8 ms·

I can't honestly blame him here. I doubt the issue is Facebook 'creeping [him] out', so much as it is that it's uncertain what exactly Facebook is going to wan

I can't honestly blame him here. I doubt the issue is Facebook 'creeping [him] out', so much as it is that it's uncertain what exactly Facebook is going to want out of the deal. Facebook isn't primarily a games company, and it's even less a 3D/desktop games company. There doesn't appear to be any obvious motivation for Facebook to use this tech for its intended purpose, so the question becomes what exactly they do want Oculus Rift for. I assume Notch is worried about those implications. Will Facebook start demanding that every Oculus Rift game have tight Facebook integration? Will Facebook do something strange, like have Facebook wall updates appear in the game world irrespective of whether it fits into the game? If I were a game developer, this'd creep me out too.

gravity13 12y ago
> There doesn't appear to be any obvious motivation for Facebook to use this tech for its intended purpose Facebook gets their hands in the less-casual game industry and also gains control over a platform for virtual experiences, I can see many reasons why Facebook would support continuing to build the Oculus for its originally intended purpose. At least it's not Microsoft.
- elohesra 12y ago
  >Facebook gets their hands in the less-casual game industry Yeah, but I think this is what people like Notch fear, because it's not going to be of any use to just have their logo emblazoned on the device: they're going to want something more from it. Given the way that they and Zynga worked together to drive casual gaming into the dirt, I'd actually rather Microsoft bought the device than them, because at least Microsoft have a major games wing which would benefit solely from using this device for its intended purpose (albeit by locking the device to Windows and Xbox exclusively).
- Filligree 12y ago
  Frankly, I'd have preferred Microsoft. At least they seem to have some ability to build platforms. Facebook acquiring Oculus doesn't just creep me out, it also means the platform will fail. They don't have the experience, and developers won't be lenient with their failures.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Sorry, did I miss the part where Luckey and Carmack left Oculus?
    - chris_mahan 12y ago
      Oh, they're cashing in right now. Look for them to exit in 6-12 months with millions.
      - gknoy 12y ago
        Carmack does not seem like the type to be "cashing in" unless he felt that the engineering work were no longer compelling and interesting. It sounds like he still feels it's interesting work, so I don't think he's being driven by money.
      - djloche 12y ago
        Carmack has FU money twice over. This is about seeing his dreams made into reality.
derefr 12y ago
> its intended purpose Which is what, exactly? I always thought the "killer app" of true VR would be socialization and collaboration: a "virtual world" in the sense of Second Life, OpenCobalt, or Neal Stephenson's metaverse. Facebook itself is the "casual" version of a socialization system. Facebook's biggest uncaptured market right now is people who prefer to socialize in a more "hardcore" fashion: in virtual worlds (e.g. MMO game-worlds) rather than on websites. Facebook could probably capture some of this market by putting out the world's first massively-multiuser VR world. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a game, per se, although games could be built on top of it. Just a place, like Facebook itself is a place.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  What on Earth would be the advantage of virtual reality over existing multiplayer games or skype?
  - derefr 12y ago
    World-of-Warcraft-like MMO games allow for "character customization", but on a moment-to-moment basis, character models are mostly static. You can read an explicit display of emotion if they choose to "emote" one, but there are no continuous subtle cues about how a person is continuing to feel about something. Now, one of the interesting things about VR is that, provided your perspective is attached to an avatar, the only sensible place to put the "camera" is staring right out of the eyes of that avatar. This means that, whenever you're among other players in a shared VR environment, you're going to be constantly staring at up-close views of other people's avatars' faces, who are in turn staring back at you. So, if your VR equipment could read your facial cues, and replicate them on your avatar's face... Basically: what are the advantages, over using Skype, of having meetings in a physical office? A VR office should be able to replicate those advantages.
    - Houshalter 12y ago
      Except you're face is going to be covered with virtual reality junk, and all it does is display something a normal monitor or TV can. Reading your facial expressions requires nothing more than a webcam. And the whole thing I think is just a gimmick that doesn't add much value (both VR and facial expressions.) Additionally video game characters look really creepy when they try to do facial expressions.
fudged71 12y ago
This is a good point. When Google enters a brand new market, they seem aware and empathetic that the public might be confused as to why Google has made a step in that direction. An example is Android "expanding" to the wearables market: http://developer.android.com/wear/index.html http://developer.android.com/wear/index.html They relate the new market to what they can relate with. It's "for your existing Android apps" and adding more functionality "to your users". What is Facebook's grand vision? Why should gaming companies not retreat from this announcement?
enraged_camel 12y ago
>>I doubt the issue is Facebook 'creeping [him] out' I think that's very much the issue. Seriously, "virtual reality" and "Facebook" are two things I don't want to think about in the same context. The former is an extremely promising piece of technology that can change the way people work, talk and play. The latter is a gigantic online advertising engine. Put them together and there's only one direction virtual reality can go: a new way to advertise to Facebook users (once they "bring virtual reality to everyone" of course. /eyeroll ).
- Jare 12y ago
  As much as I'm also negatively shocked by the news, it is impossible to deny the huge impact Facebook has had in how people communicate.
  - skyebook 12y ago
    Huge impact? Most Definitely. Huge positive impact? Unless you feel the need to keep tabs on everyone you've ever met, probably not.
  - benched 12y ago
    You're right. It has noticeably, negatively impacted all of my real world friendships.
    - cdelsolar 12y ago
      how/why? Facebook is how I connect with my friends and make plans to hang out with them in person later. Without it I wouldn't talk to a lot of people, online or offline.
      - benched 12y ago
        In exactly the same way that heroin substitutes for many healthier goal-seeking behaviors in the junkie, Facebook seems to give many of my former friends a social fix, such that they seek other forms of interaction much less now. That includes telephone calls, nights out at the pub / dinner / billiards, and especially one-on-one conversations.
yeukhon 12y ago
Well instead of mobile games they may leverage the large console and desktop gamers out there and add FB accounts to those circles. Besides it may be a new revenue. One kind of social events is gaming with friends. It's nice to compete with friends and show to your network what you and your friends are up to. Undoubtedly at some point virtual reality is going to become the next "smartphone". Rift is a giant headset but in a decade or two it will get so small that we can enjoy virtual reality at home like we enjoy using a smartphone. This feels more and more like getting your virtual character in SIMs to play virtual reality game.
- elohesra 12y ago
  > It's nice to compete with friends and show to your network what you and your friends are up to. I've never understood this mindset in gaming. Maybe I'm just showing myself as an introverted curmudgeon, but I only game when I'm not programming, and I just game to try to unwind. Being forced to do something 'social' when I just want to relax is just annoying to me personally. I'm not saying I hate other people (I do), or that I don't want to ever be social (I don't), but social situations -- while often fun -- do require more mental energy than just shooting bad guys, or scoring goals, or whatever else the game has you doing. Maybe I'm very unrepresentative of the gaming market at large, but I don't understand why numerous gaming companies (Sony and Microsoft have both headed down this path) want to cram social aspects into games. I'm not sure what they think the business case for that decision is. I assume they think it'll make games something more essential to day-to-day life than they currently are, by connecting games to the people you love, but that just makes me want to play games less.
  - RussianCow 12y ago
    If you look at the size of Twitch.tv and lots of game-related subreddits, it's obvious that "social gaming" is a very big market with a lot of potential money to be made.
    - Crito 12y ago
      The trick is that "social gaming" does not mean what many seem to think it means. Watch a live stream of Scott Manley having some beers and flying some kerbals to the Mun? Sure, I'm on board with that. Receive a notification that my mother has topped her previous high score in [who cares]Ville? No. No not at all. I've seen absolutely no indication that Facebook understands that "social gaming" should not mean "annoying your friends".
mrb 12y ago
"Facebook isn't primarily a games company, and it's even less a 3D/desktop games company" So what? What were you guys thinking back when Google was purely an Internet/search engine company, and tried to foray into other ventures (Android, self-driving cars, etc)? Companies expand their markets, create new products. It is natural. Why does the Oculus acquisition seem to perplex the HN crowd?
- o0-0o 12y ago
  I don't think the general consensus is perplexed at all. By the way, could you send me one of these driver-less cars you speak of? Maybe some other vaporware?
  - mrb 12y ago
    You have never heard of Google's research on self-driving cars? http://www.google.com/about/careers/lifatgoogle/self-driving-car-test-steve-mahan.html http://www.google.com/about/careers/lifatgoogle/self-driving...
    - Crito 12y ago
      In a similar capacity, the B&MGF/IV have a laser that blasts mosquitoes out of the air. However despite it actually existing, it would be perfectly reasonable to refer to it as vapor ware at this point. You'd even be excused for asserting that it was just a PR stunt and funding sink.
      - mrb 12y ago
        Your comment is irrelevant. My point is that Google is "trying to foray into other ventures" (my exact words). I never claimed self-driving cars are available to consumers right now.
        Crito 12y ago
        You seem to be completely failing to understand o0-0o's objection. Your example of another Google "venture" is, at this point, vaporware. Now we are told that Facebook is moving into a new "venture"? Why are we to believe that this will be any less vaporware? The only thing that matters to us, the potential consumer, is if they can ship. Everything else is irrelevant.
hellbanTHIS 12y ago
They're probably thinking post-Facebook. They aren't dumb, they know what they have now won't last and when it dies out they can cash in their user data and go into the virtual reality business.

gravity13 12y ago

> There doesn't appear to be any obvious motivation for Facebook to use this tech for its intended purpose Facebook gets their hands in the less-casual game industry and also gains control over a platform for virtual experiences, I can see many reasons why Facebook would support continuing to build the Oculus for its originally intended purpose. At least it's not Microsoft.

elohesra 12y ago
>Facebook gets their hands in the less-casual game industry Yeah, but I think this is what people like Notch fear, because it's not going to be of any use to just have their logo emblazoned on the device: they're going to want something more from it. Given the way that they and Zynga worked together to drive casual gaming into the dirt, I'd actually rather Microsoft bought the device than them, because at least Microsoft have a major games wing which would benefit solely from using this device for its intended purpose (albeit by locking the device to Windows and Xbox exclusively).
Filligree 12y ago
Frankly, I'd have preferred Microsoft. At least they seem to have some ability to build platforms. Facebook acquiring Oculus doesn't just creep me out, it also means the platform will fail. They don't have the experience, and developers won't be lenient with their failures.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Sorry, did I miss the part where Luckey and Carmack left Oculus?
  - chris_mahan 12y ago
    Oh, they're cashing in right now. Look for them to exit in 6-12 months with millions.
    - gknoy 12y ago
      Carmack does not seem like the type to be "cashing in" unless he felt that the engineering work were no longer compelling and interesting. It sounds like he still feels it's interesting work, so I don't think he's being driven by money.
    - djloche 12y ago
      Carmack has FU money twice over. This is about seeing his dreams made into reality.

derefr 12y ago

> its intended purpose Which is what, exactly? I always thought the "killer app" of true VR would be socialization and collaboration: a "virtual world" in the sense of Second Life, OpenCobalt, or Neal Stephenson's metaverse. Facebook itself is the "casual" version of a socialization system. Facebook's biggest uncaptured market right now is people who prefer to socialize in a more "hardcore" fashion: in virtual worlds (e.g. MMO game-worlds) rather than on websites. Facebook could probably capture some of this market by putting out the world's first massively-multiuser VR world. It wouldn't necessarily have to be a game, per se, although games could be built on top of it. Just a place, like Facebook itself is a place.

Houshalter 12y ago
What on Earth would be the advantage of virtual reality over existing multiplayer games or skype?
- derefr 12y ago
  World-of-Warcraft-like MMO games allow for "character customization", but on a moment-to-moment basis, character models are mostly static. You can read an explicit display of emotion if they choose to "emote" one, but there are no continuous subtle cues about how a person is continuing to feel about something. Now, one of the interesting things about VR is that, provided your perspective is attached to an avatar, the only sensible place to put the "camera" is staring right out of the eyes of that avatar. This means that, whenever you're among other players in a shared VR environment, you're going to be constantly staring at up-close views of other people's avatars' faces, who are in turn staring back at you. So, if your VR equipment could read your facial cues, and replicate them on your avatar's face... Basically: what are the advantages, over using Skype, of having meetings in a physical office? A VR office should be able to replicate those advantages.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    Except you're face is going to be covered with virtual reality junk, and all it does is display something a normal monitor or TV can. Reading your facial expressions requires nothing more than a webcam. And the whole thing I think is just a gimmick that doesn't add much value (both VR and facial expressions.) Additionally video game characters look really creepy when they try to do facial expressions.

fudged71 12y ago

This is a good point. When Google enters a brand new market, they seem aware and empathetic that the public might be confused as to why Google has made a step in that direction. An example is Android "expanding" to the wearables market: http://developer.android.com/wear/index.html http://developer.android.com/wear/index.html They relate the new market to what they can relate with. It's "for your existing Android apps" and adding more functionality "to your users". What is Facebook's grand vision? Why should gaming companies not retreat from this announcement?

enraged_camel 12y ago

>>I doubt the issue is Facebook 'creeping [him] out' I think that's very much the issue. Seriously, "virtual reality" and "Facebook" are two things I don't want to think about in the same context. The former is an extremely promising piece of technology that can change the way people work, talk and play. The latter is a gigantic online advertising engine. Put them together and there's only one direction virtual reality can go: a new way to advertise to Facebook users (once they "bring virtual reality to everyone" of course. /eyeroll ).

Jare 12y ago
As much as I'm also negatively shocked by the news, it is impossible to deny the huge impact Facebook has had in how people communicate.
- skyebook 12y ago
  Huge impact? Most Definitely. Huge positive impact? Unless you feel the need to keep tabs on everyone you've ever met, probably not.
- benched 12y ago
  You're right. It has noticeably, negatively impacted all of my real world friendships.
  - cdelsolar 12y ago
    how/why? Facebook is how I connect with my friends and make plans to hang out with them in person later. Without it I wouldn't talk to a lot of people, online or offline.
    - benched 12y ago
      In exactly the same way that heroin substitutes for many healthier goal-seeking behaviors in the junkie, Facebook seems to give many of my former friends a social fix, such that they seek other forms of interaction much less now. That includes telephone calls, nights out at the pub / dinner / billiards, and especially one-on-one conversations.

yeukhon 12y ago

Well instead of mobile games they may leverage the large console and desktop gamers out there and add FB accounts to those circles. Besides it may be a new revenue. One kind of social events is gaming with friends. It's nice to compete with friends and show to your network what you and your friends are up to. Undoubtedly at some point virtual reality is going to become the next "smartphone". Rift is a giant headset but in a decade or two it will get so small that we can enjoy virtual reality at home like we enjoy using a smartphone. This feels more and more like getting your virtual character in SIMs to play virtual reality game.

elohesra 12y ago
> It's nice to compete with friends and show to your network what you and your friends are up to. I've never understood this mindset in gaming. Maybe I'm just showing myself as an introverted curmudgeon, but I only game when I'm not programming, and I just game to try to unwind. Being forced to do something 'social' when I just want to relax is just annoying to me personally. I'm not saying I hate other people (I do), or that I don't want to ever be social (I don't), but social situations -- while often fun -- do require more mental energy than just shooting bad guys, or scoring goals, or whatever else the game has you doing. Maybe I'm very unrepresentative of the gaming market at large, but I don't understand why numerous gaming companies (Sony and Microsoft have both headed down this path) want to cram social aspects into games. I'm not sure what they think the business case for that decision is. I assume they think it'll make games something more essential to day-to-day life than they currently are, by connecting games to the people you love, but that just makes me want to play games less.
- RussianCow 12y ago
  If you look at the size of Twitch.tv and lots of game-related subreddits, it's obvious that "social gaming" is a very big market with a lot of potential money to be made.
  - Crito 12y ago
    The trick is that "social gaming" does not mean what many seem to think it means. Watch a live stream of Scott Manley having some beers and flying some kerbals to the Mun? Sure, I'm on board with that. Receive a notification that my mother has topped her previous high score in [who cares]Ville? No. No not at all. I've seen absolutely no indication that Facebook understands that "social gaming" should not mean "annoying your friends".

mrb 12y ago

"Facebook isn't primarily a games company, and it's even less a 3D/desktop games company" So what? What were you guys thinking back when Google was purely an Internet/search engine company, and tried to foray into other ventures (Android, self-driving cars, etc)? Companies expand their markets, create new products. It is natural. Why does the Oculus acquisition seem to perplex the HN crowd?

o0-0o 12y ago
I don't think the general consensus is perplexed at all. By the way, could you send me one of these driver-less cars you speak of? Maybe some other vaporware?
- mrb 12y ago
  You have never heard of Google's research on self-driving cars? http://www.google.com/about/careers/lifatgoogle/self-driving-car-test-steve-mahan.html http://www.google.com/about/careers/lifatgoogle/self-driving...
  - Crito 12y ago
    In a similar capacity, the B&MGF/IV have a laser that blasts mosquitoes out of the air. However despite it actually existing, it would be perfectly reasonable to refer to it as vapor ware at this point. You'd even be excused for asserting that it was just a PR stunt and funding sink.
    - mrb 12y ago
      Your comment is irrelevant. My point is that Google is "trying to foray into other ventures" (my exact words). I never claimed self-driving cars are available to consumers right now.
      - Crito 12y ago
        You seem to be completely failing to understand o0-0o's objection. Your example of another Google "venture" is, at this point, vaporware. Now we are told that Facebook is moving into a new "venture"? Why are we to believe that this will be any less vaporware? The only thing that matters to us, the potential consumer, is if they can ship. Everything else is irrelevant.

hellbanTHIS 12y ago

They're probably thinking post-Facebook. They aren't dumb, they know what they have now won't last and when it dies out they can cash in their user data and go into the virtual reality business.