facebook will ultimately be calling the shots on where money is invested in VR. Rather than the focus being on cutting edge gaming (leap in realism, etc) -- "what valve wants", in short -- the focus will be on features that add value for facebook.
My expectation is that the paths diverge quickly. That is, after a year, the New Oculus will be heading in a different direction at the direction of their new bosses.
if they stick facebook on the front then it has the same restrictions. how many gamers are going to buy VR tech with a facebook logo on it instead of sony/MS Tech.
Absolutely, but that argument is just not plausible to me, there are lots of ways to get money. The only reason to take the Facebook deal was if you valued "amount of money" the most and "chance of success" the least.
Who gave them the initial $90 million and why did they have less influence than Facebook will?
plagiarize
Banned
I'm not worried about their long term plans, personally. The CV1 will primarily be a gaming peripheral. Facebook may bundle it with social software, but it's still going to be something you can just strap on and load up the latest VR game that you bought from Steam, or wherever.
I'm confident of that, whatever happens down the line.
Having spent a long time experimenting with my Rift DK, some of the best experiences I have had are what you might brand as casual experiences. Exploring an underwater reef. Watching a film in a virtual cinema on a massive screen. These applications have always been part of the plan. Facebook will offer such things, and those things will likely be sold through a VR interface that comes with the Rift.
But you don't bring VR to the masses by walling everything off and drastically limiting support. They know that the first big steps are going to come from independent developers who are financially more suited to taking big risks. They need to foster an audience first, before they can leverage it. Again, just as we saw Microsoft do with the Xbox 360.
And then, just as Microsoft did, they might alienate a lot of that core audience. But it won't really matter.
Yep, and then all the gamers will jump ship for the hot new VR gaming company. This stuff happens every day in every industry. I don't see your point.
Why on earth would they spend 2bn dollars on VR Facebook? The very idea is ludicrous. :lol
Not strictly true. There are some companies with shareholders that aren't actually concerned with profitability. Look at Amazon for example, investors mostly do not care about the amount of money that company makes (it makes hardly anything). They only care about growth and revenue. As a result, Amazon as a stock is overvalued by conventional metrics but investors understand the need for growth and spending will pay off in the long-term. Sure, there might be some investors who are unhappy with that approach but Amazon ploughs ahead regardless with it's heavy investment.
I'm not saying that Facebook has the same approach (I don't really know anything about their financials) but I do know that VR as a piece of technology at the moment is expensive and raw, and whatever they want to leverage from it in terms of services and and marketable products is a long way off until it becomes a truly mainstream technology. Perhaps the more patient shareholders will realise that $2 billion now sounds a lot better than $10 billion in three years time, just like the $19 billion they had to fork out for Whatsapp after the product matured and built up a huge userbase. I don't think they will see their $2 billion venture being immediately profitable because of that very reason.
This is true. Instead of waiting 2 years for them to get the specs perfect, we can have them this year. I'd be angry if I'd been able to preorder DK2.
They won't have Facebook drivers but they will put alot of money into having games exclusive to their software. The $2b will be used for this as well IMO. Same as games require you to login to steam to play a game or Origin. PC is an open platform but to play Titanfall you need to go through Origin. Except their software will most likely have a bunch of other stuff not related to gaming as well such as virtual stores, casual games, virtual movie theaters etc.
Do you legitimately believe that they couldn't have found capital from a more reputable investor?
But this is kind of the problem where people mistake the way people and companies use Facebook for the platform itself. Shitty companies and sites pop up unbearable link-to facebook stuff, FB is just the platform. They're not the reason you have an angsty nephew or an aunt who spams your feed with inspirational quotes, they're just the medium.
What? How does that even make sense? Do you know how electricity works?
If it's good? Of they want to play on a PC and not a PS4 or and XBox One? Lots.
What exactly about Facebook is not reputable?
plagiarize
Banned
exactly. what's stopping Nvidia bringing out a high end PC gaming VR headset and bundling it with their graphics cards or whatever? as far as we know, nothing. if Oculus's technology was patented up the wazoo, I'd be worried, but we already know equivalent hardware that offers the same level of experience is completely possible thanks to the Morpheus.