What will Facebook do with Oculus?

[trey31]

Facebook is acquiring Oculus. The deal is for $400M cash, $1.6B in stock, and possibly an additional $300M in incentives for achieving milestones.

Facebook does not yet have a business model for Oculus, but revenues won’t center around selling Oculus Rift headsets.

Zuckerberg said he could envision people visiting virtual worlds where they can buy goods and are served advertisements.

After reading several different discussions elsewhere, it seems people are primarily concerned with Facebook getting too involved with trying to develop the hardware themselves (which most likely won't happen), develop full games themselves (also won't happen unless they're browser based and cheap), or sending the original development team packing (this might happen after its released, but not beforehand).

The dev team probably won't stay intact long (which is common with acquisitions), but it won't be because they're sent packing, it will be because they can't stand watching what Victor Luckerson reported on; there is currently no business model other than "visit virtual worlds where they can buy goods and are served advertisements." I wouldn't blame them either. If that's the business model, I'm staying far away from it.

“Oculus has the potential to be the most social platform ever”

“Imagine sharing not just moments with your friends online, but entire experiences and adventures”

"Mobile is the platform of today, and now we're also getting ready for the platforms of tomorrow"

"Oculus has the chance to create the most social platform ever, and change the way we work, play and communicate."

"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"

Is it just me or does it seem like Mark thinks he just bought Google Glass?

I don't mean to sound bitter like one of the guys who helped kickstart Oculus with $25 and thinks they should have a seat on the board. I wasn't a fan of Virtual Boy and I never paid much attention to this. But if anything Zuckerberg has been saying is what he plans to do with the tech, then I don't see how this is even remotely good for the gaming industry.

Sony also recently announced similar technology, and Valve has been showing off their own VR headsets.

Sony's setup is tethered to outdated hardware. You need a pretty beefy GPU to do proper VR, and the Radeon 7850 in the PS4 is pretty low end tech today.

The PS4 would need to significantly scale back the visuals to run it (1080p, 75hertz, low persistence and 95fps bare minimum, the PS4 struggles to hit 1080p 30fps with current gen games)....

Valve is also making their own VR headset, which they will always be a gaming first company.

As far as Sony's, it will be far less capable than Oculus or Valve's by default, for similar reasons to what the above blog commenter stated. Also Sony stated in their financial outlook they intend to market PS4 for a full 10 year life cycle. So that in general is just going to be bad for video games, considering most PC games are cross-platform and the PS4 is already several steps behind current high-end hardware.

In regards to Valve's VR project, I remember reading that they have no intention of selling them, they only started the project for developing, which they could've done by spending $300 x 100 Oculus dev units. Also they are apparently more advanced. I hate to post a link to another forum but there is a description of a first-look here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=776513. If they really have no interest in selling them, why spend so much developing them? Doesn't sound like this is the reality of the situation, especially since Oculus turned down an offer from Valve to "help" them with theirs.

Maybe Valve should reconsider their "not interested in selling them" approach? But in reality I'm sure the Steam Controller and SteamOS have absolutely nothing to do with a Steam VR helmet intended for use in a living room...

[Chief Blur Buster]

I hate to post a link to another forum

Just so you know -- Around Blur Busters, there's no ban on linking to other forums -- especially when they benefit the discussion!

P.S. We're about to create a new Offtopic forum (tentatively humourously titled "UFO Abduction Lounge"). This will help separate the general computer monitor discussion from the other topic subjects.

[trey31]

I hate to post a link to another forum

Just so you know -- Around Blur Busters, there's no ban on linking to other forums -- especially when they benefit the discussion!

And yet another reason Blur Busters is my new favorite nerd/geek/gamer forum! I quit frequenting 2 other forums not long ago because several people were banned for stuff that I thought was just laughable, and I think that's stupid. Especially when they were major contributors to relevant discussions.

"For more details, you can go see test results over here on another site -link- if you're interested" followed shortly by "You sir are BANNED FOR LIFE! And we hope you rot in hell."

P.S. We're about to create a new Offtopic forum (tentatively humourously titled "UFO Abduction Lounge"). This will help separate the general computer monitor discussion from the other topic subjects.

Awesome. I was actually wanting to start a "graphic settings for specific games" type thread and I didn't really know if/where I should start one.

[Arbaal]

The sh*tstorm over at reddit and other forums where totally overblown, since people projected their own unspecific fears about Facebook onto this acquisition. This is mostly because nearly nobody understood what Facebook could possibly want from OculusVR or VR in general. But it's quiet funny, because Zuckerberg himself told clearly what he sees in OculusVR: THE next medium to communicate with.

This is very important to understand. Facebook is gambling on something, that is right now a long way into the future. They think that OculusVR has the keys to open a new medium to explore, which people will use to communicate and share information and Facebook wants to play a very big role in this. You also have to understand: Facebook is not just Facebook.com. Facebook.com will sooner or later wither and will be forgotten, so if Facebook wants to success in the future, they need to evolve into something else. They think that VR is the right way to do so.

They won't interfere with Oculus in the short run (3-5 year) and since right now, there is absolutely no way for them to generate money with their current business model. They can't release an ad-driven OculusVR experience, since there is literally no market for this yet. OculusVR has no customer base and they need to build those first, until Facebook can even think to build a social platform.

They just invested 2B+ dollar, they won't annihilate a possible success by doing a walled garden or ad-driven approach, because such a device would be right now DOA. They won't do that, because they want OculusVR to succeed.

Why is this a good thing for VR and gaming? First of all: VR is now in the minds of many more people and is a viable business opportunity for many more companies and start-ups. Oculus can also now build custom parts (like a custom OLED) which wasn't possible before. They can also sell their headset at a much lower price, since Facebook as no interest to get money out of hardware sales either, which in return puts pressure off their shoulders.

People also have to consider this: This was not a hostile takeover. This was a friendly acquisition that the Oculus team approved. Sure, the money was important for some parts of Oculus (like the VC that supported Oculus before), but you also have to give John and Palmer the credits, that they actually BELIEVE what they are doing and they would never just sell their vision and dream.

If you think that those two people would simply sell out, then you're pretty naive and pessimistic.

[TheRulesLawyer]

My immediate prediction is something like steam, but for VR apps. They own the hardware. Easy enough to make it a walled garden and take the typical 30% cut that such distribution entails.

[RealNC]

I foresee "stereo", ulta wide FOV webcams for Rift.

But in general, I can't imagine a VR headset succeeding. Even before it was bought by FB. People can't be arsed to even buy headphones because of the hassle. The only VR set that would succeed would need two things: it's so small and comfortable that you don't even notice you're wearing one, and no cables. The "no cables" part sounds quite impossible for a low-latency VR set.

[SS4]

I just hope they don't ruin it like google did so well with youtube . . . .
But yeah, lets stay positive.

[trey31]

My immediate prediction is something like steam, but for VR apps. They own the hardware. Easy enough to make it a walled garden and take the typical 30% cut that such distribution entails.

But if Steam has their own VR which reportedly has advancements over Oculus, I see a couple issues for Facebook:

a) Steam already has a vastly superior ability to reach potential game consumers who actually have the prerequisite hardware to run VR games/applications than Facebook, considering most Facebook users now interact with Facebook via phones and tablets.

b) Oculus is not a stand alone platform, it is still a peripheral device/display. For any large portions of Facebook users to use it anytime in the near future, it will need a way to interact with phones and tablets or include its own OS.

c) The chicken and the egg scenario. Until a consumer version is available for wide distribution, which would have to be supported by a large media ad campaign, there will be no apps that consumers will buy that Facebook can take a cut on.

d) Cross-platform competition from Sony, Steam, possibly Google (if they are lightweight phone/tablet apps), and most assuredly Microsoft if the initial offering from someone else shows commercial success or significant potential (see Zune, Surface, Windows Phone, Windows Store, etc.)

I foresee "stereo", ulta wide FOV webcams for Rift.

But in general, I can't imagine a VR headset succeeding. Even before it was bought by FB. People can't be arsed to even buy headphones because of the hassle. The only VR set that would succeed would need two things: it's so small and comfortable that you don't even notice you're wearing one, and no cables. The "no cables" part sounds quite impossible for a low-latency VR set.

Sony will be facing the same issue you describe with their Eye, as they chose not to bundle the camera that Microsoft insisted consumers would require fully at some point. Some financial analysts have insisted this was a better move for Microsoft in the long run, despite fewer sales and the higher price point, because there is a built-in potential for more Kinect related sales in the future due to One users already having the required hardware and Sony users needing to purchase both the Eye at $60 and whatever game they're wanting to use it for at another $60.

In regards to the other part of your post, I actually can see both Rift and Zuckerberg's vision succeeding, but not in its current form. If Facebook allows the Rift to do exactly what it was planned to do, which is release a game peripheral/display device for the gaming market that does not require ad-based revenue, and then use the technology from Rift's development to engineer a separate device that is similar to Google Glass but includes all of the lightweight functions Rift can offer then they could be successful with both. I know I may get pitchforked for this, but in the long-term using the $2B tech in a completely different type of device that is much more similar to Google Glass is the better endeavor for Facebook. My reasoning is that Oculus as a tech company was probably worth something in the ballpark of what Facebook paid, but Rift itself as a consumer device alone, was not. Unless anyone thinks it could have sold more units than Xbox One and PS4 combined to date at the speculated retail price of "significantly less than the $300 Dev kit cost."

I just hope they don't ruin it like google did so well with youtube . . . .
But yeah, lets stay positive.

I'm not personally interested in it until I can put one on my head in a brick and mortar big box store for long enough to test drive it and see if it gives me a headache after 30+ minutes. And even then I still won't be sure how it will affect me after a 2-3 hour gaming session, let alone a 5-8 hour marathon I sometimes get sucked into.

But if it gets rolled out too early like ESPN/DirecTV did with their 3D channels (not enough TV sets to support either at the time of launch; plus ESPN refused to run ads from ESPN1/ESPN2 programs in 2D on their 3D broadcasts, instead choosing to "hold-out" for additional 3D ad revenue for content that was essentially the same except for being filmed with two lenses instead of one) or like Samsung/Sony/Panasonic/etc did by releasing awful "active" 3D TVs in 2010 with terrible ghosting and lens synchronization issues (I've seen active since 2012 that is fantastic, but in 2010 there was no such thing as a good 3D TV) then it won't go anywhere fast.

On the flip side of this, it seems to me that by not releasing it a while back when they very well could have, that the original Oculus team had a very specific plan of action to not rush it. Time will tell whether or not Facebook allows them to stick to their original development and release strategy. Don't forget, though, how long Facebook generated no revenues of any kind and was in a sort of "beta" test state while everyone else (in the financial sector) declared MySpace the winner because it had begun monetizing itself early on. Mark Zuckerberg is not stupid. But, if he tries to merge his vision of the technology of the near-future with the current existence of the gaming peripheral that is Oculus Rift...?

[trey31]

The sh*tstorm over at reddit and other forums where totally overblown, since people projected their own unspecific fears about Facebook onto this acquisition. This is mostly because nearly nobody understood what Facebook could possibly want from OculusVR or VR in general. But it's quiet funny, because Zuckerberg himself told clearly what he sees in OculusVR: THE next medium to communicate with.

Actually if Zuckerberg's plan is to let the Rift be the Rift, while using the tech from it on a separate project similar to Google Glass, then he should say that. What he has said thus far is somewhat vague and very, very different than what Oculus Rift was a couple weeks ago. As it stands the sh!tstorm on Reddit is based in part on Zuckerberg's lack of clarity which is reasonable given the circumstances of what he has said, and not said, thus far. The other part of the sh!tstorm is the guys who gave $25, or meant to give $25 but never got around to it, during Oculus' Kickstarter campaign. Those guys getting mad simply because another company acquired Oculus is a whole level of dumb beyond my comprehension.

This is very important to understand. Facebook is gambling on something, that is right now a long way into the future. They think that OculusVR has the keys to open a new medium to explore, which people will use to communicate and share information and Facebook wants to play a very big role in this. You also have to understand: Facebook is not just Facebook.com. Facebook.com will sooner or later wither and will be forgotten, so if Facebook wants to success in the future, they need to evolve into something else. They think that VR is the right way to do so.

If you mean something entirely different than the Rift in its current form, but based on its VR technology, then I agree with your assessment and that outlook in general, be it Facebook or Google or Microsoft (once they enter the market space) or someone else.

If you mean all of the above on the Rift itself, which completely immerses the user and cuts off all visual stimuli from the outside world while the Facebook user is engaged with it, then that just sounds crazy to me. I can't fathom using Facebook, or anything currently available through Facebook, with a VR headset that blocks off all visual stimuli from the outside world while I am at my desk working, in a meeting, on a bus or tram, waiting in the dentist's office, in the passenger seat of a car, etc.

This is why Mark (EDIT: Mark Zuckerberg and/or Facebook's PR Department) should be less vague and clarify, at least to some extent, what he (EDIT: himself and/or Facebook's Board of Directors) envisions for VR and Facebook.

They won't interfere with Oculus in the short run (3-5 year) and since right now, there is absolutely no way for them to generate money with their current business model. They can't release an ad-driven OculusVR experience, since there is literally no market for this yet. OculusVR has no customer base and they need to build those first, until Facebook can even think to build a social platform.

They just invested 2B+ dollar, they won't annihilate a possible success by doing a walled garden or ad-driven approach, because such a device would be right now DOA. They won't do that, because they want OculusVR to succeed.

If they do follow through with any of what Zuckerberg has said thus far, and do it on the Rift platform, then the Rift device is DOA.

I don't think that will be the case, but imagine what it would be like if they did. Again, that is a major cause of part of the backlash on Reddit and elsewhere.

Why is this a good thing for VR and gaming? First of all: VR is now in the minds of many more people and is a viable business opportunity for many more companies and start-ups. Oculus can also now build custom parts (like a custom OLED) which wasn't possible before. They can also sell their headset at a much lower price, since Facebook as no interest to get money out of hardware sales either, which in return puts pressure off their shoulders.

People also have to consider this: This was not a hostile takeover. This was a friendly acquisition that the Oculus team approved. Sure, the money was important for some parts of Oculus (like the VC that supported Oculus before), but you also have to give John and Palmer the credits, that they actually BELIEVE what they are doing and they would never just sell their vision and dream.

If you think that those two people would simply sell out, then you're pretty naive and pessimistic.

All of what you mention is a valid reason for Oculus to want to do the deal. It makes a lot more sense for them to do the deal than it would to ignore it... as long as Facebook plans to use the tech, and not the current form of the hardware itself, to carry out its vision.

[Chief Blur Buster]

This is why Mark should be less vague and clarify, at least to some extent, what he envisions for VR and Facebook.

Myself, of Blur Busters, I generally try to avoid the political hot buttons (e.g. pro/anti Facebook, Mac versus PC debate, etc) -- the Blur Busters audience is a diverse array of people who have widely varying opinions! People who post strong pro opinions can get fire from the anti people, and people who post strong anti opinions can get fire from the pro people. Right now, the Facebook opinions has been somewhat of a powderkeg lately (a literal barrel of gunpowder with a "Like" button on it), as many of us has noticed. I respect my audience here on Blur Busters, who can go ahead and discuss opinions...

That said, purely focussing on the technology aspects, I'm quite excited about DK2 and beyond, since it's a hugely dramatic movement closer to the "Holodeck Experience". We are still a long way to go for unencumbered environments, but even just DK2 is arguably a revolutionary step in consumer VR due to the higher resolution and low persistence, vastly improving the "immersed" feeling!

Disclaimer: I'm a BlackBerry thumb touchtypist who also has an Android phone and an iPad Mini Retina LTE. How's that for platform politics?