Hacker News Reader

Comment by kamkazemoose | Hacker News Reader

> But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. 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.

> This is really a new communication platform. By feeling truly present, you can share unbounded spaces and experiences with the people in your life. Imagine sharing not just moments with your friends online, but entire experiences and adventures.

This seems like the money quote. Basically they want to have everyone share virtual experiences together within your network.

View on HN

> Basically they want to have everyone share virtual experiences together within your network.

Over proprietary facebook-only protocols, on their proprietary software, using proprietary device drivers, with systemic data collection, and virtual reality advertising.

Yeah, no thanks. Occulus was poised to be revolutionary because it was going to be bigger than one headset, it was going to be an open platform for an entire generation of VR tech. Now, it is only facebook tech, and that is a shame.

> Occulus was poised to be revolutionary because it was going to be bigger than one headset, it was going to be an open platform for an entire generation of VR tech. Now, it is only facebook tech, and that is a shame

Oculus was and is a hardware company, with plans to expand their content marketplace (share.oculusvr.com). I do not see how Oculus was an open platform for VR tech, that's giving them too much credit.

What is the wonderland you live in that makes you think an insanely expensive platform (yes for the average person the Oculus is crazy expensive) with expensive to create content and little use outside a static environment would be open forever? Can you name anything massively successful with wide adoption that has those features?

If it wasn't facebook it would have been Google/Msft/etc...

The vitriol to this announcement is really staggering given the whole hacker ethos around here. Both of these two CEOs are by this community's standards the most hacker of the hacker.

I wouldn't have hated this deal much if it was Microsoft.

I think that is just a sign of the times and has nothing to do with any real fundamental differences.

Hackers HATED MSFT only a decade ago - and many still do - and they do just as much shady crap as facebook does.

The whole hate here is irrational in my opinion.

There are few reasons, Microsoft is not bad in gaming. They have Xbox/Kinect and they understand gaming. They are also not making money from user's data by tracking them by whatever means necessary. I also respect Microsoft Research that does some cool tech research that does not necessary get into their products. Social network companies are simply creepy because they make money off of your behaviors and Facebook is doing it as their primary business.

Remind me what did they do for (and with) PC gaming in the last 10 years.And how do you know they aren't making data of tracking you? What do you think Bing is about? Or their massive push towards the POWER OF THE CLOUD? Or the extremely closed Windows Phone platform?

To be honest, this announcement made me realize how much what I was expecting was unrealistic. Sometimes you believe in miracles.

For the other company that I wouldn't have minded buying them, I'd say Valve getting back their CTO, Sony ready to provide the only VR platform of the market and using Oculus as a test bed, or even Samsung or Intel.

What's to prevent more open initiatives to also benefit from a possibly huge uptick in development on VR now that Facebook put it's weight behind it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm just as upset about this news as most people here seem to be, I'm just trying to see different perspectives, as I'm not quite cynical enough to think that Oculus VR only did this for the money...

> What's to prevent more open initiatives to also benefit from a possibly huge uptick in development on VR now that Facebook put it's weight behind it?

Probably Facebook patent trolling. That is the problem with modern innovation - if you are late to the party you get shut out and crushed by the legal bullshit. Any new player would somehow have to navigate around any patent Oculus / Sony / Valve / etc has on similar technologies.

Hmm, yeah, that could be a serious issue.

Would there be a chance that Oculus included in the deal some stipulations about this?

I'm not a huge fan of FB either, but IMO, actually looking at it that way is kind of exciting. Imagine Oculus VR + Project Tango = "experience" physical places you otherwise might not. Or if it could be used to shop Amazon Fresh as a regular grocery store (sometimes I don't know exactly what I need/want, and I like just walking through the aisles to see)? There's a lot that this could potentially open up if used as a connectivity/communication hardware; but I agree, that they should nail down their core competency first before pursuing other use-cases.

Except Tango didn't come from Facebook.Facebook has never made anything new aside from new standards in marketing and scummery. Google at least sometimes toy with the idea of things being open and is heavily investing in R&D other than just "where to place the ad so that it's always seen".

The irony for me is that interacting with other people is the last reason I want a Rift. I want a fully immersive total escape from reality. When I play games, the last thing I want to be is "social."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com