2) So far, Oculus is being just as nice as before. The founders haven't checked out.
This is part of the reason why I'm not worried. A large chunk of this 2 billion payout is in Facebook stock. I expected this to be part of the deal as soon as I heard about it.
When dealing with a buyout like this, you don't just pony up straight cash for the entire sale. Not when you want the relevant staff to continue working for you. If the sale had been smaller, but all cash, I would be more concerned. The fact that a large chunk of the payment is in stock gives the Oculus VR team a vested interest in the success of their product, as well as their new business partner.
The Oculus team aren't just going to cash in and retire. The only thing that worries me at this point is that they may get ahead of themselves in terms of scope. One of the advantages of small-scale development is that you maintain a nice, tight scope out of necessity. I'm hoping that they keep focus on their current scope for the initial commercial Oculus Rift run. They should keep some of their more ambitious ideas on the back burner for the Rift 2.0.
i wish polycount had a like button for posts....................;)
what richard kain said as well as the article mark posted pretty much sums up my thoughts on it rather eloquently. I think everyone should just wait and see what the final end product is like, my bet is it will be super cool. if not...well the pampers and huggies are readily availiable in aisle 4 of your local supermarket.
They still got $400 million in cash. I'm sure if they wanted to check out, they would. But I imagine there are some golden handcuffs involved, there always are...
I remember when Autodesk aquired XSI, all the people who said "Now they got more money to make cool stuff and improve the program! How can that be wrong, you are just negative."... Just saying. :P
I remember when Autodesk aquired XSI, all the people who said "Now they got more money to make cool stuff and improve the program! How can that be wrong, you are just negative."... Just saying. :P
A valid concern. Of course, in the case of Autodesk, they were purchasing a direct competitor who was producing a directly competing product to Autodesk's own software package. With that buyout Autodesk's true motivation was entirely transparent. Anyone who thought otherwise was kidding themselves.
This purchase came out of left field. Part of the reason for this is that Facebook has no lasting presence in the hardware space. They have no competing VR headset. For them to spend 2 billion on Oculus and then just abandon it would be a complete waste of 2 billion dollars. They have to do something with it.
This might be a mistake long-term. Maybe Facebook's acquisition will eventually spoil the Oculus product and brand. But for the time being, all I'm seeing are net positives. For the initial run of the Oculus, this move actually inspires a lot of confidence.
A valid concern. Of course, in the case of Autodesk, they were purchasing a direct competitor who was producing a directly competing product to Autodesk's own software package. With that buyout Autodesk's true motivation was entirely transparent. Anyone who thought otherwise was kidding themselves.
That should have been illegal, RIP Softimage.
But yeah, it's a totally different situation with facebook. It would be like saying Google or Microsoft buying Oculus would buy Oculus and not do anything with it.
I agree with the idea that regardless of Facebook's future involvement, this is a confirmation that VR has arrived. Oculus provided the proof of concept and other companies are already getting on the bandwagon and now a major company has thrown major money down to validate it. Pandora's box has been opened on this one and VR will happen whether or not it has an Oculus or Facebook or Sony logo.
There is still reason to be concerned though, given that Oculus is the first piece of VR hardware on its scale for the PC, and that lead is being set under Facebook.
Every horror story I hear about Facebook is usually the fault of the user, not of Facebook itself. The public has been far too used to treating the internet as an anonymity playground. Anyone familiar with the back-end workings of IT could have explained long ago that such assumptions are, and always have been, a mistake. If you put anything, ANYTHING, on-line, you are on the grid.
The onus is on their policies behind the scenes. The user related issues are only part of the problem.
The site is invasive and manipulative and I think people aren't ignorant to that. You can feel how the site is trying to monetize you and there's a lack of trust people have in comparison to other companies and other social platforms.
A valid concern. Of course, in the case of Autodesk, they were purchasing a direct competitor who was producing a directly competing product to Autodesk's own software package. With that buyout Autodesk's true motivation was entirely transparent. Anyone who thought otherwise was kidding themselves.
This purchase came out of left field. Part of the reason for this is that Facebook has no lasting presence in the hardware space. They have no competing VR headset. For them to spend 2 billion on Oculus and then just abandon it would be a complete waste of 2 billion dollars. They have to do something with it.
This might be a mistake long-term. Maybe Facebook's acquisition will eventually spoil the Oculus product and brand. But for the time being, all I'm seeing are net positives. For the initial run of the Oculus, this move actually inspires a lot of confidence.
But yeah, it's a totally different situation with facebook. It would be like saying Google or Microsoft buying Oculus would buy Oculus and not do anything with it.
True, but the point was that they changed the direction of the product that bought, away from what people loved about and expected about it. And in XSI case it was in the negative, imo.
It might not happen with FB pouring money into Oculus, however FB has less of a stella reputation. And don't give me the crap about "But you still use Facebook", as its actually the reason I DONT use Facebook as much as I did before, and have less of my information and stuff on it, as I learned more about them. I'm only on it because of my family and friends for a contact point.
C'mon the great thing Facebook and Oculus Rift can make is a social, friendly virtual dating site where I can virtually stimulate a woman I don't know 3000 miles away and still be friends on facebook with. It could be called Face****.
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with a lot of Zuckerburg's points.
If you put something, anything on-line, it isn't private. The concept of internet "privacy" is antiquated. The only reason companies attempt to provide internet "security" is so that sensitive personal data doesn't become public knowledge. (such as credit card information, social security numbers, bank account access, etc...) And "security" is not the same as "privacy." Even if a corporation is going out of its way to make specific information "secure," they still have access to that information themselves.
I am regularly surprised that anyone still thinks that content they post on-line is private in any way. If you want something to be private, don't put it on-line.
I also use my Facebook account very lightly. I usually only check on it once a week, and I just like to look at what everyone else is doing/ up to. I hardly ever make posts myself. Having a minimal Facebook presence is useful, but keeping it minimal is also useful. Facebook is now a go-to source for background checks for potential employers. Having a too-healthy Facebook presence can work against you in more ways than one.
I've just always seen Facebook's outlook on the subject as being more realistic. And they've always applied their policies to all users equally, making for a more level and fair experience. It's the end-users fault if information gets "leaked." What else would a reasonable user expect from a service that you aren't paying for? Learning to treat the internet with a decent level of social decorum is a lesson everyone should take to heart.
I haven't really been following this too closely to be honest, I figured something like this was going to be inevitable though. Personally, I don't care too much as long as it doesn't negatively impact the product. I don't want any forced social aspects added to the OR for example, but we could see some great changes made to the headset considering the Oculus devs likely have a much larger budget with more resources as well now.
It would also be great if I didn't have to make a facebook account to use the device as facebook is pretty pointless (in my opinion.) If I wanted to talk to somebody, I'd call or text them, or better yet, just meet them in-person. Then there's the whole "Facebook selling our info" debate which may or may not be true.
Anyway, I think people are jumping on the hate train pretty quickly. I'm sure we will see the pros and cons of this in the near future.
Well, I can list off one potential pro right from the offset.
Facebook is hardware-agnostic. Given the nature of Facebook, it is in their best interest to have their service accessible from as many hardware platforms as possible. There is more than one way in which this could be positive for the Oculus Rift. With Facebook backing them, it is unlikely that we will see any platform limitations to this VR solution.
The Morpheus is currently expected to be exclusive to the PS4. If Microsoft had ended up purchasing Oculus VR, the Rift would have almost certainly been made exclusive to Microsoft-controlled platforms. With Facebook owning Oculus VR, the platform reach of the peripheral will be as broad as possible. Moreover, Facebook has existing contracts and relationships with all the major video game platform holders. They are well-placed to negotiate Oculus Rift support for the XBox One and Wii U. Given Sony's own plans for VR, they might not be able to swing PS4 support, but we'll see.
And multi-platform support for the three major operating systems is pretty much assured. Mac and Linux users aren't going to be suddenly left out. We'll probably even see support for portable devices and smartphones added. (with limited rendering, but still possible)
C'mon the great thing Facebook and Oculus Rift can make is a social, friendly virtual dating site where I can virtually stimulate a woman I don't know 3000 miles away and still be friends on facebook with. It could be called Face****.
Somebody already made this, but I've forgotten the name.
Facebook's value plummeted an extra $6 billion after acquiring Oculus, making for a total stock devaluation of 15% ($30 billion) in one month. Make of that what you will:
Mmm every decision seems to be the wrong one for FB,
Swap the facebook logo for an apple one and watch all these decisions change to the category of 'genius'
That's true BUT Apple would make a lot more sense since they already build tech hardware and are entertainment/games focused. That would be a good fit for them, actually...
That's true BUT Apple would make a lot more sense since they already build tech hardware and are entertainment/games focused. That would be a good fit for them, actually...
The only way to screw up the Rift faster than making it InYourFace(book) Rift is to make it an iRift that only works with Macs and iShit from Apple's walled garden. And you know they would.
It would be if Apple wasn't already a hardware company. If Apple bought the Oculus, it wouldn't be to use it, it would be to mothball it. Apple would far prefer to simply design their own virtual-reality headset. They still might, especially if any of these competing products manages to take off.
I'm a little concerned for Apple, actually. It's been a while since we've seen anything interesting from them. Ever since the iPad, they seem to have been spinning their gears a bit. There's still plenty of space in the market for innovation and disruption, but they seem to have settled into a bit of a rut. It's a rut that makes money hand over fist, so I can't exactly blame them. But it was some bold new ideas that brought Apple back from the brink. I worry that falling into a more reactionary posture could turn out badly for them. It's about time for them to step up their game.
In case i missed this in some of the posts, I apologize.
But anyone who complains should about the buyout of oculus should read this. While I don't use any of social networks, with exception of google+ when I want to find funny gifs, I happen to agree with this 100%.
Man, there sure has been a lot of debate on this topic these days, hehehe.
Well, the way i see it, i personally don't mind that Facebook itself bought it.
I'm still not too happy about this move though. Sounds like contradiction, but hopefully this will make sense.
I have a little problem not with facebook themselfs, but with them being a big company. Why?
Well, i may have a little naive thinking, business is business afterall.
But, what bothers me a bit, is the kickstarter part.
I think Kickstarter is a great thing, especially for small devs.
From where i stand, what happened here, is basically people donating money to Facebook, who is already LOADED with money.
On the other hand, you have tons of small kickstarter projects that may never see the light of day, because of not enough interest, and they are probably poor anyway.
So from that perspective, i'd rather give my money to those who actually REALLY need it, not some gigantic companies like facebook, who are shiting money, that's how rich they are, so to speak.
Facebook could just as well buy the project from the start and kickstarter would never even be needed, and i'd instead give that very money to some other small company who needs it WAY more then facebook.
So in short, it just feels like this is going against what Kickstarter really stand for imo. But facebook itself...i don't mind (as in, them being evil or something).
So in short, it just feels like this is going against what Kickstarter really stand for imo. But facebook itself...i don't mind (as in, them being evil or something).
Hope that makes sense....
I understand where you're coming from. A lot of kickstarter projects are more about idealism than straight business. And quite a bit of them are focused on projects that may very well never be financially viable. They turn to kickstarter because there may never be any other way for them to get funded. Many of these tend to be the darlings of kickstarter and the indie scene in general. There is a definite anti-establishment vibe in most crowdfunding campaigns.
At the same time, the name of kickstarter is "kickstarter." The term is used to describe a push, an injection of momentum in order to get something bigger going. The very name of the site is indicative of the very scenario we've seen play out here. People kickstarted the Oculus Rift. And the Oculus Rift in turn kickstarted public interest in affordable virtual reality.
While this buyout may be at odds with the spirit of self-starting independence that crowdfunding has come to embody, it is very much in line with the purpose that the Kickstarter site in particular was designed for.
You didn't give the Kickstarter money to Facebook. You gave it to the Oculus team and they used those funds along with their hard work to make something better out of it. This caused Facebook to actually have to fork over 2 Billion just to acquire it.
The Oculus Rift was a project that may have never seen the light of day had the Kickstarter campaign not been successful. Investors didn't really start jumping on board until the campaign was proven successful.
I don't think it's all gloom and doom just yet. Let's just wait and see what comes out of it. If it turns out terrible then we can be upset and angry. But others will rise up and take its place if Facebook messes it up.
People are jumping to conclusions way too fast and blowing this entire thing out of proportion.
Well yeah of course, judging in advance is a little pointless; best is to wait and see.
Just saying though, while it may be true that if it wasn't for kickstarter, we would never see OR and farther more, facebook would never ditch so much money for it.
But the problem is, Facebook could just as well give that money right from the start, since they can totally afford it it seems.
On the other hand, as Richard said, some other teams just wouldn't be able to get any sort of funding, apart from kickstarter, since it doesn't have mass appeal for example. Of course it's just my opinion, but if i knew facebook will soon by OR anyway, i'd rather spend my money on that other indie company i mentioned as example.
But the problem is, Facebook could just as well give that money right from the start, since they can totally afford it it seems.
They could have, sure. Would they have, though? It's much more likely that they wouldn't have even touched Oculus VR until recently.
Anyone old enough to have lived through the 90s can tell you that this isn't the first time virtual reality has been a fad. There was a lot of enthusiasm for VR in the 90s, but no company ever came up with a viable commercial version. With the economic downswing that we are still experiencing, it seemed unlikely that a new VR attempt would work out. The majority of companies would be very leery of such a business pitch. So when the Oculus VR guys went shopping around for investment, they couldn't find anyone willing to back them. That's why they turned to Kickstarter in the first place. And that was when they were only expecting to use $250,000 in venture capital.
Yes, if any of the major companies had properly recognized the potential of Oculus VR at the time, they would have probably snatched them up then. But they decided the venture was too risky, and passed on it. It was only after Oculus VR started showing at conventions and drumming up enthusiasm that they became a desirable prospect.
I think I can see why being involved with Facebook would interest John Carmack. braces for kneejerk reactions to the word "drone"
I'm telling myself that this is all a Machiavellian power-play by Carmack to get Zuckerberg to fund Armadillo Aerospace so that Carmack can finally build and deploy his evil genius space station to rule the internets from geosynchronous orbit.
Because that would actually be pretty awesome and make all of this okay, in some way. :shifty:
I'm telling myself that this is all a Machiavellian power-play by Carmack to get Zuckerberg to fund Armadillo Aerospace so that Carmack can finally build and deploy his evil genius space station to rule the internets from geosynchronous orbit.
This made me laugh, funniest thing I heard in weeks, thank you.
Has anyone actually posted what Zuckerburg said, after acquiring Oculus? Here it is, cut down a bit, because boy was it wordy.:
"Our mission is to make the world more open and connected.
.......
This is where Oculus comes in. They build virtual reality technology, like the Oculus Rift headset. When you put it on, you enter a completely immersive computer-generated environment.....The incredible thing about the technology is that you feel like you're actually present in another place with other people.
....... Immersive gaming will be the first, and Oculus already has big plans here that won't be changing and we hope to accelerate. The Rift is highly anticipated by the gaming community, and there's a lot of interest from developers in building for this platform. We're going to focus on helping Oculus build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games. Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this.
But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home.
........
These are just some of the potential uses. By working with developers and partners across the industry, together we can build many more. One day, we believe this kind of immersive, augmented reality will become a part of daily life for billions of people.
Virtual reality was once the dream of science fiction. But the internet was also once a dream, and so were computers and smartphones. The future is coming and we have a chance to build it together. I can't wait to start working with the whole team at Oculus to bring this future to the world, and to unlock new worlds for all of us."
This is where Oculus comes in. They build virtual reality technology, like the Oculus Rift headset. When you put it on, you enter a completely immersive computer-generated environment.....The incredible thing about the technology is that you feel like you're actually present in another place with other people.
That's my biggest issue with the announcements made after the acquisition. This kind of "big talk" has nothing to do with the tech - this fully depends on what the third party developers can (or cannot) do with it. FB buying Oculus is not going to magically make instant full body 3D scanning available in every house, is not going to make fully automatic bipedal rigging run on people's phones, and is not going to install a mocap studio in every room of the house and every street corner (or at least, I hope it won't )
It's just like the whole XB1 "cloud computing" fiasco - PR people using big words they don't really understand (or rather, big words that they hope the public don't understand) in order to make something sound cooler and more magical than it actually is.
In short :
Now of course Second Life is kinda cool, because at least, it has the merit of existing and has a large user base ; and I think it would be pretty cool played on the Rift. But at the end of the day, I am saddened that alongside the acquisition came PR bullshit talk like quoted above, which is in very stark contrast with the down to earth, honest and realistic line of communication that the Oculus guys used to follow.
I agree with Pior, with big money comes big mouths and I have a hard time wrapping my head around that people go to college to learn how to talk like that. Just so they can fill out press releases with that kind of garbage and there are people that think those skills are valuable and pay those people really well. But at the end of the day I hope Facebook is smart enough to stay out of Oculus's way.
I also think that large sections of the internet like to knee jerk themselves in the balls every 30min and everyone could use a little more "see what happens" in their breakfast every morning.
Personally I don't like facebook that much but I don't see that as a reason go all bipolar on Oculus.
They can buy companies.
They can buy ideas that have already hatched.
They can even attempt to control the people that make those ideas but if they don't give them the freedom they need, they'll stop producing or walk away.
Look at Walt Disney, he made the biggest cartoon character the world had ever seen. Oswald the Lucky Rabbit was king for 20 years until the actual owners crapped all over Disney, he flipped them the middle finger and made Mickey Mouse.
Someone can only walk all over talent for so long before the talent stands up and brushes them off.
Hopefully companies are smart enough to learn that if they treat the talent right, give them the room they need to make things happen, everyone will benefit.
Abrash spent his time at valve working on VR research, a project which unanimously beats the snot out of the Rift tech, according to everyone who used it.
Valve gave that tech to Oculus, and Abrash has followed his work.
Abrash spent his time at valve working on VR research, a project which unanimously beats the snot out of the Rift tech, according to everyone who used it.
I'd hope a high end prototype with custom hardware would out perform a $300 model.
Replies
This is part of the reason why I'm not worried. A large chunk of this 2 billion payout is in Facebook stock. I expected this to be part of the deal as soon as I heard about it.
When dealing with a buyout like this, you don't just pony up straight cash for the entire sale. Not when you want the relevant staff to continue working for you. If the sale had been smaller, but all cash, I would be more concerned. The fact that a large chunk of the payment is in stock gives the Oculus VR team a vested interest in the success of their product, as well as their new business partner.
The Oculus team aren't just going to cash in and retire. The only thing that worries me at this point is that they may get ahead of themselves in terms of scope. One of the advantages of small-scale development is that you maintain a nice, tight scope out of necessity. I'm hoping that they keep focus on their current scope for the initial commercial Oculus Rift run. They should keep some of their more ambitious ideas on the back burner for the Rift 2.0.
what richard kain said as well as the article mark posted pretty much sums up my thoughts on it rather eloquently. I think everyone should just wait and see what the final end product is like, my bet is it will be super cool. if not...well the pampers and huggies are readily availiable in aisle 4 of your local supermarket.
A valid concern. Of course, in the case of Autodesk, they were purchasing a direct competitor who was producing a directly competing product to Autodesk's own software package. With that buyout Autodesk's true motivation was entirely transparent. Anyone who thought otherwise was kidding themselves.
This purchase came out of left field. Part of the reason for this is that Facebook has no lasting presence in the hardware space. They have no competing VR headset. For them to spend 2 billion on Oculus and then just abandon it would be a complete waste of 2 billion dollars. They have to do something with it.
This might be a mistake long-term. Maybe Facebook's acquisition will eventually spoil the Oculus product and brand. But for the time being, all I'm seeing are net positives. For the initial run of the Oculus, this move actually inspires a lot of confidence.
But yeah, it's a totally different situation with facebook. It would be like saying Google or Microsoft buying Oculus would buy Oculus and not do anything with it.
There is still reason to be concerned though, given that Oculus is the first piece of VR hardware on its scale for the PC, and that lead is being set under Facebook.
The onus is on their policies behind the scenes. The user related issues are only part of the problem.
First of all historically there's plenty of reason not to trust the company http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/why-you-should-never-trust-facebook/4708/
more recently Veritasium looked into some of the post bullshit, but it's been going on for years
http://youtu.be/oVfHeWTKjag
http://youtu.be/l9ZqXlHl65g
The site is invasive and manipulative and I think people aren't ignorant to that. You can feel how the site is trying to monetize you and there's a lack of trust people have in comparison to other companies and other social platforms.
True, but the point was that they changed the direction of the product that bought, away from what people loved about and expected about it. And in XSI case it was in the negative, imo.
It might not happen with FB pouring money into Oculus, however FB has less of a stella reputation. And don't give me the crap about "But you still use Facebook", as its actually the reason I DONT use Facebook as much as I did before, and have less of my information and stuff on it, as I learned more about them. I'm only on it because of my family and friends for a contact point.
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with a lot of Zuckerburg's points.
If you put something, anything on-line, it isn't private. The concept of internet "privacy" is antiquated. The only reason companies attempt to provide internet "security" is so that sensitive personal data doesn't become public knowledge. (such as credit card information, social security numbers, bank account access, etc...) And "security" is not the same as "privacy." Even if a corporation is going out of its way to make specific information "secure," they still have access to that information themselves.
I am regularly surprised that anyone still thinks that content they post on-line is private in any way. If you want something to be private, don't put it on-line.
I also use my Facebook account very lightly. I usually only check on it once a week, and I just like to look at what everyone else is doing/ up to. I hardly ever make posts myself. Having a minimal Facebook presence is useful, but keeping it minimal is also useful. Facebook is now a go-to source for background checks for potential employers. Having a too-healthy Facebook presence can work against you in more ways than one.
I've just always seen Facebook's outlook on the subject as being more realistic. And they've always applied their policies to all users equally, making for a more level and fair experience. It's the end-users fault if information gets "leaked." What else would a reasonable user expect from a service that you aren't paying for? Learning to treat the internet with a decent level of social decorum is a lesson everyone should take to heart.
It would also be great if I didn't have to make a facebook account to use the device as facebook is pretty pointless (in my opinion.) If I wanted to talk to somebody, I'd call or text them, or better yet, just meet them in-person. Then there's the whole "Facebook selling our info" debate which may or may not be true.
Anyway, I think people are jumping on the hate train pretty quickly. I'm sure we will see the pros and cons of this in the near future.
Facebook is hardware-agnostic. Given the nature of Facebook, it is in their best interest to have their service accessible from as many hardware platforms as possible. There is more than one way in which this could be positive for the Oculus Rift. With Facebook backing them, it is unlikely that we will see any platform limitations to this VR solution.
The Morpheus is currently expected to be exclusive to the PS4. If Microsoft had ended up purchasing Oculus VR, the Rift would have almost certainly been made exclusive to Microsoft-controlled platforms. With Facebook owning Oculus VR, the platform reach of the peripheral will be as broad as possible. Moreover, Facebook has existing contracts and relationships with all the major video game platform holders. They are well-placed to negotiate Oculus Rift support for the XBox One and Wii U. Given Sony's own plans for VR, they might not be able to swing PS4 support, but we'll see.
And multi-platform support for the three major operating systems is pretty much assured. Mac and Linux users aren't going to be suddenly left out. We'll probably even see support for portable devices and smartphones added. (with limited rendering, but still possible)
Mmm.. Razer. So it can break in two weeks after purchase.
Swap the facebook logo for an apple one and watch all these decisions change to the category of 'genius'
The only way to screw up the Rift faster than making it InYourFace(book) Rift is to make it an iRift that only works with Macs and iShit from Apple's walled garden. And you know they would.
It would be if Apple wasn't already a hardware company. If Apple bought the Oculus, it wouldn't be to use it, it would be to mothball it. Apple would far prefer to simply design their own virtual-reality headset. They still might, especially if any of these competing products manages to take off.
I'm a little concerned for Apple, actually. It's been a while since we've seen anything interesting from them. Ever since the iPad, they seem to have been spinning their gears a bit. There's still plenty of space in the market for innovation and disruption, but they seem to have settled into a bit of a rut. It's a rut that makes money hand over fist, so I can't exactly blame them. But it was some bold new ideas that brought Apple back from the brink. I worry that falling into a more reactionary posture could turn out badly for them. It's about time for them to step up their game.
But anyone who complains should about the buyout of oculus should read this. While I don't use any of social networks, with exception of google+ when I want to find funny gifs, I happen to agree with this 100%.
http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/80832803371/riftbook
Well, the way i see it, i personally don't mind that Facebook itself bought it.
I'm still not too happy about this move though. Sounds like contradiction, but hopefully this will make sense.
I have a little problem not with facebook themselfs, but with them being a big company. Why?
Well, i may have a little naive thinking, business is business afterall.
But, what bothers me a bit, is the kickstarter part.
I think Kickstarter is a great thing, especially for small devs.
From where i stand, what happened here, is basically people donating money to Facebook, who is already LOADED with money.
On the other hand, you have tons of small kickstarter projects that may never see the light of day, because of not enough interest, and they are probably poor anyway.
So from that perspective, i'd rather give my money to those who actually REALLY need it, not some gigantic companies like facebook, who are shiting money, that's how rich they are, so to speak.
Facebook could just as well buy the project from the start and kickstarter would never even be needed, and i'd instead give that very money to some other small company who needs it WAY more then facebook.
So in short, it just feels like this is going against what Kickstarter really stand for imo. But facebook itself...i don't mind (as in, them being evil or something).
Hope that makes sense....
I understand where you're coming from. A lot of kickstarter projects are more about idealism than straight business. And quite a bit of them are focused on projects that may very well never be financially viable. They turn to kickstarter because there may never be any other way for them to get funded. Many of these tend to be the darlings of kickstarter and the indie scene in general. There is a definite anti-establishment vibe in most crowdfunding campaigns.
At the same time, the name of kickstarter is "kickstarter." The term is used to describe a push, an injection of momentum in order to get something bigger going. The very name of the site is indicative of the very scenario we've seen play out here. People kickstarted the Oculus Rift. And the Oculus Rift in turn kickstarted public interest in affordable virtual reality.
While this buyout may be at odds with the spirit of self-starting independence that crowdfunding has come to embody, it is very much in line with the purpose that the Kickstarter site in particular was designed for.
The Oculus Rift was a project that may have never seen the light of day had the Kickstarter campaign not been successful. Investors didn't really start jumping on board until the campaign was proven successful.
I don't think it's all gloom and doom just yet. Let's just wait and see what comes out of it. If it turns out terrible then we can be upset and angry. But others will rise up and take its place if Facebook messes it up.
People are jumping to conclusions way too fast and blowing this entire thing out of proportion.
Just saying though, while it may be true that if it wasn't for kickstarter, we would never see OR and farther more, facebook would never ditch so much money for it.
But the problem is, Facebook could just as well give that money right from the start, since they can totally afford it it seems.
On the other hand, as Richard said, some other teams just wouldn't be able to get any sort of funding, apart from kickstarter, since it doesn't have mass appeal for example. Of course it's just my opinion, but if i knew facebook will soon by OR anyway, i'd rather spend my money on that other indie company i mentioned as example.
They could have, sure. Would they have, though? It's much more likely that they wouldn't have even touched Oculus VR until recently.
Anyone old enough to have lived through the 90s can tell you that this isn't the first time virtual reality has been a fad. There was a lot of enthusiasm for VR in the 90s, but no company ever came up with a viable commercial version. With the economic downswing that we are still experiencing, it seemed unlikely that a new VR attempt would work out. The majority of companies would be very leery of such a business pitch. So when the Oculus VR guys went shopping around for investment, they couldn't find anyone willing to back them. That's why they turned to Kickstarter in the first place. And that was when they were only expecting to use $250,000 in venture capital.
Yes, if any of the major companies had properly recognized the potential of Oculus VR at the time, they would have probably snatched them up then. But they decided the venture was too risky, and passed on it. It was only after Oculus VR started showing at conventions and drumming up enthusiasm that they became a desirable prospect.
I think I can see why being involved with Facebook would interest John Carmack. braces for kneejerk reactions to the word "drone"
I'm telling myself that this is all a Machiavellian power-play by Carmack to get Zuckerberg to fund Armadillo Aerospace so that Carmack can finally build and deploy his evil genius space station to rule the internets from geosynchronous orbit.
Because that would actually be pretty awesome and make all of this okay, in some way. :shifty:
This made me laugh, funniest thing I heard in weeks, thank you.
My favourite sushi bar uses drones to deliver food ordered from the menu.
It's fucking cool (when it works).
Also the food is good.
"Our mission is to make the world more open and connected.
.......
This is where Oculus comes in. They build virtual reality technology, like the Oculus Rift headset. When you put it on, you enter a completely immersive computer-generated environment.....The incredible thing about the technology is that you feel like you're actually present in another place with other people.
.......
Immersive gaming will be the first, and Oculus already has big plans here that won't be changing and we hope to accelerate. The Rift is highly anticipated by the gaming community, and there's a lot of interest from developers in building for this platform. We're going to focus on helping Oculus build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games. Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this.
But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home.
........
These are just some of the potential uses. By working with developers and partners across the industry, together we can build many more. One day, we believe this kind of immersive, augmented reality will become a part of daily life for billions of people.
Virtual reality was once the dream of science fiction. But the internet was also once a dream, and so were computers and smartphones. The future is coming and we have a chance to build it together. I can't wait to start working with the whole team at Oculus to bring this future to the world, and to unlock new worlds for all of us."
That's my biggest issue with the announcements made after the acquisition. This kind of "big talk" has nothing to do with the tech - this fully depends on what the third party developers can (or cannot) do with it. FB buying Oculus is not going to magically make instant full body 3D scanning available in every house, is not going to make fully automatic bipedal rigging run on people's phones, and is not going to install a mocap studio in every room of the house and every street corner (or at least, I hope it won't
It's just like the whole XB1 "cloud computing" fiasco - PR people using big words they don't really understand (or rather, big words that they hope the public don't understand) in order to make something sound cooler and more magical than it actually is.
In short :
Now of course Second Life is kinda cool, because at least, it has the merit of existing and has a large user base ; and I think it would be pretty cool played on the Rift. But at the end of the day, I am saddened that alongside the acquisition came PR bullshit talk like quoted above, which is in very stark contrast with the down to earth, honest and realistic line of communication that the Oculus guys used to follow.
I also think that large sections of the internet like to knee jerk themselves in the balls every 30min and everyone could use a little more "see what happens" in their breakfast every morning.
Personally I don't like facebook that much but I don't see that as a reason go all bipolar on Oculus.
They can buy companies.
They can buy ideas that have already hatched.
They can even attempt to control the people that make those ideas but if they don't give them the freedom they need, they'll stop producing or walk away.
Look at Walt Disney, he made the biggest cartoon character the world had ever seen. Oswald the Lucky Rabbit was king for 20 years until the actual owners crapped all over Disney, he flipped them the middle finger and made Mickey Mouse.
Someone can only walk all over talent for so long before the talent stands up and brushes them off.
Hopefully companies are smart enough to learn that if they treat the talent right, give them the room they need to make things happen, everyone will benefit.
Michael Abrash leaves Valve for Oculus
lol translation...Facebook offered him a salary he couldnt refuse.
or Valve wasn't putting VR as a priority
Valve gave that tech to Oculus, and Abrash has followed his work.
I'm really excited to see what happens.
no one else see anything wrong with that picture ?
I'd hope a high end prototype with custom hardware would out perform a $300 model.
The prototype would probably have used off the shelf hardware components just like Oculus did.