Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Displays Facebook Games Technology

How Facebook and Oculus Could Be a Great Combination 151

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "Nate Swammer writes at Slashgear that with Facebook's purchase of Oculus for a cool $2 billion, the fervor surrounding virtual reality headwear quickly turned to disdain. Betrayal, confusion, and anger became the order of the day for contributors who gave Oculus $2.4 million through its Kickstarter campaign. But now that passions have cooled and looking at the issues dispassionately, the Facebook acquisition may turn out much better than anticipated for users. While many may have a fervent distrust for Facebook, this deal bodes well for Oculus, and by virtue, us.

First Oculus wasn't flush, and although Oculus may have had some hustle behind it, it may not have been enough. John Carmack, Oculus CTO, said via Twitter, 'I expect the FB deal will avoid several embarrassing scaling crisis for VR.' The headwear already famously suffered from a supply chain issue not long ago, which actually stopped it dead in its tracks. Next, in their official announcement of the Facebook deal, gaming was barely a blip on the radar. It wasn't until the very end that gaming was even mentioned, with the bulk of the post discussing 'culture' and driving virtual reality forward. There was little to indicate any big titles were coming for Oculus.

The fact is, Oculus needed help. Not technical assistance, but someone who could be their Sony, more or less. John Carmack says he has 'a deep respect for the technical scale that FB operates at. The cyberspace we want for VR will be at this scale.' Perhaps Facebook isn't the most popular choice, but they are the partner Oculus chose for their future says Swammer. 'Like Google purchasing Android in 2005, it all seems so strange right now [remember this story we discussed in 2009] — but we see how that turned out. If VR really is the next frontier, Facebook just staked their claim to a big slab of land in the heart of some virtual country they'll likely let us see someday — via Oculus.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Facebook and Oculus Could Be a Great Combination

Comments Filter:
  • by JustOK ( 667959 )
    Go go gadget FaceBorg
  • by Anonymous Coward

    hopefully we will not be undone by our unreality 'helmets' & other assorted deception generation media mongrelity? new reality series [] promises return to genuine freedom for many

  • Rift'd (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30, 2014 @08:40AM (#46614239)

    I speak for everyone when I say, he is RIGHT. We NEED this COOL technology!

    We need it so bad, my pants are falling down and I'm getting excited. This is facebook we're talking about right? The dating website.

    I think in the end, we will enjoy our Demolition Man style sex and become enlightened in our non-fluid transfer sex of the future.

    Because I want VR now... WAAAAA I can't get it NOW.

    • That's the first time anyone has mentioned an application that takes advantage of the Oculus VR aquisition by Facebook. Kudos to you sir!

      • I can think of lots of lucrative non-game applications for good VR.

        1) virtual tourism - digitally scan all of the exhibits, and background aesthetics of rooms and exteriors in the Louvre. Charge art students / fans $50 per day to visit the museum online. It's cheaper than a trip to France, takes in more money per day, and helps those planning a real trip figure out where to go and what to see in advance. Eventually cities will offer tours of their historical districts complete with local flavor "AI characte

        • Virtual Tourism? Booooorriiiiiinngg. If I'm using a VR headset to go on a tour it's going to be a tour of a place that is so fantastic that it doesn't (or can't) exist in real life. Like the Taj Mahal? Why pay someone to go there and try to recreate it in simulation when an artist can make it much larger, add the hanging gardens on the side and a cliff face overlooking the ocean off the back? 2 moons (1 of which has been shattered), some amazing storms just to make it fun.
    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      3D Like buttons for everyone! +1 has no chance!

      Also, imagine how much more confusing they can make the wall or timeline or fluxblog or whatever the hell they call it these days when they can add a third dimension! Not only won't you be able to find anything, you'll actually be able to get lost in the mess!

  • No. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 30, 2014 @08:45AM (#46614257)

    And color me surprised that the guy who just got a $2B cash infusion thinks this is a good idea. Gaming is barely a blip on the radar? Yeah, that's the problem, you asshole. Gamers bankrolled it; developers kept the momentum going; anticipated titles created the buzz.... but all of that barely registers against Facebook's piles and piles of money, right?

    • Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @10:23AM (#46614639) Journal
      That is exactly what rubs me the wrong way about that announcement, besides fears that FB will turn Oculus into another data mining opportunity. Gaming is barely a blip? The buzz around Oculus has been from two sides: business (who want to use VR tech for telepresence, operating ROVs etc), and gamers. We want to control our Parrot drone with the Oculus, we want to walk around Tamriel or Middle Earth wearing this thing, or immerse ourselves in virtual battlefields, or perhaps watch a movie in a virtual cinema... What we don't want, need or asked for is friggin' Second Life VR.

      With that said, if the drivers / SDK remain openly available, I am sure game developers will get on board. But with gaming "barely on the radar", I fear for the undoubtedly necessary collaboration between Oculus and game developers.
      • What will be interesting to see(and I'm honestly not sure, so this is a question to anyone who might know as much as it is speculation) will be whether the bar for what facebook wants will turn out to be lower, higher, or just different from what game developers want.

        If they want to do something 'social', it wouldn't be a huge surprise to see much greater emphasis on accurately capturing facial expressions of the wearer, so that those can be painted on an avatar of some kind(and emotional responses to ad
        • Think "Facebook meets Second Life with better-than-1998-graphics".

          Then, feel free to throw up.

    • And color me surprised that the guy who just got a $2B cash infusion thinks this is a good idea. Gaming is barely a blip on the radar? Yeah, that's the problem, you asshole. Gamers bankrolled it; developers kept the momentum going; anticipated titles created the buzz.... but all of that barely registers against Facebook's piles and piles of money, right?

      There's also the fact that, pending some sort of sea change, Facebook is kind of an engorged pustule on the ass of gaming. 'Social' gaming (ironically, usually rather less actually social than 'non-social' multiplayer games of almost any genre) is a horrible place where lousiness that would make the bargain bin of old blush is combined with ruthless exploitation of human weakness that would make your local heroin dealer a trifle queasy.

      That's just not very encouraging. Though, that said, given that 'face

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Facebook is kind of an engorged pustule on the ass of gaming.

        Facebook is kind of an engorged pustule on the ass of humanity.

    • If you read what any of the more thoughtful people who have been around gaming a while, they all think the acquisition was good - Penny Arcade, Carmack, Adam Sessler - all of these guys think it was a good thing for Oculus and gamers.

      Just because gaming is a tiny part of it in the distant future, does not mean it's bad for gaming - any more than a great high-resolution display is overall used by gamers a tiny amount compared to movies. In the end gaming still gets a great display, and after Facebook gamers

  • "If VR really is the next frontier " I expect OR to take a lot of arrows. Few pioneers reach old age.

    • Pioneers? I've already got VR. Had it since Quake and Descent came out in the 90's. Who wants to strap a toaster to their face when they can have VR glasses that look like glasses and work on the go from their smartphones? []

      If it was such a big deal, the existing VR companies would already be improving on latency and price by leaps and bounds on their own over the two decades we've had consumer VR gear. It's just not that big a deal, you're still just feeding images to a brain, I don't understand the hype

  • Depends (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @08:54AM (#46614301)

    Can I rip the FB crap out of it? That's pretty much the question that will determine whether I want to have it. I don't really mind having FB as the manufacturer of the thing, for all I care it could be made by FB, MS or CommieNaziIncorporated, as long as it's affordable, working and free of any baggage that tries to push me towards it manufacturer.

    If it's used as some kind of vehicle to push FB onto the few who don't have it and don't loathe it on principle, then I can very well do without and am retroactively glad I decided against funding the kickstarter.

    • I'm guessing you don't own a smartphone then...
      • Elaborate please? I guess mine is old enough that I don't get the joke.

        • Android phones have Google lock-in, iPhones have Apple lock-in, Blackberry's have Blackberry lock-in. It's hard to find a consumer electronic device that doesn't contain some form of vendor lock-in, be it in the form of apps, search engines, messaging clients, online services etc etc. And ofc to use any of these services require giving up some personal details, such as mobile phone numbers, date of birth, credit card details, email address mothers maiden name, favourite colour etc...
          • Android phones have Google lock-in

            How is a device on which I can install CyanogenMod locked-in to Google? Please explain.

            • How is a device on which I can install CyanogenMod locked-in to Google? Please explain.

              They're locked-in to Google by default. The majority of Joe Public are not going to install Cyanogenmod on their phone. Heck, even i'm scared to do it, and i'm more than capable.

          • Android phones have Google lock-in,

            This is simply untrue as a blanket statement. My Android phone does not use Google services and does not report anything at all to Google.

      • I'm guessing you don't own a smartphone then...

        If you're a nerd you can root your Android phone and get rid of the G+ stuff, assuming you own the phone and don't care about voiding the warranty. iPhone doesn't even come with any of the top five social networking apps preinstalled last time I checked.

        • for all I care it could be made by FB, MS or CommieNaziIncorporated, as long as it's affordable, working and free of any baggage that tries to push me towards it manufacturer.

          This implies that OP doesn't like any form of lock-in from any manufacturer. To use Google Play, you have to use, err, Google services. To use the Apple App Store you have to sign up for an Apple ID. Each manufacturer has various ways of tying you into their own ecosystem...

          • Up until recently you didn't need Google Play Services to run most apps on Android, but things do seem to be moving in that direction slowly but surely.

            I guess you could order a Firefox OS phone that's not tied to any major social network / identity ecosystem: [] Doesn't look great, but it's only 80 bucks.

            • Firefox OS phones are hardly real smartphones. All FF OS provides is calling, texting, a camera and a web browser. All stuff my £30 Nokia dumbphone had back in '07. Granted, the web browser wasn't anywhere near as good as Gecko (or IE5 for that matter), but it still worked.
      • My smartphone has no connection to Facebook.

        I know that you're making a point about Google, but my objection to the FB deal is not that OR sold out to a large corporation. It's that they sold out to Facebook specifically.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      As long as I can pull out FB and load Linux on it, I'll buy one.

      Seriously, I think the FB blinders are a great idea...anyone who spends their day on Facebook can now be hidden away and easily identified by others, thus removing a significant portion of very dull, insulated people.

      • Wait, wait. The Rift isn't an independent, it's a peripheral. You can't run a full-fledged OS on that. Someone could port the old OR software to be compatible with the new hardware and games written for it (the source code was shipped with the SDK, after all), but we don't even know whether Facebook is going to rape social networking into the Oculus yet. Well, at least we're not sure.
    • by trawg ( 308495 )

      If it's used as some kind of vehicle to push FB onto the few who don't have it and don't loathe it on principle, then I can very well do without and am retroactively glad I decided against funding the kickstarter.

      Out of interest, have any of Facebook's other acquisitions been used to force users onto the FB platform? In other words, do they have a strong precedent of doing this?

      In the case of Oculus spending $2b and then immediately trying to alienate its core user base by somehow pushing FB on the tiny percentage of users that don't already have it seems like it would be a weird thing to do.

      • At least i am thinking it will have you sign up for a facebook account during the driver install.

        • At least i am thinking it will have you sign up for a facebook account during the driver install.

          The head of Oculus said explicitly (on Reddit) that you would not have to have a Facebook account to use the Oculus,

          • by Kazymyr ( 190114 )
            However, it seems to me that after the acquisition he will not have the final decision in the matter.
            • I don't know why people assume Facebook is folding in every acquisition to Facebook when that's not what they have done with any company to date.

              So far Instagram and WhatsApp have had final say on what happens with their products. Facebook has given no cause to assume that anything is different than what they have said with acquisitions so far - which is that they are hands-off with the acquisitions. Thus Oculus will do what they have said they will do.

          • The head of Oculus said explicitly (on Reddit) that you would not have to have a Facebook account to use the Oculus,

            Yes, he did. But that he's foolish enough to believe Facebook doesn't mean anything at all.

            Besides, my personal objection isn't about the risk of having to use a Facebook login. It's the risk of having Facebook datamine OR use.

        • by rioki ( 1328185 )

          I can still create an Instagram account without FB. Although I don't particularly like the FB acquisition, chances are they will not botch the entire thing.

          My guess is that FB (the company) is realizing that FB (the website) will become obsolete sooner or later (think MySpace). The company is trying to move out of their single revenue stream and diversify. You can probably see more acquisitions from FB that are not in line with the FB service.

          • Are you sure that behind the scenes there is much of a difference between a FB login and an Instagram login anymore? Are you sure that the data collection doesn't all end up in the same database?

    • What FB crap? There is no final product: you don't know what it'll be like yet. Probably it'll just have a FB logo and FB will have some pointless (to you or me) services that utilise VR. If you don't have a FB account and aren't interested in that stuff then likely you just skip it, plug the OR into your PC and game away. We don't know that OR will be used to "push" FB. We don't know anything yet.
      • Sorry. I was extrapolating from what I saw so far from FB. But hey, maybe you're right and they change by 180 by the time this product sees the light of day.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by umafuckit ( 2980809 )
          Look, I don't like FB either but you're looking at this in a very one-sided way. As the article points out, Instagram and WhatsApp haven't been subsumed into FB in any obvious way following their acquisition. Go to the websites for those services and you won't see evidence of FB. With Instagram, for instance, it appears from the site that FB sharing is optional (I haven't used the App, but the website indicates this). So from past behaviour, FB haven't done an all-out assimilation of everything they've purc
    • I just love all of the optimism here on Slashdot. It is truly heartwarming.

  • by Ramley ( 1168049 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @09:02AM (#46614331)

    Business decision(s) aside, it feels completely unnatural that such a cool, grassroots company sold out to a behemoth monstrosity like FB.

    I would really like to see FB taken down a notch (putting it nicely), and this I am afraid will draw more people to it, as this tech is very compelling. I don't want to have to use FB to play with VR on this level. Perhaps I won't have to.

    Maybe Oculus did need the help referred to in the article, but couldn't there have been another way? $2B would be hard to turn down, but (imho) they could have gotten there another way, and maybe surpassed it.

    just my $0.02

  • Or will the FB infusion dilute it so much they're just screwed? If the latter, who could blame people for avoiding contributing in the future?
  • My own op-ed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geoskd ( 321194 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @09:06AM (#46614353)

    Carmack screwed the analysis quite thoroughly, and now its too late for them. One of two scenarios is in play here:

    1) Facebook bought OR because they wanted to diversify their holdings to make themselves more resilient to changes in their core market. In this case, Facebook will likely leave OR mostly alone and except for adding some money to the pot, but when it becomes clear that OR can not or will not scale at the growth that Facebook wants/needs, then it will get the axe.

    2) Facebook bought OR because of some overriding strategy that involves OR's technology. In this case, Facebook will not be allowing OR to keep going the way they have been going, which more than likely means very little if any emphasis on VR gaming, and instead is intended as a social platform for virtual interaction. In this scenario, the best that OR can manage will be to get some games developed and released, but to that end there will likely be no support from Facebook.

    Carmack was correct when he stated that OR needed two things: first, they would need cash infusions at several points to be able to scale at the rate that flash-in-the-pan games require in order to meet their sales goals. Without that cash, developers would be reticent to make any games that truly took advantage of the platform because then they would be locked to it with no guarantee that OR could manufacture enough units to *not* severely limit sales of the game developers product. Facebook solves the cash problem, but only by reintroducing another reason for developers not to get involved: Facebook itself. Facebook has burned many developers before, and consequently developers are less likely to become involved with them than they would have been with any other company (possibly excepting Microsoft).

    The second thing that OR needs is developer support, which, for the reasons described above, the Facebook deal makes far more difficult than it would have been if OR had been bought by almost any other company.

    All things considered, OR might fare better having been bought by Facebook than going it alone, but that is by no means clear.

    • I thought about your 1) but concluded no, because when companies do this, they acquire proven companies with a predictable revenue stream. Oculus is burning money and their business model relies on a bunch of people adopting new behaviors for interacting with their computers. A killer VR app is needed to make this work, even among the hardcore gamer market. FB is not the killer app for VR, so...there must be much more to this story we don't know yet for this to be the case..

      For 2) I think this is on the

    • Or...

      3) They have an overriding strategy that includes OR as it intends to be and software that utilises this tech and will come with every unit.

      Many people on this forum seem to completely forget how fundamental and low level this tech is. (mostly due to bias against FB)

      This is not a gaming console. It is a VR headset in which almost EVERY VR related issue is shared by ALL applications. If they want penetration (which FB most certainly will) it will have to be available for generic (i.e. gaming) use.
      They h
  • This is precisely why Pearson dropped Occulus after the buyout. We had a cool piece of tech, and a company ready to deliver it the the place best suited to it -- video games.

    Now we have a multi-billion dollar social media site willing to spend more on the marketing and propaganda budget for the deal itself than they are on the actual technology. Hence this article.

    Facebook is the Walmart of the Internet. Occulus should have taken their cue from Snapper and walked away.

    • by RyuuzakiTetsuya ( 195424 ) <taiki AT cox DOT net> on Sunday March 30, 2014 @09:54AM (#46614537)

      Amazon is the walmart of the internet. Look at their operation. It's ridiculous.

      Further more, the notion that VR is best suited for games so short sighted I don't even know where to begin.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    whatever people think about VR it will remain a gimmick i don't see average non gamers buy devices that cost 350 USD

    Don't forget that VR is just like 3d every 10 years they try it.

  • the next Anthony Wiener wannabe sending me his junk in 3D.

    We have not evolved enough for this technology.

  • by oneiron ( 716313 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @09:13AM (#46614377)
    Was this FB deal Carmack's play all along? []

    3. by moonboy asks: I once read, in Wired, an article that said you have an incredible headstart on everyone else for making "virtual worlds" on the Internet using your engine from the Quake games. Do you have any intention of doing this? Has anyone approached you about it? It would seem like a fantastic use of the technology with online gaming being so popular. Entire worlds online could be created virtually and very life-like with many different purposes.

    John Carmack Answers: Making Snow Crash into a reality feels like a sort of moral imperative to a lot of programmers, but the efforts that have been made so far leave a lot to be desired. It is almost painful for me to watch some of the VRML initiatives. It just seems so obviously the wrong way to do something. All of this debating, committee forming, and spec writing, and in the end, there isn't anything to show for it. Make something really cool first, and worry about the spec after you are sure it's worth it! I do think it is finally the right time for this to start happening for real. While a lot of people could envision the possibilities after seeing DOOM or Quake, it is really only now that we have general purpose hardware acceleration that things are actually flexible enough to be used as a creative medium without constantly being conscious of the technical limitations. Two weeks ago, I pitched a proposal to develop some technology along these lines to the rest of the company. I may wind up working on some things like that in parallel with the next game project.
    • Okay, maybe they're right. Maybe the Facebook deal is a snow crash of the Metaverse. But really, we should have built the Metaverse first.

      All the dazed developers staring at random bitmaps when they've been snow crashed isn't pretty to look at.

    • You can bet that someone is currently working on something like a pseudo-narcotic and that they and/or someone else is working on malware based on a pseudo-narcotic.

      I doubt it'll be connected to the Sumerian language though.

  • I think in a few years we'll all be having a good laugh about how Oculus doomed themselves with this move. I think there are enough people on this planet like me who are 100% distrustful of Facebook and anything they have to do with anything. I have long size made the vow that Facebook and its affiliates get zero dollars of my money and zero seconds of my attention.

    We keep reading articles about how Facebook is on the way out, its core userbase of young hip twentysomethings is evaporating quickly, and soon

  • There are plenty of other sources to get income from. But instead they took the easy option and sold their soul to the devil. And for the amount of money they were offered, who wouldn't? The bad guys in this are Facebook. They already have access to too much personal information about people. They don't need any more.
    • Yea, but I am pretty sure anyone would sell their soul (metaphorically) when the buyer is offer in somewhere between 100 and 1000x what you are actually worth.

      Consider Oculus is "just another" VR company, with their biggest innovation being that they were crowd funded, and their product barely released and with a fairly small audience (due to price, interest, motion sickness, etc).

      Being bought for more than what Google paid for YouTube.

      Being bought for at least 100x more than what FB could have developed fo
  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @09:27AM (#46614431) Homepage Journal

    You can't polish a turd. You can, however, glue another turd to it.

  • by Assmasher ( 456699 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @09:31AM (#46614455) Journal

    The backlash is because many people who are comfortable with tech think FaceBook are the biggest bunch of douches in the tech world. The primary reason they feel that way is because FaceBook treats EVERYTHING as an avenue to generate revenue off of your personal life, treats everything as if it belongs to them, and makes decisions about privacy that any rational person would recognize as highly questionable and implements them simply because they will result in a likely revenue stream.

    Who wouldn't want a company like that taking a fledgling tech darling that many people really were going to make gaming soooo much better?

    "Hi, little baby unicorn, meet Darth Vader - he's going to raise you..."

    For myself, I can't wait to put on my partially subsidized Oculus-berg and play Elite Dangerous and dodge asteroids textured in Vistaprint ads and a constant background subliminal audio soundtrack about whatever the latest f***ing things is that Dr. Oz is hawking...

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @09:34AM (#46614471)

    " Facebook just staked their claim to a big slab of land in the heart of some virtual country they'll likely let us see someday — via Oculus.""

    Uh..."let" us see it?

    This is please login to Facebook to continue we're talking about here, which is exactly what you're going to see when you power on the new and improved FaceRift; a Facebook login prompt.

    And our new vision of future VR just got its first major sponsor.

    If you thought the internet got annoying with "Like us" popping up every damn where you click, just wait until your new branded internet VR/3D comes'll make NASCAR advertising tactics look like your neighbors garage sale.

    • by evanism ( 600676 )

      With a built in retina scanner that will positively ID you and follow your goddam eyeball....where did you look, how long, how frequently.

      This is evil.

      • With a built in retina scanner that will positively ID you and follow your goddam eyeball....where did you look, how long, how frequently.

        This is evil.

        Not just evil, but this is also something you assume Google isn't collecting on its Glass users today.

        Picasa's face recognition was just the tip of the iceberg.

  • by umafuckit ( 2980809 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @10:14AM (#46614599)
    FB are now so established and enmeshed into other services that they are unlikely to suffer the fate of previous social networks. Nonetheless, it's hard to shake off the thought that users are fickle and FB's popularity may suddenly wane. Perhaps FB see it that way and they want to branch out into something more "solid", like hardware, or perhaps they've just decided that they have the cash and want to do something cool with it. Either way, it seems likely that this will mean a better Oculus arriving sooner. It might have a FB logo on it, and FB might have services for it. But so what? I don't have a FB account and if I bought an Occulus to play games then why would I worry about FB? I get why there's backlash but in reality, when you strip the emotion from it, it's likely a good thing for VR.
    • You seem to be making the optimistic assumption that the facebook integration will go no deeper than the logo... They may or may not be motivated to do so; but if they fancy making the hardware next to useless without talking to their mothership, that's totally doable.
      • Yep, I'm being optimistic--I admit it. I don't think they'd be dumb enough to cripple the product by requiring FB integration. By my reading they haven't even done this with Instagram, so why would they do it with a gaming headset? That would be daft. Of course I could well be wrong, but given the absence of any real information as to what's going on it seems premature to write off the whole thing and just assume FB will fuck it all up. Let's see the product first.
    • You underestimate the marketing scum: just as with all the sites with the FB logo, of occulus will require you to have FB account with your real name

  • As long as the dumb people heads explode, this can only become a very good thing for the world.

  • It would have been nicer if it had help from a company that isnt pure evil.

  • and no amount of weasel words will change my mind.
  • Who would wear one of these ludicrous contraptions? I mean, something like this [] or this [] seems fashionable...but only a complete douchebag would want to be seen wearing one of those Oculus/Sony gadgets.
  • by LoRdTAW ( 99712 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @12:47PM (#46615367)

    The headline should read: How Facebook and Oculus are Astroturfing to Make You Think it Could Be a Great Combination

  • The headwear already famously suffered from a supply chain issue...

    And Facebook was their choice to help with this? Facebook might be very good at some things but supply chain management isn't exactly in their wheelhouse. Facebook could provide the deep pockets to deal with problems but manufacturing isn't their thing.

    The bit that made me laugh was an interview with a board member I heard recently on NPR where he said something (paraphrasing here) like "we thought long and hard about this acquisition". They were offered $2 billion for a company not worth a fraction of t

  • by Dan667 ( 564390 ) on Sunday March 30, 2014 @02:19PM (#46615845)
    The fact that John Carmack was not told about the deal until after facebook bought it tells a lot about how this will likely play out. My prediction is that facebook has effectively killed the oculus.
  • The thing that I'm hoping for is that this was a panic buy because somebody at Facebook got spooked that a killer rival VR social app might render FB gradually irrelevant. So the purchase was a defensive move only, to make sure that they leading VR hardware comes from their own house and can't be used to undercut them. I think it's quite possible they didn't have any concrete social VR application in mind. This would not be a strange move for a rich and paranoid company. I'll call this the "playing defense"

  • ... future kickstarters. Enthusiasts will invariably be skeptical about a sellout down the line before throwing cash at kickstarter again
  • Carmack doesn't like small startups who sell out to big companies. []

    "it's a really bad idea... I have a negative opinion about that"

    Well, I don't hear him complaining about getting 2 billion bucks from fb.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Check Palmer vomiting PR words at reddit ( or Carmack defending datamining practices (because Amazon recomendations are so awesome) and disregarding privacy because it is oh so inconvenient (

    Those people are businessmen, not heroes of the people. They are here to make the quick buck.

  • The basis of VR is 3d.. How much market share did 3d VT grab? As of last year... 3%
    There's no product, there's no users, there's no market share and FB isn't a gaming company.
    Now, throw in FB wanting to grab, categorize and sell everything about users and having the potential to capture background conversations and recognize everyone in the room... now the corporate scab of personal information has jacked it up a notch... so, even of FB can get past the first 4 obstacles, sorry, I'm not letting it in m
  • Why does Slashdot post such nonsense? To get suckers like me to reply I guess. Google buying Android was not in the least bit strange. The way Google makes money is adverts on web searching. People start to search web on mobile phones. Microsoft Windows phones would put their rival Bing as the default search engine. Google is looking to protect its core market.

    Oculus and Facebook makes no sense at all. Microsoft and the Kinect makes sense as it's a controller they can use with their XBox. Oculus and EA, Val

  • Facebook is not a trustworthy company. Oculus being owned by Facebook means that, as far as I'm concerned, Oculus Rift no longer exists at all. It may end up being a commercial success, but that doesn't make the situation any better for me, personally. It still doesn't get VR in my own hands.

The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.