Hacker News Reader

Comment by mingmecca | Hacker News Reader

Even though Notch writes that he wants to utilize VR for games and not 'social', I'm open to all the experiences that VR can provide, gaming or otherwise.

But I think the bigger issue here is I just don't want Facebook involved at all. Because all roads for Facebook lead to ads, and that is the last thing I want tagged to my eyeballs when I'm trying to enjoy my VR experience.

Even on the desktop/mobile side, I'd gladly pay the $1.05 (or whatever my LTV as a customer is) to Facebook so that I'd never have to seen another ad from them ever again.

A sad day indeed.

View on HN

I agree. People are hating on social VR here, I think, just because they are upset to see the facebook acquisition and don't know how else to disparage the deal.

Don't get me wrong- I'm extremely upset about it due to facebook's clearly evil history - I don't know how anyone could deny this, given user exploitation and tracking[0] - and the fact that Oculus Rim values the combined ideas of virtual reality and augmented reality (which I don't think should be combined) as 1/10th the value of Whatsapp is beyond me.

However, is souped-up video conferencing really such a terrible idea? I wouldn't go to a 10-year high school reunion on Oculus, but I definitely would reunite with my college buddies every few weeks if we had something less lame than Skype or Google Hangouts to do it on.

[0] http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebo...

I don't even think they're hating on "social VR" as a concept, so much as they are on the specific involvement of Facebook.

Facebook has accumulated enough ill will over the years -- with its cavalier attitude towards users' privacy, with the multiple times it's screwed over developers who bet the farm on their platform, and so forth -- that people just automatically assume now that if you lie down with Facebook you get up with fleas. "Facebook" means technology that, at its heart, is looking for a way to screw you over. It's a tainted brand.

If it were any other company making this acquisition -- Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, anybody -- you'd see much more willingness to give it the benefit of the doubt. But people see the Facebook logo being slapped on the Rift and assume, from bitter experience, that this means their Rifts will be turned against them, in the same way that Facebook turned their browser and their smartphone and their network of friends against them.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm going to hate on both.

Coming soon to an immersive 3D VR headset near you: a lame Facebook-branded knockoff of Second Life.

Filed under: #metaverse

What I instantly thought of shared experiences with the game recording features of the PS4, or even ghosting along other players in real time. Its the type of tech that could take the competitive gaming community to whole new levels of enjoyment and participation.

But yes second life applications... I don't see it at all.

Bringing Google into this makes your comment especially funny.

I would hit anybody over the head who would dare to say "Yeah, I hate Oculus now. If only they had gone with Google instead of Facebook"

Really the pot calling the kettle black, here. And make no mistake, any of the other companies you mentioned should have resulted in just the same kind of backlash. Not a single one of them cares about you or your privacy. They are all out to collect as much information as possible. It is high time people realized this.

> I agree. People are hating on social VR here

Uh? Notch very specifically notes social VR would likely be great, and that he does not mind, just does not care.

I said "people," not "everyone." Of course, Notch is more reasonable than most, and he's not who I'm talking about.

Did you see what is currently the top comment on this thread?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7470243

Even on the desktop/mobile side, I'd gladly pay the $1.05 (or whatever my LTV as a customer is) to Facebook so that I'd never have to seen another ad from them ever again.

Since their market cap is roughly $100 billion, that figure would probably be closer to $100. Would you pay that much? It's an interesting thought.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com