DouglasteR
Member
Gaben will save us in the end.
-
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
Facebook's reputation is tarnished in what way?
Elfforkusu
Member
Spin up time, technology reinvention, market share, api parity.
5 years.
I think there's a decent chance that this will be a short term boon. That is, the first consumer version will benefit from facebook's backing. Everything after that, I think, will suffer.
Who cares? Initial investors didn't set the direction -- they agreed to it. Facebook didn't just invest, they bought the company. They will set the agenda (unless they sell)
plagiarize
Banned
right. there will be stuff you can only get through their VR store front, but there will plenty of stuff outside of it still. Indies will be free to do whatever they want with the device, at least for the first few years. Yes. That means porn will still happen.
plagiarize
Banned
Nvidia could ship something in two years if they wanted. Sony could ship something for the PC space in even less time.
You're talking as if any new company entering the space would have to be a start up.
Nvidia have spent years implementing stereoscopic 3D into games, meaning they have a lot of the understanding already. they have shipped numerous pieces of hardware, including a portable device with a screen that is basically a resolution upgrade away from being a great VR display.
Sony would just need to supply the appropriate driver and api support to PC developers and sell the Morpheus to PC gamers if Oculus vacated the PC gaming space.
Thanks, I'll check that out later when I go home and have my US VPN.
So instead of articulating an argument you're linking an entire documentary?
I meant the facebook logo and OS. if they do this it will be aimed at the facebook audience not gamers.
once MS bring out there tech (which will be shown this year) it will work on xb1 and pc. also expect MS to have full games pcs available from the Windows store when windows 9 launches. who then will bother facebook's VR tech
It's more about changing societal norms than the kind of corporate culture that dictates behavior regarding mergers or acquisitions.
It's always remarkable how many people there are who think the majority of the world is stupider than them.
If it were easy to explain the problem I wouldn't have to. Get over thinking that everything can be explained in a sound byte.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
well i guess we just differ on opinion as to what gives them a great chance of success.
guaranteed total autonomy and 2.5 million vs the promise of almost total autonomy and billions of dollars.
making a mainstream hardware blockbuster with 2.5 million (and lets not forget that the original 2.5 million came in the form of dk1 orders) would not be enough to hit mainstream acceptence in less than 5 years. in which time, less ambitious competitors would dominate the scene with products that would probably be inferior to what the oculus rift team had in mind.
Elfforkusu
Member
Eye tracking and head tracking and persistence and everything else. This is cutting edge technology. OR are the closest to figuring it all out, and they're still a while away from going to market.
Startup or established company, it will take serious time and resources. Sony will be an interesting test case.
think MS will have their tech out in a year or so and it will work on xb1 and pc
flyinpiranha
Member
They did, their first huge infusion before the acquisition was from Andreessen Horowitz. Remember all that "Oculus got 75million!" a few months ago?
Does that count?
Yeah? http://investor.fb.com/directors.cfm
VC capital very much so has say over what happens. It depends on who is on the board of directors. The start up I work for has a board and they dictate quite a few things, it's how things work. People don't throw money at stuff and hope it pays off later (well, on Kickstarter they do), they have some control.
So how much of this was just playing keep away from Google (or Amazon)? M$ still owns 1.6% of da FB, so they sort of don't lose or win.
so true.gifOh my
Thank god for sony in general look what xbox offered in the initial E3 reveal(lol)now face book trying to buy out VR. Gaming would be in bad shape .
plagiarize
Banned
Who came up with the technology that is used for low peristence in gaming monitors? It was Nvidia wasn't it? Eye tracking is not necessary, but even if it was, Sony are already deep in research in that area.
So NVidia are what, a motion sensor away from building a headset? Two years if they wanted in. Presuming they aren't already working on it.
SilentRacoon
Member
Unwarranted self-esteem is a hell of a drug.
NaughtyCalibur
Member
So many people who are throwing a fit over this are crying about the games, when that is a pretty narrow view of what something like proper VR tech can be used for.
Facebook is a social network first and foremost, so to assume that they threw $2 billion down at just the chance to enter the gaming market is pretty silly. As somebody else said here, FB will more than likely open up a marketplace similar to Steam as a means to distribute Oculus supported apps. Some of these apps will be games, but a lot of them will be social media -- this would have happened with or without Facebook, btw. Just one look at the movie theater or roller coaster sim, or even the creepy Japanese sex stuff, and it was pretty clear that the Oculus wasn't going to be the next big step in gaming (at least not exclusively).
VR is potentially the next big step in social networking, if not with Oculus then with whatever comes after. It is no more a gaming device than the PC I'm typing this on right now.
In short, I can sort of understand the outrage because it's Facebook, but the confusion as to why Zuck would invest in this tech should be non-existent.
Facebook is a social network first and foremost, so to assume that they threw $2 billion down at just the chance to enter the gaming market is pretty silly. As somebody else said here, FB will more than likely open up a marketplace similar to Steam as a means to distribute Oculus supported apps. Some of these apps will be games, but a lot of them will be social media -- this would have happened with or without Facebook, btw. Just one look at the movie theater or roller coaster sim, or even the creepy Japanese sex stuff, and it was pretty clear that the Oculus wasn't going to be the next big step in gaming (at least not exclusively).
VR is potentially the next big step in social networking, if not with Oculus then with whatever comes after. It is no more a gaming device than the PC I'm typing this on right now.
In short, I can sort of understand the outrage because it's Facebook, but the confusion as to why Zuck would invest in this tech should be non-existent.
Wiktor
Member
Sorry, but I didn't demand outdated tech, opressive closed ecosystems and barely any games support. That's definitely no future of VR I would want.
That's where I see it heading too. Login to Facebook VR store using Facebook login, pay using Facebook currency.
Will FB allow a game like Project Cars, Half Life 2, Minecraft, Mirrors Edge etc. support OR VR officially without selling it through FB VR store? If not then it limits the amount of devs creating content since they will want to use their own store front like origin, steam or be independent.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
facebook aside. the implication i was responding to was that partnering with any investor and giving up majority stake in the company would be paramount to the feelings of betrayal in early adopters and donators.
They also funded Twitter, what's your point?
nVidia seems like a natural fit for the VR space after seeing their presentations yesterday. They keep pushing the virtual show room, and VR done well would only help that.
The more competition in the VR space, the better. Everyone wins when a better product is required due to competition.
The more competition in the VR space, the better. Everyone wins when a better product is required due to competition.
Well in that case we can't continue to have a discussion about whether or not Facebook is 'reputable'. If you can't articulate what you consider them of ill repute then we'll have to talk about something else.
Like how Oculus already sold out in January and they just sold out much larger now.
Elfforkusu
Member
Sure, I'm oversimplifying. Fact remains that facebook's ownership represents a sea change. You can argue good or bad (I say bad)
NVidia are probably the closest, I agree.
FWIW: When I throw out 5 years, I mean the market as a whole. Adoption, software, etc. Really feel like we were close.
Now I want to design a Rift game where you play as the CEO of Oculus from his bedroom to the boardroom. The user will start off as a humble nerd and completely minigames based around coming up with the idea of the oculus. From there, they have to decide what forums to post on. Based on your post, a random big name developer will show up, so if you get the specs a little different you might have Romero telling you to make it more bitchin.
You finally make a kickstarter and get to decide if you want to sellout or not. If you choose yes it fries your harddrive. Choose no and you get the $2.5 mil kickstarter. From there you must work on the project while also fellating the "hype", talking to journos posting on message boards. Every random amount of days, a new corporation will come knocking with an ever inflating bag of cash.
This part of the game will be dark souls multiplayer inspried that, every cash grab that's accepted sets a new bottom line. But will remain a mystery. If you choose below the line, it fries your computer. Once you're successfull selling out, it puts you in a transluscent Sgrooge money bin, where you get to dive into piles of money while all your backers watch helplessly from outside, their cries of betrayal piped in for your enjoyment.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
What you never said dumb shit when you were a teenager?
I know this has been posted a few times. I thought it was a parody. But... is this real?
http://www.businessinsider.com/well...s-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5
I just attempted to present you with an argument in a long and excruciating form by linking you to that video. If you refuse to learn about what Facebook does and how it does it, how can I expect to have a conversation with you about what they do?
Linking again.
Some other interesting tidbits.
DryvBy
Member
Holy crap. That's funny.
Summarize it for him. Nobody likes to be told they need to study in order to have a conversation.
theSlacker
Member
Do you not find the irony behind that statement?
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
Are you kidding me?
Yes, it's on YOU to write your own posts.
There is none. I'm not purporting to be smarter or dumber than anyone else. It's statistically impossible for so many people to be smarter than a majority of the world.
My point is that you're incapable of articulating why. I'll watch the video but with the context of trying to find out why you're linking it as a way to show that Facebook isn't 'reputable' enough to purchase a VR company... a point which you've not explained at all.
BrickArmour
Member
Did this image get posted in the thread yet? Mildly entertaining:
theSlacker
Member
Fair enough, moving on.
.... well actually given the number of people in the world and given how gaf is a obsessive community and given how high iq ppl tend to be obsessive etc etc. EDIT I would not be surprised if gafs average iq is higher than the average population. Whether that makes you "smarter" etc is another question.
This is also probably why conversations on the internet rarely go anywhere. Hard to discuss something when two people aren't discussing with some form of intervening information.
Researchers don't write abstracts for their research because they believe the research isn't going to be read, they write them because they want to have a conversation that is relevant to their readers. If I write an abstract for something that is an hour long (which isn't actually that long), it's not going to do the work justice. It would just be more conflicted, particularly since there's already an abstract on the site which I linked.
What? Of course investors set conditions on the money they're handing over. The CEO was very explicit in stating this deal was good in part because it made it so they weren't beholden to those investors any longer. Instead of a large number of entities throwing money and conditions it's just one business who has already explained they intend to let them operate semi-autonomously.
Nah, most of the leg work has already been done. They could reverse engineer the Oculus and bring out a competing hardware product in a year. It is the supporting software ecosystem that takes time.
CountAntonius
Member
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
sounds damn good.
You're not a researcher. You're having a conversation on an internet community. This applies to conversations in person as well. What forms do we have to fill out to speak with you about what you'd like for dinner?