Please explain. Did all the DS1 models explode earlier today?
-
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
Please explain. Did all the DS1 models explode earlier today?
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
DrROBschiz
Member
Didn't the people who kickstarted it get their product?
I would say the deal was done at that point.
As far as the long term support though... yeah I feel for then there.
At least they can enjoy occulus while it remains a competent and open device. Support for games though... might have to come from modders
So much support for Sony yet they are a much larger company. That didn't stop the PS4 for becoming a huge success by giving authority to the right people. There's no reason to expect the same from a much smaller company.
Companies don't spend billions of dollars to murder a non-competitive product. Facebook is now the one most invested in the success of the rift yet most here act as if their first goal will be to fire the entire rift team and kill the project.
Companies don't spend billions of dollars to murder a non-competitive product. Facebook is now the one most invested in the success of the rift yet most here act as if their first goal will be to fire the entire rift team and kill the project.
gutterboy44
Member
This is a complete fucking sham. They are acting like the OR was sold on Kickstarter as some "huge vision of social interaction" and that this has always been a goal of the OR and OR supporters. That somehow gaming wasn't clearly the main focus of this thing from day one. Bull shit! I am going through all of the old OR Kickstarter update emails, the majority of which are after it was successful funded and it is non stop talk about gaming. Headlines like,
Now we have this in the latest Oculus update,
Do I want my money back or do I feel like I was fleeced? No, I know how Kickstarter works, despite their direction changing so quickly after the campaign ended. At the very least I can say my money went toward kickstarting VR in general. However, I am sick of trying to be convinced I was some how mistaken for thinking this thing was most definitely going to be a gaming device first and foremost. The post buyout PR spin is garbage. No shit the OR could be used to create other content but their "mission statement" couldn't be more clearly about gaming until today. This is my main problem with a takeover by a company like FB. It instantly just becomes another bullshit cog in the empire. Anything and everything that happens to the OR going forward has to touch FB at some point. It might not be felt in DK3, but the big decisions, the ones that will affect what this product becomes when it touches consumers hands now has FB steering the ship directly or indirectly. What made Carmack's joining of the team so exciting was his absolute zero compromise in perfecting the technology.Nothing about FB comes off as "zero compromise" to me. They are content distributors not creators. FB hasn't innovated shit since its initial inception and rise to popularity. Since then they buy the innovators and then just do nothing with them. They haven't even figured out how to better implement a blatantly complimentary service like Instagram into their operations in a more meaningful way of a basic plug in and putting some photo filters in the default FB app. When it comes to a brilliant company like OR with an exiting future ahead of them, "not ruining it" isn't enough, doing nothing can have just as a negative affect. FB seems like a cesspool of stagnation, and now the innovative team over at OR have to steep in it. I don't think FB is some dark overlord stealing my soul through VR goggles, I just think they are an advertising medium first and foremost. Social interaction is the necessary middle man to deliver the ad content.
Now we have this in the latest Oculus update,
Huh, that's funny, of course any device that is connecting to software and the internet always has the potential to connect people but this is the first time they seem to be emphasizing connecting to people opposed to running software, more specifically games!
Yeah, FB has only innovated their interface to better deliver paid advertising content. There isn't a single feature added to Facebook that wasn't a copy of already prolific technology or simply buying up a company that was previously innovative. What happened to all the game developers you emphasized as your focus on connecting with? Again, up until today, they never mentioned OR was simply about cultivating any and all smart people, it was all about cultivating smart people in and or around the gaming industry.
Do I want my money back or do I feel like I was fleeced? No, I know how Kickstarter works, despite their direction changing so quickly after the campaign ended. At the very least I can say my money went toward kickstarting VR in general. However, I am sick of trying to be convinced I was some how mistaken for thinking this thing was most definitely going to be a gaming device first and foremost. The post buyout PR spin is garbage. No shit the OR could be used to create other content but their "mission statement" couldn't be more clearly about gaming until today. This is my main problem with a takeover by a company like FB. It instantly just becomes another bullshit cog in the empire. Anything and everything that happens to the OR going forward has to touch FB at some point. It might not be felt in DK3, but the big decisions, the ones that will affect what this product becomes when it touches consumers hands now has FB steering the ship directly or indirectly. What made Carmack's joining of the team so exciting was his absolute zero compromise in perfecting the technology.Nothing about FB comes off as "zero compromise" to me. They are content distributors not creators. FB hasn't innovated shit since its initial inception and rise to popularity. Since then they buy the innovators and then just do nothing with them. They haven't even figured out how to better implement a blatantly complimentary service like Instagram into their operations in a more meaningful way of a basic plug in and putting some photo filters in the default FB app. When it comes to a brilliant company like OR with an exiting future ahead of them, "not ruining it" isn't enough, doing nothing can have just as a negative affect. FB seems like a cesspool of stagnation, and now the innovative team over at OR have to steep in it. I don't think FB is some dark overlord stealing my soul through VR goggles, I just think they are an advertising medium first and foremost. Social interaction is the necessary middle man to deliver the ad content.
Sony's Morpheus HMD from 2011 could have anything inside, you can't tell it from that picture.
HMZ is a "TV replacement" product, not VR, so cheaper lenses and software "anti-distortion" was not an option, not that the idea is that hard to get to.
Yeah, this is honestly the only hope for VR right now. A device locked to a console being a saviour of VR is just hilarious.
Tony Redgrave
Member
Well... I don't really know what to say, other that this was one I surely didn't see coming at all.
From Zuckerberg's statement after the purchase it seems like the focus will definitely be on getting the average non-tech aficionado to use VR. Frankly it has to be to justify a $2 billion price tag. They're never going to make a ROI from hardcore gamers alone. That's more of what I meant by that statement. My tech friends that are super interested in Oculus barely use Facebook, and my non-tech savvy friends who are obsessed with FB couldn't care less about VR.
By gamers for gamers? Yeah I don't think so anymore.
It was meant to be gamer oriented, with lot of attention to details. It was supposed to ship when it was totally ready.
Now it will be whatever facebook decide oriented. It will ship when facebook decide it's ready to reap profit. It won't neceserally be a bad product, actually I'm pretty sure it won't, but the vision the founders had of it could be shattered if some high ranked marketing employee says it has to.
Maybe facebook will be good to the team and let them full control, but we can't really trust them as much as Carmack and some of the top workers there. I don't know what oculus team agreed to, but they aren't in control anymore, and that might change everything.
Also Oculus could have become the leader of a huge shift in the videgame history, now they are just facebook employees. But that's less important for the end users.
A somewhat pessimistic Eurogamer editorial:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...to-the-game-step-out-with-two-billion-dollars
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...to-the-game-step-out-with-two-billion-dollars
Good luck trying to sell those wacky looking huge glasses to the masses, no matter how well (re)designed they may be, if there's one thing the masses and the average social networker doesn't want to look like it's clearly 'nerdy'.
The way I see it it's a loss/loss situation for both parties, O.R upset, or at least put the doubt on their core fanbase (mostly backers), and Facebook put an absurd (and I can't emphasize the word absurd enough) amount of money in something they may not be able to 'sell' properly to do what they want.
The way I see it it's a loss/loss situation for both parties, O.R upset, or at least put the doubt on their core fanbase (mostly backers), and Facebook put an absurd (and I can't emphasize the word absurd enough) amount of money in something they may not be able to 'sell' properly to do what they want.
I've quoted you in full, including your quotes, because this is the best post I've read on this topic all day.
I'm not an OR kickstarter, I have nothing invested in it... but I'm a gamer and I absolutely wanted to see it deliver on the promise. Now, I'm not sure that will ever happen without compromise. I'm also a little sad that the competition OR should have provided won't be there to make Morpheus step up.
Morpheus, vague as it is at this point, seems much more aligned to what OR originally claimed to be. Yes it's owned by a huge corporation too, but one that has expressed it's desire to be all about gaming... for the player.
More_Badass
Member
One has nothing to with the other. Using Facebook isn't a barometer to gauge interest in Oculus. That's why I'm not really getting your statement here.
Does the non-tech savvy, non-gamer audience even know Oculus exists or care about VR at this point?
I don't get this viewpoint. Doing all that other stuff Facebook wants to do (basketball games, classrooms and so on) will require the same performance of the Rift as playing a game with it. So how will that affect its usefullness for gaming negatively in any way?
Oh, get real. Do you really think even a company like Facebook can afford to just buy up every competitor? If they don't give people what they want somebody else will. They know this. There is nothing to stop companies like Sony, Google or Microsoft from releasing a VR headset for the PC and, no, Facebook can't just "buy" such companies. The only thing that will stop that from happening is if they do give people the VR experience they are after.
As has been pointed out, there is no difference between a good "gaming VR" product and a good "general VR" product. For any VR you want the highest possible resolution, the lowest latency and fastest refresh rate, the highest-quality surround sound audio. A good VR device is a good VR device, full stop, be it for gaming or anything else. It doesn't need to be specialized for gaming in any way, and never was. Everything that made the Rift great for gaming always made it great for everything else, too.
Dirk Benedict
Member
Quick and dirty prequel.
PS: I tend to think that the acquisition might turn out to be a good thing for VR, this is just for the lulz.
This is worthy, and you should be knighted for it.
yeahe... it´s like all people think you dont need low latency and high res for the non gaming stuff. No one wants to see a Screendoor effect or get sick from high latency. And if Oculus want to build games itself, now with that much money they can really do it.
Quick and dirty prequel.
PS: I tend to think that the acquisition might turn out to be a good thing for VR, this is just for the lulz.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
He jokes but that is certainly a scenario that is plausible right now, yeah? Facebook integrating Oculus with their line-up of social-based games, I mean.
While that is true, the main concerns are not about the hardware but about the SDKs and APIs that allow developers to write applications for these devices. And here it remains doubtful whether Facebook (or Sony for that matter) will have any interest in establishing an interoperable standard for VR devices in general or not, or whether they will make their proprietary SDKs/APIs interoperable among use cases or not. Sony could very well restrict the Morpheus to PlayStation while Facebook could add bullshit like the mandatory need to have a Facebook account to use the Oculus Rift with any application, be it related to Facebook or not.
However, such wars over standards and platforms are common with new technologies. On thing is sure: very, very few consumers will be willing to buy multiple VR devices to have access to all possible VR applications.
And I'm happy that it happened. I want VR technology to be as popular as computer mouse so fuck yeah, good move for Oculus. On their own Rift would be only gimmick for gamers but with FB support it might march into maintstream and mass market and only then that technology has a chance to become widespread. Good move.
It always starts with that. First example from the top of my head: Blu-Ray vs HD DVD and in the end one format prevails. Same thing will hopefuly happen here. We need one standard technology that wins the war that will be adopted by other manufacturers. Right now we're in the format war - let's see who wins
It always starts with that. First example from the top of my head: Blu-Ray vs HD DVD and in the end one format prevails. Same thing will hopefuly happen here. We need one standard technology that wins the war that will be adopted by other manufacturers. Right now we're in the format war - let's see who wins
The problem is that facebook realized that they were in the early stages of becoming irrelevant to the masses. The parents were getting on being "stupid parents" and the kids were getting the fuck out of there and running to instagram. Facebook bought that recently, last time I used Instagram there wasn't even an option to log in with facebook. Anywhere the kids run in masses facebook will follow. But facebook is also buying things randomly to prevent the government from blocking them from buy outs.
I'm not sure the people who use facebook would use VR though.
I'm not sure the people who use facebook would use VR though.
Again, you're limiting their scope to 'Facebook' and Zuckerberg has long since shown that he no longer wants to limit his scope to 'Facebook'. So if they want to expand the VR market (which, given Occulus' venture capital valuation in January of 250 million dollars is definitely possible) then they'll likely be looking at their userbase as well as EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH.
So who cares if your tech-savvy friends don't use facebook?
Quick and dirty prequel.
PS: I tend to think that the acquisition might turn out to be a good thing for VR, this is just for the lulz.
He should strap on the headset before he runs off.
More_Badass
Member
Uh...what?
At least in the short-term, it's not at all in Facebook's interests to lock the device down. Right now the biggest market for the Rift - and in fact, the only real market for it, since the average user doesn't have the hardware to drive a Rift - is high-end PC gamers, and locking it down and requiring Facebook would make the Rift dead-on-arrival. Oculus knows that, which means Facebook knows that. It's the same reason they didn't force Facebook on Instagram users, it'd piss off the customer base. Right now what Facebook wants to do is push adoption as hard as they can, which means pricing the hardware low, making it as easy as possible for everyone to develop for, and attracting the hell out of the only market capable of taking advantage of it right now and serving as early adopters, which is PC gamers.
Long-term, who the hell knows, but for the foreseeable future I'm not really worried.
hooijdonk17
Member
This is a dark day for gaming indeed..
No, and I don't think they're likely to start caring once they do know about it. That's my point. I just don't see the likelihood that Average Joe Citizen is ever going to sit around for long stretches of time with goggles completely obscuring his view.
Why would they do that? Most mainstream folks do not want to strap a box to their face and those that are most interested in the Rift are not interested in Facebook games. It would be throwing money out the window.
The Real Napsta
Member
There are articles on this man. There should be no confusion on this.
So if you don't think people will care either way, then what's Facebook got to do with it?
MS would be way worse than Facebook. VR designed to fit Xbox One Power and maybe no Linux/SteamOS/Mac or Android support would be so bad.
Also, MS is in no position to be spending 2bn dollars on what is in actually a product with zero return on investment ability currently. They're shareholders would have a simultaneous apoplexy.
Facebook, on the other hand, has the cash to spare and needs these kinds of ventures to expand beyond it's now obviously limited social roots.
BloodMoney
Banned
Why put R&D hours into something your not interested in releasing?
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Why do so many people here think Facebook cares about the gaming part of the device enough to bother disrupting it?
It seems rather obvious that they're buying the ability to implement vr for expanded purposes like virtual business meetings and court side sports spectating.
It seems rather obvious that they're buying the ability to implement vr for expanded purposes like virtual business meetings and court side sports spectating.
It would serve absolutely no benefit to small flash games, so no.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I don't know... things may happen, the tech can be better in the future resulting in cheaper prices and I can see in future VR is something that FB will try to push to the general public, not just limited to enthusiast audience.
Exactly.
And honestly, long-term, I'm less worried. For one, I'm *very* excited about VR in non-gaming applications. Social stuff, sports, education, tourism, porn, etc, I think VR is gonna be incredible once it starts to expand out. So if Facebook wants to drop some of the heavy focus on games later on, that's fine with me. Once VR has a general following, Oculus/FB wont *need* to focus on games anymore. A good VR headset is good for games, period, so I think once things are going, the VR gaming community will chug along itself without needing extra assistance by the headset makers themselves.
Also, in a few years time, I'm pretty sure we will have competing products. So if Rift owners have to deal with a bunch of increasing bullshit, I'm thinking there shouldn't be much issue in switching to a competitor by then.
Because having VR on PC is good for their core business (hint: their core business is not manufacturing hardware)
You know there's 1.5 billion people on Facebook right? So if your average Facebook user (even heavy users) wouldn't care about VR, it's pretty safe to say that your average human being wouldn't either. You act like there's this whole demographic of people that aren't using Facebook but are going to be SUPER excited to use VR to watch basketball games. Where are these people hiding? Is Zuckerberg going to airlift a million OR's to hidden Amazonian tribes?
Yes, because we know that photo was actually taken in 2010 and we also know that is an actual VR headset (with a wide FOV, stereoscopic 3d, full head tracking, etc) and not just another one of Sony's head mounted displays that he's playing a game on. /s I think it is more of a standard HMD they were doing some basic tracking tests with (the fact that the display size is so tiny is indication of that).
Seriously, though, I have no doubt that both Sony and Microsoft have dabbled with VR over the years, but I don't for one second believe either of them were working intensely on it until just recently. I believe they saw what Oculus was doing and the excitement that was building around VR and they decided to move forward in a more serious way. There is no way that a consumer electronics giant like Sony would be beaten by a start-up like Oculus, both in terms of the tech and getting dev kits out to developers, if they had really been working seriously on a VR headset since 2010.
Posted my 2 cents regarding this in another thread, so I'll just link to it: http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=105843002
BloodMoney
Banned
good answer.
-little fixes added
Quick and dirty prequel.
PS: I tend to think that the acquisition might turn out to be a good thing for VR, this is just for the lulz.
Awesome!
Buggy Loop
Gold Member
Its just an interface. When Samsung sells you a TV they dont care if you use it to watch movies, play games, connect a PC to it to surf the web, watch porn or whatever.
In this case, VR helmet is only a visual medium. It requires software behind it but there's no reasons why they wouldnt give the tools to game devs to make use of it.
If it can be used by surgeons, teachers, mother theresa, it doesnt change the other surrounding implementations.
you mean facebook is looking through all my instagram pictures?!