Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Particularly the final link also does a great job of explaining why VR is so different to 3D for someone who hasn't tried a rift, particularly this except
“The first demo stuck me in a simple room, whose walls were textured with financial data for Facebook from some website. An odd choice, yeah. There was a little red cube bouncing around the room, and the desire to avoid it was *extremely strong*
Another demo saw Feep standing on a high ledge that led to a sheer drop. He claimed that the simulation made him reluctant to step off the side....scale is *extremely impressive* in VR, and apparently several people actually instinctively tried to get out their phones and take a picture.
Particularly the final link also does a great job of explaining why VR is so different to 3D for someone who hasn't tried a rift, particularly this except
“The first demo stuck me in a simple room, whose walls were textured with financial data for Facebook from some website. An odd choice, yeah. There was a little red cube bouncing around the room, and the desire to avoid it was *extremely strong*
Another demo saw Feep standing on a high ledge that led to a sheer drop. He claimed that the simulation made him reluctant to step off the side....scale is *extremely impressive* in VR, and apparently several people actually instinctively tried to get out their phones and take a picture.
Man I'm really psyched for getting a Dev Kit 2. I have a large basement, so it'll be interesting to see how far the position tracking can stretch.
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I guarantee people are gonna hack into the drivers once CV1 is released looking for stuff that's uploading data. I'm not too worried about it.
There aren't any drivers, it's plug and play the same as your monitor is.
Source - I have a Devkit1, and the Devkit2 is the same.
If it's plug and play, why is anyone worried about data mining?
Because people are fundamentally irrational? :P
No it's because what people have are devkits and it would make sense for the hardware to change now. Facebook have no interest in getting into the monitor market whereas that's all Oculus wanted to make. There's nothing to say that DevKit 2 will be anywhere near the consumer version because things have changed now - we have a lot of new investment and a new owner with their own ambitions for the product. We don't know when the consumer version is going to come out (the idea that it'd be out later this year was put out there before this all happened, I see no reason it couldn't be pushed back) and now Oculus have much less reason for putting it out early. In fact they're probably better off waiting and making sure it is as feature-complete as possible so it stacks up well against Morpheus.
I think it's irrational to suggest that devkits - designed entirely before this acquisition - being plug n play is a clear indication that the final unannounced consumer release will be that too.
Has any gotten hands on with the Virtuix Omni? I'm really tempted to pre-order one since I have an Oculus Dev Kit 2 on order and it looks like they'll arrive around the same time, but the Omni seems like a much bigger gamble then the Oculus at this point.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
I guarantee people are gonna hack into the drivers once CV1 is released looking for stuff that's uploading data. I'm not too worried about it.
There aren't any drivers, it's plug and play the same as your monitor is.
Source - I have a Devkit1, and the Devkit2 is the same.
If it's plug and play, why is anyone worried about data mining?
That's a very good question. Mostly they either
a) Have no idea how the Oculus Rift works
b) have no idea how hardware development works and think that the current Oculus could be changed in anything less than years to become a datamining machine
c) Are worried about how the hardware might be changed in several years to come, after the first Oculus Rift is out the door and Facebook starts planning the second SpyRift
Dhalphir on
+1
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Has any gotten hands on with the Virtuix Omni? I'm really tempted to pre-order one since I have an Oculus Dev Kit 2 on order and it looks like they'll arrive around the same time, but the Omni seems like a much bigger gamble then the Oculus at this point.
I know that @TheSonicRetard has been in close contact with the Omni, but he's banned so I'm not sure how he'd contact you.
I guarantee people are gonna hack into the drivers once CV1 is released looking for stuff that's uploading data. I'm not too worried about it.
There aren't any drivers, it's plug and play the same as your monitor is.
Source - I have a Devkit1, and the Devkit2 is the same.
If it's plug and play, why is anyone worried about data mining?
That's a very good question. Mostly they either
a) Have no idea how the Oculus Rift works
b) have no idea how hardware development works and think that the current Oculus could be changed in anything less than years to become a datamining machine
c) Are worried about how the hardware might be changed in several years to come, after the first Oculus Rift is out the door and Facebook starts planning the second SpyRift
Facebook is clearly going to use it as a delivery platform for transcranial magnetic mind control. When you look at a Facebook-advertised product, coils in the headset and straps will stimulate the pleasure centres of your brain.
...
You know hilariously, this is something you could conceivably try to do, given what the OR is, but you know, the idea that someone would is insane.
I guarantee people are gonna hack into the drivers once CV1 is released looking for stuff that's uploading data. I'm not too worried about it.
There aren't any drivers, it's plug and play the same as your monitor is.
Source - I have a Devkit1, and the Devkit2 is the same.
If it's plug and play, why is anyone worried about data mining?
Because people are fundamentally irrational? :P
No it's because what people have are devkits and it would make sense for the hardware to change now. Facebook have no interest in getting into the monitor market whereas that's all Oculus wanted to make. There's nothing to say that DevKit 2 will be anywhere near the consumer version because things have changed now - we have a lot of new investment and a new owner with their own ambitions for the product. We don't know when the consumer version is going to come out (the idea that it'd be out later this year was put out there before this all happened, I see no reason it couldn't be pushed back) and now Oculus have much less reason for putting it out early. In fact they're probably better off waiting and making sure it is as feature-complete as possible so it stacks up well against Morpheus.
I think it's irrational to suggest that devkits - designed entirely before this acquisition - being plug n play is a clear indication that the final unannounced consumer release will be that too.
One could just as easily argue that Zuckerberg legitimately believes that VR is the next evolution in home entertainment and this is all about getting in on the ground floor of that and not about data mining at all. In fact one might even argue that is a far more plausible motivation given that facebook purchased what is essentially a new-fangled monitor manufacturer instead of a company that has anything at all to do with data mining.
I mean sure it leaves out the conspiracy theory angle but I'm not sure that's a problem.
I guarantee people are gonna hack into the drivers once CV1 is released looking for stuff that's uploading data. I'm not too worried about it.
There aren't any drivers, it's plug and play the same as your monitor is.
Source - I have a Devkit1, and the Devkit2 is the same.
If it's plug and play, why is anyone worried about data mining?
Because people are fundamentally irrational? :P
No it's because what people have are devkits and it would make sense for the hardware to change now. Facebook have no interest in getting into the monitor market whereas that's all Oculus wanted to make. There's nothing to say that DevKit 2 will be anywhere near the consumer version because things have changed now - we have a lot of new investment and a new owner with their own ambitions for the product. We don't know when the consumer version is going to come out (the idea that it'd be out later this year was put out there before this all happened, I see no reason it couldn't be pushed back) and now Oculus have much less reason for putting it out early. In fact they're probably better off waiting and making sure it is as feature-complete as possible so it stacks up well against Morpheus.
I think it's irrational to suggest that devkits - designed entirely before this acquisition - being plug n play is a clear indication that the final unannounced consumer release will be that too.
One could just as easily argue that Zuckerberg legitimately believes that VR is the next evolution in home entertainment and this is all about getting in on the ground floor of that and not about data mining at all. In fact one might even argue that is a far more plausible motivation given that facebook purchased what is essentially a new-fangled monitor manufacturer instead of a company that has anything at all to do with data mining.
I mean sure it leaves out the conspiracy theory angle but I'm not sure that's a problem.
Facebook wanting to get more information about people is hardly a "conspiracy theory".
I guarantee people are gonna hack into the drivers once CV1 is released looking for stuff that's uploading data. I'm not too worried about it.
There aren't any drivers, it's plug and play the same as your monitor is.
Source - I have a Devkit1, and the Devkit2 is the same.
If it's plug and play, why is anyone worried about data mining?
Because people are fundamentally irrational? :P
No it's because what people have are devkits and it would make sense for the hardware to change now. Facebook have no interest in getting into the monitor market whereas that's all Oculus wanted to make. There's nothing to say that DevKit 2 will be anywhere near the consumer version because things have changed now - we have a lot of new investment and a new owner with their own ambitions for the product. We don't know when the consumer version is going to come out (the idea that it'd be out later this year was put out there before this all happened, I see no reason it couldn't be pushed back) and now Oculus have much less reason for putting it out early. In fact they're probably better off waiting and making sure it is as feature-complete as possible so it stacks up well against Morpheus.
I think it's irrational to suggest that devkits - designed entirely before this acquisition - being plug n play is a clear indication that the final unannounced consumer release will be that too.
One could just as easily argue that Zuckerberg legitimately believes that VR is the next evolution in home entertainment and this is all about getting in on the ground floor of that and not about data mining at all. In fact one might even argue that is a far more plausible motivation given that facebook purchased what is essentially a new-fangled monitor manufacturer instead of a company that has anything at all to do with data mining.
I mean sure it leaves out the conspiracy theory angle but I'm not sure that's a problem.
Facebook wanting to get more information about people is hardly a "conspiracy theory".
I disagree. It is when it comes to facebook purchasing a company that has quite literally nothing at all to do with data management or collection. It strikes me as a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction.
When facebook starts shoehorning that into what currently amounts to nothing more than a fancy new display? By all means go nuts.
Just to make it clear I really don't think Facebook are going to be using the Rift for datamining. People had the same worries about Kinect and I thought that was stupid too. IF they are doing it they're not going to get anything particularly interesting and people will find out that they're doing it pretty quickly.
I just don't think it will stay as a plug n play device - I think it will become a service that Facebook have some control over. It will go from being something you can make any game work with to something with licensed games only on some kind of controlled marketplace where the games have to live up to some kind of standards set by Facebook.
I guarantee people are gonna hack into the drivers once CV1 is released looking for stuff that's uploading data. I'm not too worried about it.
There aren't any drivers, it's plug and play the same as your monitor is.
Source - I have a Devkit1, and the Devkit2 is the same.
If it's plug and play, why is anyone worried about data mining?
Because people are fundamentally irrational? :P
No it's because what people have are devkits and it would make sense for the hardware to change now. Facebook have no interest in getting into the monitor market whereas that's all Oculus wanted to make. There's nothing to say that DevKit 2 will be anywhere near the consumer version because things have changed now - we have a lot of new investment and a new owner with their own ambitions for the product. We don't know when the consumer version is going to come out (the idea that it'd be out later this year was put out there before this all happened, I see no reason it couldn't be pushed back) and now Oculus have much less reason for putting it out early. In fact they're probably better off waiting and making sure it is as feature-complete as possible so it stacks up well against Morpheus.
I think it's irrational to suggest that devkits - designed entirely before this acquisition - being plug n play is a clear indication that the final unannounced consumer release will be that too.
One could just as easily argue that Zuckerberg legitimately believes that VR is the next evolution in home entertainment and this is all about getting in on the ground floor of that and not about data mining at all. In fact one might even argue that is a far more plausible motivation given that facebook purchased what is essentially a new-fangled monitor manufacturer instead of a company that has anything at all to do with data mining.
I mean sure it leaves out the conspiracy theory angle but I'm not sure that's a problem.
Facebook wanting to get more information about people is hardly a "conspiracy theory".
Step 2, where they somehow turn VR goggles into datamining hardware, is where the conspiracy theory comes in. Like if Google Fiber was designed to put AdWords on everything going through your Internet connection.
Just to make it clear I really don't think Facebook are going to be using the Rift for datamining. People had the same worries about Kinect and I thought that was stupid too. IF they are doing it they're not going to get anything particularly interesting and people will find out that they're doing it pretty quickly.
I just don't think it will stay as a plug n play device - I think it will become a service that Facebook have some control over. It will go from being something you can make any game work with to something with licensed games only on some kind of controlled marketplace where the games have to live up to some kind of standards set by Facebook.
That sounds like way more work and much less profit than just selling the device. Maybe if it were EA or Activision instead of Facebook, but honestly the datamining conspiracy sounds more plausible than this. It would be very nearly certain to fail, and there's no reason to think Zuckerberg and everyone else at Facebook is too stupid to see that. They see a future where holding the keys to a niche product with an iron fist is the key to breaking into the video game market?
Honestly, if I had a company with a ton of cash, I'd have made an offer to buy or fund Oculus, and it wouldn't matter if I was selling bouillon, rocket parts or kitty litter.
But if I were Facebook, I do kind of know what I would do with it. I'd make one really, really good game/app for it that everything could connect into. Something like Minecraft and Second Life where you get to build your own home and fill it with virtual furniture and pets, everything to make a virtual home instead of just a page or a timeline. And from there you'd be able to plug in a movie theater, books from your Kindle library, a Steam achievement and badge trophy case. You could give people tools to make cooking and painting classes, or create museums for cars, WW2 planes or Transformers.
But because I'd actually want this vision to succeed and I'm not goddamned Emperor Palpatine, I'd try my best to encourage the Rift to take off, too, which means getting gamers on board, which in turn means not locking it behind some idiot marketplace, not building in some bizarre datamining OS, and generally not doing anything pants-on-head stupid.
How much over the life of say an Xbox 360 profit do they earn selling xbox 360 and accessories and licensing etc?
I mean - 2 billion dollars revenue is what Facebook thinks this technology will bring. Think about that. They think it will earn 2 BILLION dollars THEN they will start "making money".
That is very surreal when you look at the industry thread here where people were saying "it will be niche and it will never catch on"
Yeah but they paid $1billion for Instagram and that doesn't make a penny as far as I understand?
I find the fear of datamining via Oculus Rift rather exaggerated, mainly because it overestimates the OR's audience. You don't reach the number of people that Facebook would want to reach through a peripheral that is likely to cost a few hundred dollars, requires hefty hardware on the user side and needs companies to develop for it specifically; you reach them through a web service that a) is free, b) is available to (nearly) everyone, c) is easy to use. The notion that Facebook needs the Rift to find out more when it's got, well, Facebook to do so is rather outlandish.
Just to make it clear I really don't think Facebook are going to be using the Rift for datamining. People had the same worries about Kinect and I thought that was stupid too. IF they are doing it they're not going to get anything particularly interesting and people will find out that they're doing it pretty quickly.
I just don't think it will stay as a plug n play device - I think it will become a service that Facebook have some control over. It will go from being something you can make any game work with to something with licensed games only on some kind of controlled marketplace where the games have to live up to some kind of standards set by Facebook.
That sounds like way more work and much less profit than just selling the device. Maybe if it were EA or Activision instead of Facebook, but honestly the datamining conspiracy sounds more plausible than this. It would be very nearly certain to fail, and there's no reason to think Zuckerberg and everyone else at Facebook is too stupid to see that. They see a future where holding the keys to a niche product with an iron fist is the key to breaking into the video game market?
Honestly, if I had a company with a ton of cash, I'd have made an offer to buy or fund Oculus, and it wouldn't matter if I was selling bouillon, rocket parts or kitty litter.
But if I were Facebook, I do kind of know what I would do with it. I'd make one really, really good game/app for it that everything could connect into. Something like Minecraft and Second Life where you get to build your own home and fill it with virtual furniture and pets, everything to make a virtual home instead of just a page or a timeline. And from there you'd be able to plug in a movie theater, books from your Kindle library, a Steam achievement and badge trophy case. You could give people tools to make cooking and painting classes, or create museums for cars, WW2 planes or Transformers.
But because I'd actually want this vision to succeed and I'm not goddamned Emperor Palpatine, I'd try my best to encourage the Rift to take off, too, which means getting gamers on board, which in turn means not locking it behind some idiot marketplace, not building in some bizarre datamining OS, and generally not doing anything pants-on-head stupid.
While I agree that'd be nice you seem to be forget that there's very few people who care about all of that stuff. Look at the mobile market, it's repulsive to most gamers and people who follow this kind of stuff but it's also incredibly profitable and successful.
A future where holding the keys to a niche product with an iron fist seems exactly what Apple did and made a lot of money in the process - that seems like a lucrative market. Selling the hardware isn't going to make them a fortune - even Sony are struggling to make money with displays at the moment, people want more affordable products but manufacturing costs are still fairly high so the margins on hardware are tiny. Instead the money is with services or advertising.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Yeah that's another notch against the "but teh dataminingz!" nonsense
Why would facebook need to take your information with a VR headset when they already have facebook, into which millions and millions of people willingly pour information
Fears of 'data mining' aside, one thing that's irking me is that if I do actually buy an Oculus Rift come release then I'll be directly giving money to facebook. Which leaves a bad taste in my mouth akin to the distilled faecal outpouring of the entirety of Texas after annual chilli making day (which if it isn't a thing, damn well needs to be).
For this reason alone, my "OH GOD GIVE IT TO ME DAY ONE" has at least moved down a few notches to "Hmmm, how much did you say that thing cost again?".
Fears of 'data mining' aside, one thing that's irking me is that if I do actually buy an Oculus Rift come release then I'll be directly giving money to facebook. Which leaves a bad taste in my mouth akin to the distilled faecal outpouring of the entirety of Texas after annual chilli making day (which if it isn't a thing, damn well needs to be).
For this reason alone, my "OH GOD GIVE IT TO ME DAY ONE" has at least moved down a few notches to "Hmmm, how much did you say that thing cost again?".
Why?
Seriously, you're talking like Facebook murders people in foreign countries, promotes bigoted agendas locally, or lies to African mothers about important health information.
It's a god damn social network. And, frankly, the whole "giving money to Facebook" thing - you realize that the benefit of directly paying for things is you no longer ARE the product they're selling right? Like, you are paying them for a thing and the transaction is completed. Not needing to be carefully studied to work out how to get you to maybe click on an ad.
I just don't think it will stay as a plug n play device - I think it will become a service that Facebook have some control over. It will go from being something you can make any game work with to something with licensed games only on some kind of controlled marketplace where the games have to live up to some kind of standards set by Facebook.
This probably seems more likely. If you want to release a game on any of the big consoles, you have to pay licensing to Sony / MS / Nintendo, etc? And they receive royalties? Is that how it works or has it changed now with the embracing of Indies?
Fears of 'data mining' aside, one thing that's irking me is that if I do actually buy an Oculus Rift come release then I'll be directly giving money to facebook. Which leaves a bad taste in my mouth akin to the distilled faecal outpouring of the entirety of Texas after annual chilli making day (which if it isn't a thing, damn well needs to be).
For this reason alone, my "OH GOD GIVE IT TO ME DAY ONE" has at least moved down a few notches to "Hmmm, how much did you say that thing cost again?".
Why?
Seriously, you're talking like Facebook murders people in foreign countries, promotes bigoted agendas locally, or lies to African mothers about important health information.
It's a god damn social network. And, frankly, the whole "giving money to Facebook" thing - you realize that the benefit of directly paying for things is you no longer ARE the product they're selling right? Like, you are paying them for a thing and the transaction is completed. Not needing to be carefully studied to work out how to get you to maybe click on an ad.
People need some damn perspective.
Nope, no I am definitely not.
I think a decision to not pay a company I don't like fundamentally doesn't really need some perspective? I realise there's been a lot of crazy reactions in the thread, but I don't think a potential consumer decision is one of them?
Edit: Can anyone give me a hand, I've got this dude jammed down my throat, and I can't get him out?
Fears of 'data mining' aside, one thing that's irking me is that if I do actually buy an Oculus Rift come release then I'll be directly giving money to facebook. Which leaves a bad taste in my mouth akin to the distilled faecal outpouring of the entirety of Texas after annual chilli making day (which if it isn't a thing, damn well needs to be).
For this reason alone, my "OH GOD GIVE IT TO ME DAY ONE" has at least moved down a few notches to "Hmmm, how much did you say that thing cost again?".
Why?
Seriously, you're talking like Facebook murders people in foreign countries, promotes bigoted agendas locally, or lies to African mothers about important health information.
It's a god damn social network. And, frankly, the whole "giving money to Facebook" thing - you realize that the benefit of directly paying for things is you no longer ARE the product they're selling right? Like, you are paying them for a thing and the transaction is completed. Not needing to be carefully studied to work out how to get you to maybe click on an ad.
People need some damn perspective.
Nope, no I am definitely not.
I think a decision to not pay a company I don't like fundamentally doesn't really need some perspective? I realise there's been a lot of crazy reactions in the thread, but I don't think a potential consumer decision is one of them?
If your argument about cool new technology is "oh but I have reservations about the parent company" then I would say you need to reconsider how revolutionary you thought the technology was going to be.
There's a definite feel of "social movement" to how people are reacting to this - like the Oculus Rift was the symbol of...something? About the new world - and not just finally impressive VR display hardware.
And yes, your choice of language is absurd given the context here. All those things I listed? Where you know, actual companies made actual decisions to actively make the lives of other people worse in a direct way? Facebook does not come close.
electricitylikesme on
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited March 2014
I'm not even sure what specifically people are referencing Facebook does. As far as I know, while they are pretty loose with some of the data they have, as far as I know they don't gather anything without permission - people just give this information to them by putting it in their profiles.
It's a big jump from "Facebook sells data that people willingly give it" to "Facebook goes into your computer/Oculus Rift and steals your informationz"
Fears of 'data mining' aside, one thing that's irking me is that if I do actually buy an Oculus Rift come release then I'll be directly giving money to facebook. Which leaves a bad taste in my mouth akin to the distilled faecal outpouring of the entirety of Texas after annual chilli making day (which if it isn't a thing, damn well needs to be).
For this reason alone, my "OH GOD GIVE IT TO ME DAY ONE" has at least moved down a few notches to "Hmmm, how much did you say that thing cost again?".
Why?
Seriously, you're talking like Facebook murders people in foreign countries, promotes bigoted agendas locally, or lies to African mothers about important health information.
It's a god damn social network. And, frankly, the whole "giving money to Facebook" thing - you realize that the benefit of directly paying for things is you no longer ARE the product they're selling right? Like, you are paying them for a thing and the transaction is completed. Not needing to be carefully studied to work out how to get you to maybe click on an ad.
People need some damn perspective.
Nope, no I am definitely not.
I think a decision to not pay a company I don't like fundamentally doesn't really need some perspective? I realise there's been a lot of crazy reactions in the thread, but I don't think a potential consumer decision is one of them?
If your argument about cool new technology is "oh but I have reservations about the parent company" then I would say you need to reconsider how revolutionary you thought the technology was going to be.
There's a definite feel of "social movement" to how people are reacting to this - like the Oculus Rift was the symbol of...something? About the new world - and not just finally impressive VR display hardware.
And yes, your choice of language is absurd given the context here. All those things I listed? Where you know, actual companies made actual decisions to actively make the lives of other people worse in a direct way? Facebook does not come close.
Admittedly I used a little bit of hyperbole to describe my disdain for facebook, but at no point did I try to accuse them of the suffering of African children... These companies weren't even being talked about until you brought them up and is a discussion for an entirely different thread. Facebook does indeed not directly affect peoples lives, again however another thread for another day.
Are you saying that my "argument" is that I'm worried about what will be done with the revolutionary technology (I'm not quite sure). My statement is that I will use my one little bit of consumer buying power to go elsewhere because I don't like facebook as an entity.
I think you keep conflating my completely unstated opinions to that of the general populous of the thread, or some derived fiction thereof.
I just don't think it will stay as a plug n play device - I think it will become a service that Facebook have some control over. It will go from being something you can make any game work with to something with licensed games only on some kind of controlled marketplace where the games have to live up to some kind of standards set by Facebook.
This probably seems more likely. If you want to release a game on any of the big consoles, you have to pay licensing to Sony / MS / Nintendo, etc? And they receive royalties? Is that how it works or has it changed now with the embracing of Indies?
Yeah I think you pay a licence to publish on their platforms - Microsoft historically didn't allow anyone to self-publish, you had to go through them and Sony and Nintendo at least have standards (mostly technical but I'm sure quality was an issue at some point) that you had to live up to in order to be licenced. The last platform I can think of that you didn't need the creator's permission was the Dreamcast - as far as I know anyone could put out games for that.
But yeah when Facebook is the licence holder it makes sense that they will have some requirements to get a licence that will tie in to their business plan which I maintain will be more than just 'sell hardware'. It may or may not be intrusive though, we literally have no idea. But for them to have any control over it the Rift will need to start using drivers.
I wasn't aware there were so many Facebook defenders around. Like, genuinely. Some people are positively leaping to shield the Cult of Zuckerburg with zeal. Learn something new every day.
I don't believe they made this purchase for the sole intent of overtly datamining people.
But it does raise the question of why a social media site like Facebook is suddenly dropping a pair of Big B's on this tech. I don't believe for one second it's because they see some super amazing potential in it, or that they totally agree with the original mission statement (What did somebody say, "By gamers, for gamers" or something like that?). Or at least I don't believe it 100%. There is some ulterior master plan here, and I think everybody would at least feel a little better if they knew just what it was.
To quantify the level of confusion, this is kinda like when MS first announced the Xbox. The machine and brand seem so natural now, but at the time? WTF are the makers of Windows doing jumping into the console market???
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
"As for exactly how Facebook will monetize Oculus, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on the call to investors, "We're clearly not a hardware company. We're not going to try to make a profit off of the hardware long-term...but if we can make this a network where people are communicating, and buying virtual goods, and there might be ads down the line...that’s where the business could come from."
Oakey on
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I wasn't aware there were so many Facebook defenders around. Like, genuinely. Some people are positively leaping to shield the Cult of Zuckerburg with zeal. Learn something new every day.
A couple things:
- 1.3 billion active facebook users every month. And not all of them could possibly hate it.
- I am less defending Facebook and more defending the Oculus Rift folks, who jumped on a 2bn dollar investment with a promise for autonomy from a rather large corporation that (supposedly) has a desire to see it succeed.
- I am also defending John Carmack, who is making a facebook account to post from and will be sticking around as CTO over Rift.
The only thing that has changed (thus far) is the fact that facebook owns it, up the chain. Their leadership structure remains the same at the company level and they seem to be really happy with the investment.
Microsoft spent 100 million dollars researching and refining the xbox one controller. Some of that was probably waste, but the simple message is that developing, refining and releasing something good and universally accessible costs a shitload of money. They mostly did the development on the backs of their kickstarter and VC money. But the refinement and releasing of it to a very wide consumer market needed more funds than they seemed to have.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
To quantify the level of confusion, this is kinda like when MS first announced the Xbox. The machine and brand seem so natural now, but at the time? WTF are the makers of Windows doing jumping into the console market???
Well, perhaps they are doing exactly what Microsoft was doing with the Xbox - diversifying themselves. Perhaps Facebook believes their market will not sustain them forever and decided to branch out while they have the financial resources to do so. It would be far from the first time a company has done so - see Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc etc
I wasn't aware there were so many Facebook defenders around. Like, genuinely. Some people are positively leaping to shield the Cult of Zuckerburg with zeal. Learn something new every day.
Or I'm just opposing people being stupid and hyperbolic.
I wasn't aware there were so many Facebook defenders around. Like, genuinely. Some people are positively leaping to shield the Cult of Zuckerburg with zeal. Learn something new every day.
Facebook has been caught astroturfing, making multiple accounts to post positive things about the acquisition.
"As for exactly how Facebook will monetize Oculus, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on the call to investors, "We're clearly not a hardware company. We're not going to try to make a profit off of the hardware long-term...but if we can make this a network where people are communicating, and buying virtual goods, and there might be ads down the line...that’s where the business could come from."
Of course facebook is going to write software for this thing.
I do feel like Facebook may go all PS Home / Second Life courtesy of this... but if they find a way to blend your user information and likeness seamlessly into it, and your wall becomes your home, and you can invite people over to watch rented movies or have large social gatherings, they could have an absolute hit on their hands.
Yeah, Zuck is looking years down the road when he says the stuff about the network.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I wasn't aware there were so many Facebook defenders around. Like, genuinely. Some people are positively leaping to shield the Cult of Zuckerburg with zeal. Learn something new every day.
Facebook has been caught astroturfing, making multiple accounts to post positive things about the acquisition.
For example:
Well shit.
I'm sure that isn't the case for everyone defending Facebook though. But not @electricitylikesme. He's obviously a plant. /winky face!
Has anyone in the thread been really worried about the datamining angle? It seems like lots of people don't like the Facebook acquisition and people who are defending it are trying to argue that it's not going to be used for datamining or that doesn't matter. I don't thik that's why people don't like this deal - they're worried about what seemed to be an innovative, successful and exciting product being turned into something less good by this. Sure there will be competitiors but the Rift was so close to being released, now it might be being pulled away from us so Facebook can turn it into something that works for them. As there quotes from the shareholders call suggests, they are seeing this as a service - that means they will need more control than anyone would have had if it was sold as pure hardware.
Posts
If it's plug and play, why is anyone worried about data mining?
Man I'm really psyched for getting a Dev Kit 2. I have a large basement, so it'll be interesting to see how far the position tracking can stretch.
Because people are fundamentally irrational? :P
No it's because what people have are devkits and it would make sense for the hardware to change now. Facebook have no interest in getting into the monitor market whereas that's all Oculus wanted to make. There's nothing to say that DevKit 2 will be anywhere near the consumer version because things have changed now - we have a lot of new investment and a new owner with their own ambitions for the product. We don't know when the consumer version is going to come out (the idea that it'd be out later this year was put out there before this all happened, I see no reason it couldn't be pushed back) and now Oculus have much less reason for putting it out early. In fact they're probably better off waiting and making sure it is as feature-complete as possible so it stacks up well against Morpheus.
I think it's irrational to suggest that devkits - designed entirely before this acquisition - being plug n play is a clear indication that the final unannounced consumer release will be that too.
Has any gotten hands on with the Virtuix Omni? I'm really tempted to pre-order one since I have an Oculus Dev Kit 2 on order and it looks like they'll arrive around the same time, but the Omni seems like a much bigger gamble then the Oculus at this point.
That's a very good question. Mostly they either
a) Have no idea how the Oculus Rift works
b) have no idea how hardware development works and think that the current Oculus could be changed in anything less than years to become a datamining machine
c) Are worried about how the hardware might be changed in several years to come, after the first Oculus Rift is out the door and Facebook starts planning the second SpyRift
I know that @TheSonicRetard has been in close contact with the Omni, but he's banned so I'm not sure how he'd contact you.
Facebook is clearly going to use it as a delivery platform for transcranial magnetic mind control. When you look at a Facebook-advertised product, coils in the headset and straps will stimulate the pleasure centres of your brain.
...
You know hilariously, this is something you could conceivably try to do, given what the OR is, but you know, the idea that someone would is insane.
One could just as easily argue that Zuckerberg legitimately believes that VR is the next evolution in home entertainment and this is all about getting in on the ground floor of that and not about data mining at all. In fact one might even argue that is a far more plausible motivation given that facebook purchased what is essentially a new-fangled monitor manufacturer instead of a company that has anything at all to do with data mining.
I mean sure it leaves out the conspiracy theory angle but I'm not sure that's a problem.
I disagree. It is when it comes to facebook purchasing a company that has quite literally nothing at all to do with data management or collection. It strikes me as a ridiculous knee-jerk reaction.
When facebook starts shoehorning that into what currently amounts to nothing more than a fancy new display? By all means go nuts.
Until then? The freak out about it is nuts.
I just don't think it will stay as a plug n play device - I think it will become a service that Facebook have some control over. It will go from being something you can make any game work with to something with licensed games only on some kind of controlled marketplace where the games have to live up to some kind of standards set by Facebook.
Step 2, where they somehow turn VR goggles into datamining hardware, is where the conspiracy theory comes in. Like if Google Fiber was designed to put AdWords on everything going through your Internet connection.
Valve's first game with built-in VR support?
Half-Life 3.
Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
Half Life 3?
Ok now we're entering into the realm of real delusion :P
That sounds like way more work and much less profit than just selling the device. Maybe if it were EA or Activision instead of Facebook, but honestly the datamining conspiracy sounds more plausible than this. It would be very nearly certain to fail, and there's no reason to think Zuckerberg and everyone else at Facebook is too stupid to see that. They see a future where holding the keys to a niche product with an iron fist is the key to breaking into the video game market?
Honestly, if I had a company with a ton of cash, I'd have made an offer to buy or fund Oculus, and it wouldn't matter if I was selling bouillon, rocket parts or kitty litter.
But if I were Facebook, I do kind of know what I would do with it. I'd make one really, really good game/app for it that everything could connect into. Something like Minecraft and Second Life where you get to build your own home and fill it with virtual furniture and pets, everything to make a virtual home instead of just a page or a timeline. And from there you'd be able to plug in a movie theater, books from your Kindle library, a Steam achievement and badge trophy case. You could give people tools to make cooking and painting classes, or create museums for cars, WW2 planes or Transformers.
But because I'd actually want this vision to succeed and I'm not goddamned Emperor Palpatine, I'd try my best to encourage the Rift to take off, too, which means getting gamers on board, which in turn means not locking it behind some idiot marketplace, not building in some bizarre datamining OS, and generally not doing anything pants-on-head stupid.
Yeah but they paid $1billion for Instagram and that doesn't make a penny as far as I understand?
On a different note: Notch has announced that he's no longer interested in developing for the Rift. (My apologies
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
While I agree that'd be nice you seem to be forget that there's very few people who care about all of that stuff. Look at the mobile market, it's repulsive to most gamers and people who follow this kind of stuff but it's also incredibly profitable and successful.
A future where holding the keys to a niche product with an iron fist seems exactly what Apple did and made a lot of money in the process - that seems like a lucrative market. Selling the hardware isn't going to make them a fortune - even Sony are struggling to make money with displays at the moment, people want more affordable products but manufacturing costs are still fairly high so the margins on hardware are tiny. Instead the money is with services or advertising.
Why would facebook need to take your information with a VR headset when they already have facebook, into which millions and millions of people willingly pour information
For this reason alone, my "OH GOD GIVE IT TO ME DAY ONE" has at least moved down a few notches to "Hmmm, how much did you say that thing cost again?".
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
Why?
Seriously, you're talking like Facebook murders people in foreign countries, promotes bigoted agendas locally, or lies to African mothers about important health information.
It's a god damn social network. And, frankly, the whole "giving money to Facebook" thing - you realize that the benefit of directly paying for things is you no longer ARE the product they're selling right? Like, you are paying them for a thing and the transaction is completed. Not needing to be carefully studied to work out how to get you to maybe click on an ad.
People need some damn perspective.
This probably seems more likely. If you want to release a game on any of the big consoles, you have to pay licensing to Sony / MS / Nintendo, etc? And they receive royalties? Is that how it works or has it changed now with the embracing of Indies?
Nope, no I am definitely not.
I think a decision to not pay a company I don't like fundamentally doesn't really need some perspective? I realise there's been a lot of crazy reactions in the thread, but I don't think a potential consumer decision is one of them?
Edit: Can anyone give me a hand, I've got this dude jammed down my throat, and I can't get him out?
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
If your argument about cool new technology is "oh but I have reservations about the parent company" then I would say you need to reconsider how revolutionary you thought the technology was going to be.
There's a definite feel of "social movement" to how people are reacting to this - like the Oculus Rift was the symbol of...something? About the new world - and not just finally impressive VR display hardware.
And yes, your choice of language is absurd given the context here. All those things I listed? Where you know, actual companies made actual decisions to actively make the lives of other people worse in a direct way? Facebook does not come close.
It's a big jump from "Facebook sells data that people willingly give it" to "Facebook goes into your computer/Oculus Rift and steals your informationz"
Admittedly I used a little bit of hyperbole to describe my disdain for facebook, but at no point did I try to accuse them of the suffering of African children... These companies weren't even being talked about until you brought them up and is a discussion for an entirely different thread. Facebook does indeed not directly affect peoples lives, again however another thread for another day.
Are you saying that my "argument" is that I'm worried about what will be done with the revolutionary technology (I'm not quite sure). My statement is that I will use my one little bit of consumer buying power to go elsewhere because I don't like facebook as an entity.
I think you keep conflating my completely unstated opinions to that of the general populous of the thread, or some derived fiction thereof.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/pablocampy
Yeah I think you pay a licence to publish on their platforms - Microsoft historically didn't allow anyone to self-publish, you had to go through them and Sony and Nintendo at least have standards (mostly technical but I'm sure quality was an issue at some point) that you had to live up to in order to be licenced. The last platform I can think of that you didn't need the creator's permission was the Dreamcast - as far as I know anyone could put out games for that.
But yeah when Facebook is the licence holder it makes sense that they will have some requirements to get a licence that will tie in to their business plan which I maintain will be more than just 'sell hardware'. It may or may not be intrusive though, we literally have no idea. But for them to have any control over it the Rift will need to start using drivers.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
But it does raise the question of why a social media site like Facebook is suddenly dropping a pair of Big B's on this tech. I don't believe for one second it's because they see some super amazing potential in it, or that they totally agree with the original mission statement (What did somebody say, "By gamers, for gamers" or something like that?). Or at least I don't believe it 100%. There is some ulterior master plan here, and I think everybody would at least feel a little better if they knew just what it was.
To quantify the level of confusion, this is kinda like when MS first announced the Xbox. The machine and brand seem so natural now, but at the time? WTF are the makers of Windows doing jumping into the console market???
"As for exactly how Facebook will monetize Oculus, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said on the call to investors, "We're clearly not a hardware company. We're not going to try to make a profit off of the hardware long-term...but if we can make this a network where people are communicating, and buying virtual goods, and there might be ads down the line...that’s where the business could come from."
A couple things:
- 1.3 billion active facebook users every month. And not all of them could possibly hate it.
- I am less defending Facebook and more defending the Oculus Rift folks, who jumped on a 2bn dollar investment with a promise for autonomy from a rather large corporation that (supposedly) has a desire to see it succeed.
- I am also defending John Carmack, who is making a facebook account to post from and will be sticking around as CTO over Rift.
The only thing that has changed (thus far) is the fact that facebook owns it, up the chain. Their leadership structure remains the same at the company level and they seem to be really happy with the investment.
Microsoft spent 100 million dollars researching and refining the xbox one controller. Some of that was probably waste, but the simple message is that developing, refining and releasing something good and universally accessible costs a shitload of money. They mostly did the development on the backs of their kickstarter and VC money. But the refinement and releasing of it to a very wide consumer market needed more funds than they seemed to have.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Well, perhaps they are doing exactly what Microsoft was doing with the Xbox - diversifying themselves. Perhaps Facebook believes their market will not sustain them forever and decided to branch out while they have the financial resources to do so. It would be far from the first time a company has done so - see Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc etc
Or I'm just opposing people being stupid and hyperbolic.
Facebook has been caught astroturfing, making multiple accounts to post positive things about the acquisition.
For example:
Of course facebook is going to write software for this thing.
I do feel like Facebook may go all PS Home / Second Life courtesy of this... but if they find a way to blend your user information and likeness seamlessly into it, and your wall becomes your home, and you can invite people over to watch rented movies or have large social gatherings, they could have an absolute hit on their hands.
Yeah, Zuck is looking years down the road when he says the stuff about the network.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Well shit.
I'm sure that isn't the case for everyone defending Facebook though. But not @electricitylikesme. He's obviously a plant. /winky face!
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Also - to lighten the mood a little