Oculus Joins Facebook

http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/oculus-joins-facebook/

by kposehn • 12 years ago

289 177 12 years ago

oculusvr.com

jstsch• 12 years ago

See main discussion at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469115

angersock• 12 years ago

It's rather entertaining to see the difference in comments between the Oculus announcement page and the Facebook page.

kailuowang• 12 years ago

I wonder does this have anything to do with Sony announcing her own VR project Morpheus. Technology wise Sony's alternative didn't show much advantage, but industry support wise it showed that it's a very very prominent opponent Oculus VR has to beat. Selling it to Facebook seems to me an indication that the leadership no longer believe that Oculus can be as successful in the gaming industry as they hoped.

kybernetikos• 12 years ago

Or, to phrase it differently, maybe they cared most about VR technologies going mainstream, and were only doing it themselves because nobody else seemed to be.

c0ur7n3y• 12 years ago

Oculus just went from something incredibly amazing that I couldn't wait to be a part of to something that I want nothing to do with. I suspect I'm not alone. Humans are emotional creatures, not always driven by strict rationality. Maybe I'll feel differently in a year.

WalterSear6• 12 years ago

I came here to say exactly this.

There will be others, though. Lots of others.

jason_slack• 12 years ago

Me too. I feel somehow Facebook with be obtaining troves of data from this.

archgrove• 12 years ago

Amen, and I don't really know why. I was on the fence about ordering one of the new Crystal Cove based devkits. Now I certainly won't. I'll wait to see how it shakes out; to see if low latency panels now take a backseat to an onboard camera for that special "social experience".

I guess it's because I was excited about the gaming and "new experience" potential, and the hope that a young company full of smart people would excel in that space. Unfortunately, the only association I can muster between gaming and Facebook is the spamfest Farmville. The biggest experience I can think of is the data mining.

VR is one of the few upcoming tech changes I can actually see adding "delight" to my computing experience. Alas, I've never experienced any delight with Facebook; at best, I've managed grudging tolerance. I think I'm sad at the loss of what might have been.

trhway2• 12 years ago

an onboard camera for that special "social experience".

see what your friends are seeing, hear, feel... welcome to the hive. Resistance is futile.

waterlesscloud2• 12 years ago

I don't believe for a second you won't buy one. There's always this sort of grousing, and it never matters in the long run.

gfodor4• 12 years ago

The problem for Facebook is that since there is such a distaste for them in the dev community that they are going to have a hard time attracting developers if a worthy competitor comes along. Devs are going to want to target a more open platform, unless there is a massive advantage to going the Facebook route. On the web, building a Facebook app is enticing because you get access to a massive audience. For VR, your audience are people who have the hardware, so until there is a large number of people who own VR goggles the power really is in the hands of the developers and what platforms they build their killer apps on.

fotbr• 12 years ago

I believe it. I'm there with him. I swore off everything sony after the cd rootkit episode. How long has that been, 12, 13 years now? I still don't even consider sony for electronics, even if they offer the best -insert device here-. I don't buy music offered on a sony label. I don't buy or go see movies produced at, or by a sony studio. I would, and do, simply do without their offerings and listen/watch/spend money on offerings from other companies instead.

Facebook is another company I will refuse to do business with, even if that means I do without something I would otherwise want.

LoganCale3• 12 years ago

Believe it. I won't buy one either now, period. I hate Facebook and will absolutely not buy any product they sell, no matter how cool it might otherwise be. Nearly everyone I interact with has a similar loathing of Facebook both as a company and a service, so it's not at all surprising to me that nearly everyone is furious about this acquisition.

cracell• 12 years ago

It is rationale to not trust a company owned by Facebook. Facebook has a horrid record and we have no reason to trust them or anything they own.

johnpowell• 12 years ago

I would rather have a Microsoft camera in my living room than a Facebook one. And yes, I imagine that the consumer version of Oculus VR will have a forward facing camera.

I won't have either but one is worse than the other.

Geee2• 12 years ago

Yes, I have the Oculus DK1 and I will start looking at the Sony's Morpheus concept from now on. Especially when Sony's track record this year has been amazing in every sector. I really love them getting back in business. I love honest technology companies which deliver best products with no strings attached. Facebook is not one of them.

1ris• 12 years ago

That's exactly how i feel. I couldn't wait till i release, now I just wait for a new OpenGL /Other pc graphic API version with vr support and chinese competitors, that will surely emerge within the next five years.

jarmitage• 12 years ago

For the sake of kicking off a discussion...

"Facebook [...] a company focused on connecting people, investing in internet access for the world and pushing an open computing platform."

Can anyone put facts or numbers to those last two statements? Is Facebook putting any concerted effort beyond PR/vanity projects into those goals?

k__• 12 years ago

http://www.opencompute.org/

https://code.facebook.com/projects/

rubiquity• 12 years ago

Facebook does have the Internet.org[0] initiative which focuses on getting internet connections to more people in the world. I can't speak to its effectiveness or how serious they are about it though.

0 - http://internet.org/ (kinda funny that I use a cliff note link for this)

loceng• 12 years ago

I imagine the investing in internet access for the world is wholly because one way to grow their own user numbers is to get more people connected to the internet - if they can just spend enough money to associate people with that messaging as their advertising budget - then they may start off with a good relationship to those new internet users.

makomk• 12 years ago

At this point the only way to grow their user numbers significantly is to get more people connected to the internet. The question is whether it's something they seriously think they can do or just an attempt to convince Wall Street they have growth potential.

malanj• 12 years ago

Facebook is rapidly becoming a seriously dominant technology player. I used to think of them as a "flavour of the year" play, but I'm having to readjust that perspective pretty hard.

It looks like they really are driving a long term strategy of being at the core on human -> human communication.

hosh2• 12 years ago

Yeah, I see this as a big move for FB, much bigger than for Oculus.

Someone I know had already identified FB as one of the Big Four several years ago, analogizing to the Big Four during the robber baron days of steel and rail. The other three are Apple, Amazon, and Google.

All four have some sort of machine learning / AI race going on. They are not the only ones around (Twitter, for example).

But this is pretty big. Google has the Glasses project. Apple probably has something cooking somewhere. And I have no idea about Amazon.

I also wonder if FB will keep the team together. It'd be a shame for John Caramak to skip out after the acquisition.

gtremper• 12 years ago

I'm (pretty)sure Facebook will leave Oculus alone; it would be dumb if they didn't, especially with all the anti-Facebook sentiment in our current zeitgeit. This is definitely a long term play towards becoming a major technology company. It's interesting to see what Facebook will become when "Facebook the website" is gone.

prawn4• 12 years ago

Is it a strong strategy or more of a desperate "we have to grab this to be relevant in 5-10 years" reach?

bane5• 12 years ago

Ouch, no thanks. Talk about dashed hopes and dreams.

curiousDog• 12 years ago

I wish they joined valve. Or even Msft for that matter, we'd atleast get integration with xbox.

vessenes2• 12 years ago

This is a good move by Facebook. VR is going to be huge, huge huge. It might even be as big as Bitcoin. :)

I think what Oculus did was massively de-risk their next ten years. In their business plans, there were undoubtedly very large gray circles with things like "gain overwhelming market share (how?)" and lists of competitors that included, well, everyone in tech.

If you had to pick a tech company to leverage your disruptive new consumer technology, and make sure it kept the 'awesome', and was hacker friendly, who would you go to?

In exchange, they probably lopped another 10-50x of potential value off the top of their company. Not that they won't see some of that realized in Facebook if this is succesful -- they will. But, they will be sharing the gain around in exchange for getting access to that giant global customer base and being able to tap the considerable resources available at FB.

Blahah• 12 years ago

If you had to pick a tech company to leverage your disruptive new consumer technology, and make sure it kept the 'awesome', and was hacker friendly, who would you go to?

google

vessenes2• 12 years ago

Yep, those would be the two companies you'd have bidding. Except, Carmack is too heavy metal to go to Google. I only partly jest.

vicbrooker• 12 years ago

amazon?

prawn4• 12 years ago

I expected Microsoft to grab them and I'm surprised they didn't. Would've made a smart fit with Xbox and given them easy ways to directly integrate it with their OSs. Would work well with gaming, education, eventually business, mobile and so on. $2b a few months ago would've been a small price to pay to get in early on this, unless they have something comparable up their sleeves from the research division.

barbs• 12 years ago

Valve

aviraldg4• 12 years ago

Valve or Google definitely. Valve because of the gaming expertise, Google for the existing experience and culture of innovation.

relampago• 12 years ago

Nintendo

audiophilip_• 12 years ago

If you had to pick a tech company to leverage your disruptive new consumer technology, and make sure it kept the 'awesome', and was hacker friendly, who would you go to?

Valve.

aryastark• 12 years ago

Or Blizzard. They have an actual virtual world already. I can easily see WoW fans who already sit at a PC and buy special hardware for their games to flock to VR tech.

lotu• 12 years ago

Does Valve have $2billion dollars lying around to acquire companies with?

anaphor2• 12 years ago

Or even Nintendo, or maybe even Bethesda (assuming they aren't bitter about him leaving Id)

_zen2• 12 years ago

Spoken like an investor who knows nothing about the audience. Sorry, VR was intended for PC gamers. They're not casual mobile gamers. They loathe casual games. They now loathe VR for wedding with Facebook.

runako2• 12 years ago

> VR was intended for PC gamers

I'm not familiar with the intimate details of the Ocululs business plan, but their story page says they have a larger view of the potential for VR:

"revolutionize the way people experience interactive content"

and their vision says nothing about games:

"Immersive virtual reality technology that's wearable and affordable."

Perhaps the negative comments here are part of the natural bitterness from insiders that accompanies any technology as it goes mainstream?

waterlesscloud2• 12 years ago

Spoken like a fan with no imagination. Sorry for that, but seriously, come on. PC Gamers are the only audience you can see for VR?

VR is way, way, WAY bigger than some hardcore gaming nerds (of which I am one).

joyeuse6701• 12 years ago

Filthy Casuals. Yeah that demographic was basically given the finger by this move, if I were Sony, I'd capitalize.

deciplex• 12 years ago

They now loathe VR for wedding with Facebook.

No just Oculus.

wildermuthn• 12 years ago

I agree that it is a good move, but not because of takes away risk. It's because Facebook has a great deal of users, money, and apparently vision. I had no idea Zuck was this smart (although building Facebook into a giant ought to have been a good clue).

Oculus isn't being conservative here. They're shooting for the moon.

10098• 12 years ago

When big companies buy small good products, they often turn to poop, because the new masters lack the original vision and the decisions about the product will be made by PMs trying to get a promotion, not by those who actually care. I suspect this will be the case with this acquisition. My opinion is based on the way I see facebook managing their products: whatever they're offering to ordinary users is mediocre and basically stays afloat only because of the network effect, and whatever they are offering to their paying customers is effectively a scam (youtube search for "facebook fraud"). I can't see them possibly making good use of Oculus.

T-R3• 12 years ago

This is a terrible move for Oculus, though. The reaction from their core audiences - hardcore gamers and developers - seems to be largely negative, at a time right after Sony - a company that caters to that audience - announced its competing "Project Morpheus". It's not being taken as a signal of Facebook's innovation, but as Oculus moving toward a casual audience, and their fan base feels abandoned. Do they really feel that whatever plans they have with Facebook are so low-risk and high return that they no longer need that audience?

baby4• 12 years ago

They have a new audience now: the world.

ivanca• 12 years ago

False false false; this is the dead of Oculus for one simple reason: Developers, doesn't matter how much ridiculous amounts of money you have if you scare away developers making it part of one of the spammiest and most hatred companies in the world it will fail.

baby4• 12 years ago

Facebook is not the most hatred company in the world, especially after Instagram, Whatsapp and Oculus' acquisitions.

qq66• 12 years ago

most hatred [sic] companies in the world

Look at #81. http://www.apcoinsight.com/methodologies/tools/el-top-100-co...

jo_• 12 years ago

Part of the reason I asked if I could cancel my preorder of Dev Kit 2 was some bad experience with Facebook dicking devs early on. Unless they've changed their tune in recent years, I don't understand how this could bode well for their support audience.

tomelders2• 12 years ago

My bold prediction: Facebook will be broke in five years, gone in ten. Anyone getting into bed with them now is putting the noose around their own neck.

Facebook is a prototype of what "social networking" should be. Anyone who took five minutes out of their day could think up ten ways "social networking" could be better, and probably all of them would be incompatible with facebook's business model.

yourad_io• 12 years ago

IANABP (..Business Person) but their 2 big acquisitions have increased their share of the social/data/identity pie considerably. Yes, these can be very ephemeral and the market can change on you (as MySpace will gladly tell you), but having 1.1B+ monthly actives on your core platform alone (plus however much instagram+whatsapp do) gives you a lot of room to try and recover when things start shrinking.

The oculus VR acquisition feels special, in that they aren't just buying users/reach, but something more substantial and forward looking. If they're smart, they'll let the oculus team work on the track they've been on, and let Facebook teams develop the "non-gaming VR experiences" they want to push.

Hard to think how much the landscape would need to shift for FB to be broke in 5 years. If Oculus delivers on their VR dreams, that alone could potentially bring an almost-bankrupt FB back from the brink.

WalterSear6• 12 years ago

I would have said Oculus, before today.

aviraldg4• 12 years ago

I don't want a "general-purpose VR headset". There are already many devices described that way (that work well enough for that purpose.) I wanted something built exclusively for the extreme requirements of gaming, and I feel this acquisition is going to distract the Oculus team from that. Facebook has no experience whatsoever in that domain, and the only way I see Oculus benefiting from this is the huge cash reserves they'll have access to once acquired. Truth be told, I was really hoping they'd get acquired by Valve - that'd strengthen their existing partnership (which I'm sure will cease to exist post acquisition), give them a good team to work with wrt. videogames and VR in general, and put them in an environment where their core focus is the same as that of their parent company. In this case, if the "experiment" fails, Facebook will almost certainly dump the project. Every time someone says "... we're going to make X a platform" before they actually have X, a kitten dies somewhere. There are still technical issues with the Oculus headset, and I'm afraid Facebook's "platform" focus is going to draw attention away from that. In short, I don't see this working. If fact, if Oculus fails, it might set the entire VR industry back several years. Luckily, we still have some hope in the form of Valve.

What a waste. I hate Facebook for doing this. And I'm not too happy with Oculus for accepting this either.

krrrh• 12 years ago

On the subject of those huge cash reserves, just how much of their IPO is left at this point? Zuckerberg is definitely spending way more than FB is earning, and it's mostly on assets that are bringing in additional costs, with few near-term revenues.

trhway2• 12 years ago

I wanted something built exclusively for the extreme requirements of gaming, and I feel this acquisition is going to distract the Oculus team from that. Facebook has no experience whatsoever in that domain

com'n, VR FPV in FarmVille would be an experience to die for :)

aviraldg4• 12 years ago

Wouldn't it be better if we simply started farming IRL then?

Don't even get me started on the silliness that is Farmville - no more than a glorified Skinner box.

jimmcslim• 12 years ago

Wow, I thought the real-life James Halliday was going to be Palmer Luckey, Gabe Newell, or John Carmack. I didn't pick that it could be Mark Zuckerberg!

gfodor4• 12 years ago

This is a god damned tragedy. (And the smartest move Zuck has ever made.)

VR was supposed to be a new frontier, I have been so excited to see finally the Next Thing was coming and it feels so much like the early days of the web and computing. But now it's owned by the worst company on the planet when it comes to choosing inspired thinking and pushing humanity forward instead of just trying to get inside of our lives (and now our heads.) I am frankly terrified.

Thank God for Valve, I hope they hit the gas and leapfrog these guys now on the tech and poach as many of them as they can. Thank goodness there is still plenty of work left to do and Facebook doesn't own all the VR patents. I am so fucking scared of a world where Facebook has a monopoly on VR. I really hope it doesn't happen.

nolok• 12 years ago

Valve has stopped developing their own VR hardware and gave their prototype to Oculus a few months ago. If I remember correctly, their top VR guy also joined Oculus.

Sony is developing a competitor with project Morpheus, though.

zanny3• 12 years ago

Which is a proprietary addon for their playstation. Not interesting at all.

Occulus was going to be revolutionary because it was supposed to be an open platform. "Here is a headset, this is a starting point" every other company in the world could take it from there and see all the places it could go. How many improvements to the base model could be made. How many novel ways to utilize VR to advance common activities.

Instead, we now have Valve tossing away their project, Sony making its own proprietary toy dongle, and Facebook getting a live camera feed of your life while you use their video services on their proprietary platform with proprietary drivers and patents on everything including the paint job.

It is a pretty big travesty.

Thrymr• 12 years ago

VR was supposed to be a new frontier, I have been so excited to see finally the Next Thing was coming and it feels so much like the early days of the web and computing.

VR has been the Next Thing since before there was a World Wide Web, if not the internet itself. Maybe this time is different, maybe not.

gfodor4• 12 years ago

this time is different

megaman22• 12 years ago

I can't believe Carmack is thrilled about being part of Facebook. His twitter feed seems a little sparse today...

CamperBob2• 12 years ago

He's too busy talking to Ferrari dealers, hopefully.

zanny3• 12 years ago

He was already crazy rich off id, though. He had his own aerospace company that he funded out of his own pocket for several years. He isn't the kind of guy who really needed another break - I always got the impression he left Zenimax for Occulus because he wanted to get back at the front of the tech revolution train after going in the back seat for a decade.

higherpurpose• 12 years ago

I hope Valve releases their own VR headset now, and locks Oculus out of Steam, with only their own VR headset being compatible. Valve has already done all the same research, and are even ahead of Oculus. I could see them turning it into a product by mid-2015, which is probably sooner than Oculus' own consumer version.

catfoods• 12 years ago

They don't need to lock out other headsets, that's kind of the opposite of their service model and philosphy. But they would have the advantage of controlling the distrobution platform, their in-house software/engine, and their hardware. Lots of advantages there, similar to Apple.

Theirs will likely become the superior product, organically.

zanny3• 12 years ago

I just hope they make it a hackable platform like they claim the steam controller will be, and like steamOS already kind of is. Because we can know for damn sure if there is profit opportunity in Occulus any openness about it will be stomped into the dirt.

iandanforth• 12 years ago

Any chance this deal can be called off? Terrible decision.

pera• 12 years ago

We were in talks about maybe bringing a version of Minecraft to Oculus. I just cancelled that deal. Facebook creeps me out.

https://twitter.com/notch/status/448586381565390848

dsrguru6• 12 years ago

I said this on the other thread, but this is the most terrifyingly awesome technology acquisition I've ever seen. Facebook chat in two years: put on a headset and get teleported to a room in a virtual world where you can talk to your friends' avatars. Skype and Google+ Hangouts suddenly seem very 20th century.

I've always found Facebook's stock to be a ridiculously risky long-term investment since their entire growth plan is predicated on monetizing an already established customer base, where a single event that causes people to switch en masse to a more private/secure social network would destroy the company. After today's acquisition I no longer think this.

NotOscarWilde• 12 years ago

Facebook chat in two years: put on a headset and get teleported to a room in a virtual world where you can talk to your friends' avatars. Skype and Google+ Hangouts suddenly seem very 20th century.

This doesn't happen in two years at all -- it's hard to keep track, but Google Glass has been in its public beta release for over a year and yet there are no people walking around using them, at least where I'm from.

Plus I think most of us are still using the keyboard (be it virtual or physical) to tap instant messages and email -- if VR would be so mature in two years that we'd be able to do a lot of things through a virtual world, why haven't we ditched keyboards straight away?

There is likely a user input revolution around the corner, but I'd be looking at the 2024 date or later. This is probably a good reason why to be concerned about the purchase -- Facebook seems unlikely to care about Oculus games beyond what Oculus promised in their Kickstarter.

dsrguru6• 12 years ago

I totally agree that wearable computers like Google Glass aren't ready to replace conventional mobile devices. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the webcam+screen model of video chat (not the keyboard+mouse model of computing) in the near future will be replaced by something like webcam+Rift+Omni. I think the technology will likely be mature enough within the next few years and that the public is already ready to adopt it.

Before the 1964 World's Fair, the notion of video chat to accompany the telephone was considered science fiction. Even after the technology was demonstrated to the public, it stayed in the realm of science fiction, as seen in the film 2001, until the 21st century. I really think that being able to interact with other people in a digital world a la the Matrix would sell millions of units instantly.

kylec• 12 years ago

Put on a headset and get teleported to a room in a virtual world where you can talk to your friends' avatars. Skype and Google+ Hangouts suddenly seem very 20th century.

I'd rather talk to my friends' faces, albeit on a computer screen, rather than their avatars in a virtual room. Face to face communication isn't practical when both parties are wearing something over their eyes.

dsrguru6• 12 years ago

Fair point, I forgot about the lack of eyes part. I guess the Oculus Rift would work better for a multiplayer FPS where your characters are all wearing helmets.

bane5• 12 years ago

put on a headset and get teleported to a room in a virtual world where you can talk to your friends' avatars.

Uhm...No thanks. Second life has already been tried.

Why does this idea keep coming up? It sucks every.single.time.

dsrguru6• 12 years ago

Either you're misunderstanding me or you're equating an anthill with the pyramids of Giza. In Second Life, your avatar is a sprite on a screen. With Oculus Rift + Virtuix Omni, your avatar is you. It's like the Matrix. Or Avatar. Or a [lower resolution] lucid dream where you can interact with people from the real world in video game maps. For me, that's truly awesome in the literal sense of the word.

WalterSear6• 12 years ago

Have you tried a Crystal Cove Oculus? Have you seen the demos from HD cameras that capture video in almost 360 degrees?

general_failure• 12 years ago

I cannot imagine how Carmack is excited about this

Florin_Andrei2• 12 years ago

Maybe he gets enough cash out of it to restart Armadillo.

JumpCrisscross3• 12 years ago

Curious to see HN's negative reaction to this announcement. The sentiment appears to originate with gamers.

Gamers, particularly PC gamers, are a minority of computing end users. Minorities get less attention than the mainstream. Oculus VR chose gamers, particularly PC gamers, as its beachhead. The dedicated attention from such a world-changing technology must have been special. The backlash against losing that special status is understandable.

But VR's potential isn't limited to gamers. That is what Facebook recognised and is capitalising on with this acquisition. Oculus, as a (perhaps the) leader in the consumer VR space, is well positioned to shape the future of VR and with it consumer computing. They had a choice between a niche and the market, and they are reaching for the moon.

The expanded mandate means gamers will become a minority of Oculus's customer base. It does not follow that their experience nor expectations should degrade. Preëmptively burning Facebook and Oculus for thinking big seems petty.

I am open-minded about Oculus's future at Facebook. It is possible that Facebook will mis-manage Oculus and squander its lead. It's also possible that an independent Oculus would have missed the forest for the trees. That by going 100% for gaming, it would have forsaken a greater destiny. Barring back-seat driving by Facebook management, Oculus has more options at Facebook. More options are good for a young company at the beginning of a open-ended road.

_zen2• 12 years ago

The negative reaction isn't because of any of that, it's because it's Facebook.

Microsoft, Apple, Google, Valve, hell even Dell would have all been acceptable acquirers for most PC gamers backing the Oculus Rift.

ginko• 12 years ago

Microsoft/Apple would have been bad because that would lock the Rift to a single platform.

JumpCrisscross3• 12 years ago

What is a specific likely worst-case you have in mind with Facebook?

Risks with other potential acquisition partners:

(1) Valve - limited scope. Valve would be fine if Oculus's future were limited to gaming. But they add little value, in balance sheet or experience, for a broader play. Valve + Oculus is only marginally better positioned, for revolutionising computing, than an independent Oculus.

(2) Microsoft - too conservative. Big organisation without a history of funding moon shots. As for pairing Oculus with Xbox, I'd copy the concerns with Valve.

(3) Dell - underinvestment. Dell is undergoing a private-equity turnaround focussed on optimising operating metrics for an IPO. Not a healthy environment for an open-ended, capital-hungry start-up with an adventurous future.

Apple would have been a fine home for Oculus. I suspect VR's market isn't mature enough for Cupertino. But I do not see a material difference between Google and Facebook. Privacy concerns exist at both, and both have a mixed record of integrating acquisitions. What both have is lots of ambition and the surplus capital and experience with which to fuel it.

bjz_• 12 years ago

Even aquisitions from those companies would have been met with disappointment. I think folks were hoping for Oculus to stay independent.

paulftw• 12 years ago

Read any startup book or blog: you can have a grand vision but you must start solving one small problem and expanding from there. Winning one niche and then scaling.

When you go after everything at once you go after nothing in particular.

leoc• 12 years ago

The other thing is that it's probably going to be quite a long time yet before PC gamers actually become a minority of the Rift customer base. The whisper number for the first consumer version's resolution is 1440. At that resolution it will take not only a maybe-$300 Rift CV1 to play but also a seriously hefty video card to keep it fed with something like a steady 90 frames every second. (No currently-existing Crossfire/SLI setups need apply, as they introduce too much latency.)

sciguy77• 12 years ago

The dedicated attention from such a world-changing technology must have been special. The backlash against losing that special status is understandable.

While I agree with most of what you (eloquently) said, I take issue with the idea that gamers' reactions are a result of feeling less special. I'm at most an occasional gamer myself so I can't speak for "gamers," but do give them a little credit. Facebook doesn't have the best track record dealing with gaming companies and, as Notch noted, their motives are inherently different than the motives of the sole Oculus Team. This isn't necessarily bad, but it is a change. And change, particularly for something that appears to be on such a good path, introduces risk. And risk is scary for people who are emotionally invested.

nl• 12 years ago

But VR's potential isn't limited to gamers. That is what Facebook recognised and is capitalising on with this acquisition. Oculus, as a (perhaps the) leader in the consumer VR space, is well positioned to shape the future of VR and with it consumer computing. They had a choice between a niche and the market, and they are reaching for the moon.

Of course!

I'm surprised no one realises this is move to protect Facebook against Google's move into devices, specifically Google Glass.

Facebook doesn't want to be a sharecropper on a platform owned by Google.

I'd expect them to be looking at other companies in the "connected device" space too: Pebble, FitBit etc.

aluhut3• 12 years ago

But it were this few from this so unimportant minority that filled their Kickstarter project with money, making this thing get so far. Advertising for it. Sharing propaganda and knowledge. They are the ones that could do this in the future with an end product making it desirable. Right now I don't see the usual FB people buy this thing. I see nobody really besides the gamers. Most of the people won't have a gain from it. This is not for MOST OF THE PEOPLE. It will remain an product for minorities for a long time.

They betrayed the gamers and this people will now jump on every possible alternative that comes around (and we've heard that there are things coming up already). Also they will hesitate to trust anybody else on something they love that much. This will hurt other start ups.

madeofpalk3• 12 years ago

I keep thinking about Parse, a startup that Facebook bought a while ago and has mostly left alone to do it's thing.

I don't see the usual FB people using Parse. I see nobody really besides the developers.

pms• 12 years ago

The assumption of the gamers being a minority is incorrect, at least for young male adults [1].

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28101518/ns/technology_and_science...

Geee2• 12 years ago

/r/oculus isn't happy: http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/21cvry/facebook_acqu...

colmvp• 12 years ago

Checkout this prescient thread on /r/oculus/: http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/1wf6mg/so_no_way_to_...

will_work4tears2• 12 years ago

I could be wrong, and I even think this might be an unpopular opinion (I'm not a huge FB fan, FWIW), but I think this is pretty good for Oculus. It's exposure writ large. Also funding, but from a Marketing perspective this can open some serious doors for them.

That said, I'm saddened. A possible greater exposure could have happened from another company purchasing it, Apple for instance, or even (some will shudder), Google.

I'm not going to give up on Oculus just yet though, but I'm somewhat disapointed. Even if Facebook doesn't ruin it, it's... well, it's still Facebook.

georgemcbay• 12 years ago

I shuddered at the Apple suggestion, not the Google one.

With Google there would still be a very excellent chance the device would run across PCs (Windows/Linux and Macs) and maybe even iOS devices (if Apple allowed it) along with Android. With Apple, obviously not, it would be Mac/iOS only and fuck everyone else.

will_work4tears2• 12 years ago

True enough, though certainly the same with Microsoft, and possibly Google (Android only?). Maybe Facebook will be the one really only open one? I only worry that real games will not get a chance and we'll have a glut of "Totally Immersive Candy Crush!!!"

arjie• 12 years ago

So the backlash seems to be:

* Because the Oculus guys are seen to have sold out.

* Because Facebook is seen to be a ruthless exploiter of personal information.

I, for one, was actually days away from buying an Oculus device but I'm going to hold off for now. It's a combination of the negativity from here being infectious and the fact that if Facebook decided to buy now, maybe there's something much bigger on the horizon (apart from the DK2).

lyndonh2• 12 years ago

I was excited about Oculus even though I wasn't necessarily going to buy one. But this acquisition is like Elon Musk announcing that Tesla will build a small 1 litre diesel car next, or SpaceX's next mission is to Detroit.

I mean, I'm sure Facebook has some amazing PHP and Python on their backend servers but has anyone not checked out the awfulness that is Facebook's web site ? UX is not supposed to be a four letter word.

What do Oculus gain from this that they couldn't have obtained with their $2.4m Kickstarter ? I don't believe Facebook won't be monitoring every penny spent there.

Oculus was not our last hope, there is another: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/avegantglyph/a-mobile-p...

protomyth2• 12 years ago

Sony is probably happy as heck since it effectively resets everything to give their project a chance. Also, I am a little sick of the "joined" terminology. You got bought and are no longer in control of your companies destiny. Unless you pull a NeXT, "joined" is not true.

mhartl• 12 years ago

At first glance, it might not seem obvious why Oculus is partnering with Facebook, a company focused on connecting people, investing in internet access for the world and pushing an open computing platform.

An "open computing platform"? What are they talking about?

FD3SA• 12 years ago

This is extremely disappointing. This technology had the potential to be much bigger than Facebook. The Occulus was poised to create an entirely new industry. They were pioneering a technology never before seen, with a legend like John Carmack pushing the state of the art. I cannot think of a more colossal mistake to make as a founder. Palmer Luckey has shown he has absolutely no faith in his ability nor that of his team. Occulus had nothing but success in their future. They had investors beating down their doors with money, developers announcing support for the platform before even getting a dev-kit, and consumers itching to grab hold of their product.

Facebook is the antithesis to Occulus. They have never created any technology, they add zero value to the the real world, and have no future potential in the long run. Occulus selling to Facebook would have been like Tesla selling to Proctor and Gamble after they released the Roadster. A company with a technology so radical it can change the industry, succumbing to weakness and cashing out to an old money company that has no expertise in the field for some chump change.

I am filled with sadness and disappointment. I believe Palmer Luckey will regret this decision.

the_honorable• 12 years ago

Pretty funny that all the comments on the linked article are tied to Facebook

nevster• 12 years ago

One word - metaverse. That is all.

iambateman• 12 years ago

At least some of Facebook's history of arbitrary platform creation and destruction has to do with their youth as a company. They are growing up and we've seen successively fewer missteps in the past two years.

So there is room to hope for a successful partnership. Oculus has a really phenomenal product and partnering with Facebook is going to scale that product MUCH faster than it would've otherwise. This could be the perfect deal for both companies.

Don't get me wrong, my heart sank when I heard it was Facebook. And the WSJ's article on how disingenuous they were with their kickstarter backers is still real. But in the truly long-term, we might look back on today as a big moment for virtual reality.

seferphier2• 12 years ago

...it might not seem obvious why Oculus is partnering with Facebook...But when you consider it more carefully, we’re culturally aligned with a focus on innovating and hiring the best and brightest

Looks like ALL companies in this world would be a good fit for a facebook acquisition.

znowi• 12 years ago

I can't imagine Carmack working for Facebook. This is surreal. As Palmer noted in his blog post he was skeptical when Facebook first approached them with the idea. I suppose Facebook eventually made a monetary offer they couldn't refuse. Whether Facebook makes it a VR advertising unit or Facebook Glass, it's likely to be something very different from what Oculus envisioned as an independent company.

seferphier2• 12 years ago

Rules of being acquired:

1st rule: you do not talk about the money 2nd rule: you DO NOT talk about the MONEY 3rd rule: you talk about how the acquirer and acquiree shares the same vision and dreams that would enable the acquiree to build great things.

noclip• 12 years ago

It seems from the reaction that for Facebook this wasn't just a $2 billion deal but a $3 billion deal — $2 billion in cash, plus $1 billion of Oculus' value wiped out by the announcement.

zecg2• 12 years ago

"The affect heuristic is an instance of substitution, in which the answer to an easy question (How do I feel about it?) serves as an answer to a much harder question (What do I think about it?)."

wil421• 12 years ago

It sounds to me like Oculus just sold out. Great now instead of a new way to game we are going to have something like Lawnmower Man Facebook.

andrewmu• 12 years ago

I too am instinctively repelled by this acquisition. I did prefer the idea of the technology remaining independent and supported on multiple platforms.

MS, Apple, Google, Sony all have their own closed(* Android is arguable, I know) devices that they would prefer to limit the technology to. The benefit to Facebook is to have a primary interface perhaps hosted on another platform but not completely dependent on it.

I can think of three obvious negatives:

Carmack's apparently successful work using mobile graphics hardware to generate acceptable output for the Rift could allow a much wider adoption among the casual users who don't have a hardcore gaming PC/latest generation console. Facebook might focus on producing a low-cost version that lacks the resolution/low latency which would be preferable to gamers / professional 3D users. An extensive patent portfolio could inhibit higher-end competitors from easily addressing that market.

The second concern is that Facebook would in political superpower-like ways abuse the power to grant access to a popular VR platform and demand concessions such as mandatory Facebook accounts for gaming, an egregious cut of royalties, banning of anything that "replicates Facebook functionality" etc.

Thirdly, is the probably the most common knee-jerk consumer issue; ultra creepy Facebook, logging and mining everything that you foveate on, from the ad logos in virtual environments to the facial/bodily features of your friends' avatars. They build a more detailed model of your own desires and motivations than you consciously have of yourself.

Oculus Joins Facebook

Related Stories