Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

thesurge.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 229 posts

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#171

Post by [deleted] »

threeseed wrote: post #118
teacup50 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Oculus has a clear path to monetization" "Monetization" is a bastardization of a term that was necessary to describe how non-profitable companies could somehow make money from giving away their product for free -- usually by abusing the userbase they're handing the free product to. See the second paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization I think what you meant to say is: "Oculus has a clear product that…

> Facebook doesn't know how to make and sell a product that isn't their own users And how is this any different to Google ? They have exactly the same business model as Facebook.

[deleted]

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#172

Post by XorNot »

tawayE324d1 wrote: post #158
officemonkey wrote: post #10

I think it's because nobody understands what FB is going to do with it. Instagram definitely has location and social graph data to exploit. But Oculus? What is FB going to do with that? I think most people still think of FB as the site and advertising sales for the site. But if you see FB as a conglomerate like Google, Apple, and Sony then it makes more sense. FB is diversifying, buying up promising technology with t…

Let me take your imagination to a (short) trip: You can build a pretty decent psychological profile from a 30-50h game-play(even less if you design your game with this type of user-data in mind); this alone has HUGE implications(and possible use-cases) I won't go into.. If you combine the data from ALL VR EXPERIENCES through facebooks rift(and let me stress this again - we're talking about most of today's entertainme…

Let me take you on a short reality check: if this is so effective, then why wasn't Facebook buying game companies, Second Life clones, etc?

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#173

Post by XorNot »

doesnt_know wrote: post #33

Kickstarter is all about directly funding unique concepts and products by independent entities. The whole point is to avoid the "traditional" investment model. Or I suppose more accurately, fund what the "traditional model" wants nothing to do with. If I was a backer, I would probably want the Oculus to fail now, just out of spite.

There's a certain irony to this statement. Community funding and all that, but if they don't do what I say then by golly I'll be mad I can't crush them like the corporations I'm protesting against!

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#174

Post by XorNot »

dragontamer wrote: post #8
higherpurpose wrote: post #4

First off, they should've expected that reaction if they sold to anyone , because: #1 it was too early, and they still had a lot of investment money #2 they've implied many times that they wouldn't sell. I don't remember if they said it directly, but they certainly made it seem that way #3 they basically decided to sell the company "overnight". That took everyone by surprise, and it made the move extremely suspicious…

They are in a bad position overall however. Sony Morpheous looks like it has taken all the good ideas from Oculus. And with Oculus selling out to Facebook, the "indie" community may not be as supportive of the platform.

Sony bastion of not corporatism is the funniest thing that keeps getting repeated all over about this.

Yeah, Sony, of memory stick, mini-disc etc. fame won't create a locked in platform. Really?

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#175

Post by charlieflowers »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #136
bane wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard for many to see anything under the umbrella of Facebook doing a service to gaming -- look at the direction social gaming has taken us. Yes, look at social gaming. At least inside the retrogaming communities, people who take a very long view of gaming, social gaming is not well loved. It's seen as a shackle not a new experience by and large. Even among new games, Skyrim and GTA V are hugely popular even th…

> But to be honest, if somebody waived $2b in my face I'd take it and skip off to a comfortable retirement in Malta without giving two shits about the community that supported it in the beginning. Would you? Really? It is my understanding the Oculus folks were working on that partly for fun, partly because they have a purpose (the purpose being "VR gaming would be soo cool!"). Their idea of a "comfortable retirement"…

Weird. When I ask myself this question (as I do often), I don't usually get such a strong answer from myself. But my self just said, "I would work on VR." Fascinating.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#176

Post by pekk »

bane wrote: post #62
jader201 wrote: post #9

> Beyond our core community, we expected it would be positive. > If you actually understand [Facebook’s] vision of letting us be who we’re going to be, just like they wanted to let Instagram be who they are. The reason people don't get this -- or at least, why I don't get it -- and thus responded negatively, is because VR should have nothing to do with Facebook's vision, and Facebook -- or social gaming in general --…

> It's hard for many to see anything under the umbrella of Facebook doing a service to gaming -- look at the direction social gaming has taken us. Yes, look at social gaming. At least inside the retrogaming communities, people who take a very long view of gaming, social gaming is not well loved. It's seen as a shackle not a new experience by and large. Even among new games, Skyrim and GTA V are hugely popular even th…

"social gaming" (as in what Facebook fostered) really means something different from good old "multiplayer gaming". It means the application of "social" as a buzzword and business model (meaning to intentionally exploit network effects) to games, like spamming people's facebook walls against their will, giving in-game benefits for spamming the game to other people, etc.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#177

Post by tawayE324d1 »

XorNot wrote: post #172
tawayE324d1 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me take your imagination to a (short) trip: You can build a pretty decent psychological profile from a 30-50h game-play(even less if you design your game with this type of user-data in mind); this alone has HUGE implications(and possible use-cases) I won't go into.. If you combine the data from ALL VR EXPERIENCES through facebooks rift(and let me stress this again - we're talking about most of today's entertainme…

Let me take you on a short reality check: if this is so effective, then why wasn't Facebook buying game companies, Second Life clones, etc?

Why should they? Is FB a movie studio, or a game or hw development company? This was an opportunity to hijack a platform in its infancy and fb took it - so, in short - they just bought a whole new platform here(you seem to underestimate the significance, extent and potential of this technology). That is a whole different story. If the HW is a hit(and I bet it will be) - we're talking about a door to the (updated) world of entertainment; they can make a LOT of money by just being the (creepy, spying) doorman.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#178

Post by nightski »

rfrey wrote: post #163
nightski wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow I am sorry that you enjoy your life's work so little. Maybe you should do something about that? I couldn't imagine a life where I was not stoked to do what I do every day.

Wow, I am sorry that your interests are so narrow. Maybe you should do something about that? I couldn't imagine a life where there was only one thing available that would fulfill me.

Who said my interests were narrow? I enjoy a multitude of hobbies including hiking, biking, homebrewing, reading, cooking/grilling, etc... I just said that it is a shame you do not enjoy your daily work (i.e. the grind as you call it).

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#179

Post by nightski »

mikeash wrote: post #168
nightski wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow I am sorry that you enjoy your life's work so little. Maybe you should do something about that? I couldn't imagine a life where I was not stoked to do what I do every day.

I'd rather be stoked to do what I do every day and have $2 billion in the bank than be stoked but not have a massive pile of cash. It's not as if there's only one thing in life that I could possibly enjoy.

A strawman. I never stated this. Merely was stating that if you consider your daily profession a "grind" it might not be the one for you.

Re: Oculus Says They Didn't Expect Such Negative Reactions to Selling to Facebook

#180

Post by grkvlt »

DerpDerpDerp wrote: post #153
bane wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because, like me, we've all just written off the OVR and are looking elsewhere. $2b means this is a non-reversible path that fighting against will go nowhere. As exciting as Carmack and Abrash appear, neither of them have been at the forefront of 3D work in the last decade or so and have a monopoly on good 3d tech.

I'm not even angry. I'm just not going to buy a VR device with a Facebook connection, Facebook being involved in platform management, etc. I might consider it if it were an unlocked piece of hardware, but I suspect that's so unlikely, I don't actually need to make up my mind about that possibility. I've also had a couple friends cancel projects they were planning for the Oculus platform, because they're no longer sur…

> I've also had a couple friends cancel projects they were planning for the Oculus platform

This sort of reaction is such an embarrassing load of nonsense. People have cancelled some nebulous 'projects' that they might have carried out?

To be honest, the whole 'anger' thing seems like a bunch of gamers and similar people are just upset that all the 'normal' people might get to experience VR technology at the same time as them, and they won't get to be elitist 'early adopters' with the latest kit. Upset because the arcane knowledge that they possess is no longer the passport to an elite club; membership is now open to anyone who wants to use the latest tools and toys. Isn't that what we want? To democratise technology, so that anyone and everyone can have the benefits. No more requirements to understand programming languages, 3D APIs and mathematics, or to study obscure topics to get access to this hardware.

If Facebook can deliver VR hardware to the man in the street, brilliant! They managed to do it for interacting on a computer already.

Post reply on HN