16 ms·

Virtual Reality is going to change the world

597 points by bpierre 13y ago

Jemaclus 13y ago
Well, that was quick and well stated. I agree with notch, here. I trust Carmack and I'm sure he can pull off something great, but I personally have regretted every tech interaction with FB that I've ever had to build. I'm not sure I would want to work with Facebook either. And that's a shame.
xpose2000 13y ago
I can see the avalanche of negativity coming, and I understand why. However, I don't think we should automatically assume it's a negative thing like Notch did. Facebook can try to ensure that the games are geared towards social interactivity that benefits their platform, but in the end, the developers truly pick the direction. Anyone can buy a dev kit and see what they can build with it. Maybe Facebook wants Oculus Rift to operate as a completely separate entity outside their core business. Maybe it's something they believe in and want to expand into a new genre. Mark has some interesting insights on where to take it: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/1010131905052397 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/1010131905052397. Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't.
- baby 13y ago
  Exactly, everybody is trashing the acquisition for no reasons. I feel like I'm the only one actually happy for Oculus that facebook bought them. Now people around me are gonna hear about Oculus, VR was going to be something big, but with facebook to back them? It's going to be the next big thing.
  - jeffool 13y ago
    I think people have reasons. I think their hesitance in relation to Facebook is not completely unwarranted. Mostly people are exaggerating anything I'm worried about, but, hardware owned by non-hardware companies is often tied into software platforms in really damn annoying ways. To me that would be a legitimate concern with any non-hardware company purchase of a hardware company.
- TrainedMonkey 13y ago
  "Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't." All of Halo series would be on PC.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    It was originally a Mac title!
    - TrainedMonkey 13y ago
      AFAIK Mac is a type of Personal Computer. As long as games would not be locked to console with joystick being only option I would be happy.
    - dagw 13y ago
      Not exclusively. While Bungie was primarily a Mac developer, and Halo was announced at a Macworld, it was always going to be released for Mac and Windows.
  - varkson 13y ago
    It'd probably still be an RTS and likely never become popular. There might never have been a second Halo.
    - MrScruff 13y ago
      When was Halo a RTS?
      - abledon 13y ago
        see here MrScruff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vTDwW3H5Jw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vTDwW3H5Jw
      - Jetrel 13y ago
        Remember that one of Bungie's flagship titles was an RTS series called "Myth". Bungie before that had made a proto-Halo FPS series called "Marathon". When they made Halo, they made a pretty good architecture for showing wide landscapes/buildings/vehicles and large-enough numbers of troops onscreen at once. During the alpha experimentation with the game, apparently they seriously took a look at using this to make an RTS (albeit one really outside of the usual starcraft mold), rather than a FPS.
- jfb 13y ago
  Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't. We might have gotten a non-crappy Myth III.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  > Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't. Maybe Sega would have released the Dreamcast 2...
- balls187 13y ago
  > Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't Call of Duty and the FPS genre would not have been ruined.
- SolarUpNote 13y ago
  > I definitely want to be a part of VR, but I will not work with Facebook. Their motives are too unclear and shifting, and they haven’t historically been a stable platform. There’s nothing about their history that makes me trust them, and that makes them seem creepy to me. Interesting how it all boils down to trust. You could think of all kinds of amazing possibilities, but if you don't trust them, it's 100% off.
- hrktb 13y ago
  > Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't. Kinect would have been developed independently and be sold the same way the leap motion controller is sold today, and console and game makers would have licensed it instead. Not so bad I think.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
skore 13y ago
For a guy who is otherwise rather easy going, Notch can be incredibly pragmatic and strident. Here, he has cut to heart of the issue. > And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition. > Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social. He is right - "social", especially in the way Facebook is doing it at the moment, is terrible for VR. Terrible for any technology that has such an incredible potential to change the world. This acquisition makes one thing very clear: VR does not need social. Social needs VR.
- bduerst 13y ago
  My guess is that when Oculus Rift found out about Sony coming to market, they knew they needed someone with deep pockets to speed up their implementation. They were probably in talks with a number of other companies, but Facebook jumped the gun and made an offer they couldn't refuse, in order to prevent their "competitor" from getting it. </speculation> I wonder if FB is going to use OR to rebirth Facebook games, or maybe make their own foray into the gaming industry.
  - kamkazemoose 13y ago
    I'd be surprised if the Sony news had anything to do with this. These sorts of acquisitions don't happen overnight, they've likely been talking for months, doing due diligence and other research into the deal.
    - jeroen 13y ago
      Techcrunch says the deal was made in 5 days. Discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469885
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        The deal was made in 5 days, it does not mean they were not in touch before.
digikata 13y ago
A CastAR version of Minecraft seems more fun to me anyway.
mingmecca 13y ago
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.
- kissickas 13y ago
  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/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebo...
  - smacktoward 13y ago
    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.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mjfl 13y ago
This seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe all the hype about VR. You are never going to be able to get sufficiently passable virtual reality to make up for the hardware hassle. If I want to have a conversation with a friend, I just want to see his/her face, I don't need the whole room simulated for me. Oculus will be a flash in the pan, and it's purchase by Facebook is just another example of the company stretching itself thin in order to grab a larger user base.
- benched 13y ago
  never You take the long view, I see.
- davorb 13y ago
  > You are never going to be able to get sufficiently passable virtual reality to make up for the hardware hassle. Here is a video of a grown man crying like a small girl. If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl7fz__6B-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl7fz__6B-4
  - uptown 13y ago
    I don't doubt that it's a great experience - but that guy seemed to be playing things up for the sake of the camera IMO.
- meowface 13y ago
  I agree regarding the every day activities thing: FaceTime and Skype are sufficient and will probably remain dominant (maybe in different forms) for decades. But I could see a serious paradigm shift for video games, especially future massively multiplayer games.
  - a3voices 13y ago
    But you can't look at your phone, play with your pet, etc. while using VR. It actually removes value to have both your eyes occupied.
- 13y ago
ssully 13y ago
I really appreciate that Notch seems to always communicate his opinions, whether I agree with them or not, in such an intelligent and fair way. I think he hit all the right points with this post especially about his initial investment in their kickstarter. As of now I am looking at this acquisition with intense skepticism. I am interested in the Rift from a pure gaming perspective, and facebook hasn't proven themselves in that field yet, or at least not in the way that I agree with. With that said I do look forward to seeing what happens with this. Good or bad I believe that this is something that will be talked about for a long time.
fernly 13y ago
"I think social could become one of the biggest applications of VR. Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar?" -- But that was Second Life! I'm trying to imagine what 2L would have been like with convincing VR. First, probably not anywhere near technical feasibility for at least several years. Remember the lag when a bunch of avatars were in one place? Or how long it took for a scene to fill in after you teleported? And the bandwidth, good lord... But then I imagine what it would be like if the bandwidth and server performance issues were magically solved. And I realize that it was all imagined before decades ago, in Snow Crash[1]. [1]http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Crash-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0553562614 http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Crash-Neal-Stephenson/dp/05535626...
- meowface 13y ago
  I wonder how the lag problems could be prevented. Even if 1 or 10 Gbps links were in every home, that isn't really going to help with latency if someone in Korea is trying to do something in true real time with someone in the US. It's a big problem even for much less ambitious "VR"-esque worlds like MMORPG games. Usually they'll have to locate one server in Asia, one or more in Europe, one or two in America, etc. to accomodate for lag.
mambodog 13y ago
VR will be like the web. Eventually it will belong to all of us. Once it gets off the ground, no single company will be able to ruin it. Just like touchscreen smartphones, initially we had the iPhone which is relatively locked down and controlled by a single vendor, but now we have cheap, commoditised hardware of acceptable quality. More importantly, the real 'platform' for smartphones is the web, which is as open as any we've ever had. Eventually, VR will have something of the same. I'm glad to see that at least Notch gets it.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  I dunno, patents + network effects can give one a pretty damn good head start.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  The Web belongs to all of us because the people who invented it made the incredibly generous decision to set it free. (I've written a little about how that decision was made here: http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/05/the-act-of-generosity-that-changed-the-world/ http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/05/the-act-of-generosity-that...) I don't see anybody rushing to put their VR IP into the public domain.
  - deerpig 13y ago
    But a lot of technologies that could be used for VR, are free, VRML and Web3D, OpenGl etc.
zachinglis 13y ago
I wrote about about my views: http://zachinglis.com/posts/oculus-and-facebook-sitting-in-a-tree http://zachinglis.com/posts/oculus-and-facebook-sitting-in-a... But long story short - As Zuck said, it's a long bet. But one that most gaming companies won't want to be associated with. But they're not going after gaming anyway, gaming was 2 words in the press release. They're going after experiences, of which they have no prerequisites in place (healthcare, sports games, etc.) I'll be looking forward to whoever shows up in place. It's just such a shame - I felt like they were the awesome people to look forward to seeing help change the gaming landscape.
rafe33 13y ago
I'm disappointed for oculus that anyone bought them. They had a chance to lead the next generation of companies in revolutionising media... To BE the next Sony. Kudos to Facebook for snatching them up.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
Wow, this is really a great statement. I applaud him for this stance. I didn't really expect this reaction but it is a very pleasant surprise.
briantakita 13y ago
Kudo to Notch for taking a moral stance on the Oculus buyout. VR is going to change the world. Let's make it a positive change that respects freedom & autonomy, not a walled garden.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
interpol_p 13y ago
From Notch: > Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social. In fact, I think social could become one of the biggest applications of VR. Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar? Business meetings? Virtual cinemas where you feel like you’re actually watching the movie with your friend who is seven time zones away? Do people really see this as the mainstream use of VR? Do people really see a mainstream use for VR at all? I can't see it. It's not the future of computing to me. VR is incredible, it's magical and amazing. I've used the dev kits and the feeling of presence is awesome. The first time I wore the Oculus DK1 was the first time I felt teleported to a different location. Despite all this, I still don't want to use my Oculus every day — not even once a week. It's a great system but the feeling wears off once you are immersed in the actual experience. It doesn't make my communication or consumption of information any more efficient, not like the way mobile Internet devices have done. Not even like the way my graphics tablet improved my ability to be artistic with my computer. I see VR as dramatically changing a small but highly focused subset of the entertainment landscape, and being used in many niche areas (such as architectural visualisation). I can't see it replacing the way we use our computers in general. Perhaps I am just shortsighted, and I would be happy to be proven so.
- meowface 13y ago
  I think I agree. When it comes to video games, for people who are really into getting immersed it could see major usage. But for every day activities, I think that video conferencing and other forms of communication we already have basically cover those niches.
- agumonkey 13y ago
  In my imagination, computers will fade away to become as invisible as ubiquitous.
- sillysaurus3 13y ago
  The thing about the future is that it has a funny way of proving you wrong. I think the vision outlined above is entirely possible. An integrated microphone with surround sound headphones was going to change gamedev forever. Who knows how that would bleed into other types of scenarios than gaming? I'd watch a movie with someone using an Oculus. It'd be a fun experience.
NextUserName 13y ago
>Virtual Reality is going to change the world Just like 3D televisions/displays did? I have heard this for over a decade and I am still not convinced.
- rpdillon 13y ago
  3D TVs never made sense. VR is a wholly different analysis. I wrote a bunch about this back in 2012: http://killring.org/2012/08/14/the-vr-revolution-begins-now/ http://killring.org/2012/08/14/the-vr-revolution-begins-now/ http://killring.org/2012/08/30/virtual-reality-creating-immersion/ http://killring.org/2012/08/30/virtual-reality-creating-imme...
bane 13y ago
I just realized what this means...."free to play" VR games with a credit card slot right on the headset.
hawkharris 13y ago
Virtual reality has existed for thousands of years. It began with performed and written stories. When storytelling through film became popular in the 20th century, proponents marveled at its technical potential: the ability to control viewers' eyes and to immerse them in a dream world. There were also critics who suggested it might be too immersive: detracting from face-to-face conversations. Over time the technical "Wow" factor of film mostly faded. In its absence, viewers started to remember what made virtual reality feel real all along: the quality of the content. Sure, some people still marvel at 3D screenings and similar technology, but we mostly focus on the narratives rather than the medium. If history is any guide, there is no medium for virtual reality. After the initial "Wow" factor of a new viewing experience subsides, we'll realize that the content is responsible for carrying us into a dream world.
BeggarsAll 13y ago
I completely agree with Notch on this one. Facebook are just buying Oculus because they need to show the investors and board they can innovate. Facebook is a dying product, they're losing users, making bad design decisions and know the only way to remain relevant is to buy up other business regardless of the niche.
- scient 13y ago
  And you have zero arguments to present to support your claims. Nicely done, future armchair CEO.
sinak 13y ago
> Facebook is not a company of grass-roots tech enthusiasts. This seems really true to me. Zuck gives the impression that he's in it for the power, and not for the love of technology. That's what makes this acquisition disappointing.
teemo_cute 13y ago
I'm surprise nobody mentioned its potential use by the sex industry for virtual/interactive porn. Think of the possibilities. If you what I mean...
- cm127 13y ago
  We do. http://www.reddit.com/r/oculusnsfw http://www.reddit.com/r/oculusnsfw
lispm 13y ago
What really would improve the world would be clean water for a few more people or a clean energy source. VR not so.
neo_cs193p 13y ago
"Changing the world" is not automatically a good thing, and should never be a goal in itself. Same goes for "making money".
anentropic 13y ago
"Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar? Business meetings? Virtual cinemas where you feel like you’re actually watching the movie with your friend who is seven time zones away?" These all sound like crap ideas
quasque 13y ago
It seems a bit unhygienic having to strap one of these things to your face. Just imagine how filthy it would get after prolonged use. I hope if this stuff takes off then it's designed to be easily washable. The lingering scent of ingrained facial grease would somewhat ruin the immersive experience.
- oulipian 13y ago
  Fortunately, 80% of the games people will play on this involve avatars wearing space helmets! Ingrained facial grease just makes it more immersive!
deerpig 13y ago
Why is everyone looking at VR in terms of what exists? VR is not gaming, though it shares many aspects of gaming. VR is not social, though it will overlap with a lot of how we use social today. It also won't be the Web, though, if it takes off, it will need to borrow the same open network-anyone-can-set-up-there-tent-where-they-want infrastructure. But will Facebook be the company to make that happen? The great walled garden will turn into the great walled immersive world. If Facebook manages to pull that off we will all be poorer for it.

597 points by bpierre 13y ago

Well, that was quick and well stated. I agree with notch, here. I trust Carmack and I'm sure he can pull off something great, but I personally have regretted every tech interaction with FB that I've ever had to build. I'm not sure I would want to work with Facebook either. And that's a shame.

xpose2000 13y ago

I can see the avalanche of negativity coming, and I understand why. However, I don't think we should automatically assume it's a negative thing like Notch did. Facebook can try to ensure that the games are geared towards social interactivity that benefits their platform, but in the end, the developers truly pick the direction. Anyone can buy a dev kit and see what they can build with it. Maybe Facebook wants Oculus Rift to operate as a completely separate entity outside their core business. Maybe it's something they believe in and want to expand into a new genre. Mark has some interesting insights on where to take it: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/1010131905052397 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/1010131905052397. Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't.

baby 13y ago
Exactly, everybody is trashing the acquisition for no reasons. I feel like I'm the only one actually happy for Oculus that facebook bought them. Now people around me are gonna hear about Oculus, VR was going to be something big, but with facebook to back them? It's going to be the next big thing.
- jeffool 13y ago
  I think people have reasons. I think their hesitance in relation to Facebook is not completely unwarranted. Mostly people are exaggerating anything I'm worried about, but, hardware owned by non-hardware companies is often tied into software platforms in really damn annoying ways. To me that would be a legitimate concern with any non-hardware company purchase of a hardware company.
TrainedMonkey 13y ago
"Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't." All of Halo series would be on PC.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  It was originally a Mac title!
  - TrainedMonkey 13y ago
    AFAIK Mac is a type of Personal Computer. As long as games would not be locked to console with joystick being only option I would be happy.
  - dagw 13y ago
    Not exclusively. While Bungie was primarily a Mac developer, and Halo was announced at a Macworld, it was always going to be released for Mac and Windows.
- varkson 13y ago
  It'd probably still be an RTS and likely never become popular. There might never have been a second Halo.
  - MrScruff 13y ago
    When was Halo a RTS?
    - abledon 13y ago
      see here MrScruff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vTDwW3H5Jw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vTDwW3H5Jw
    - Jetrel 13y ago
      Remember that one of Bungie's flagship titles was an RTS series called "Myth". Bungie before that had made a proto-Halo FPS series called "Marathon". When they made Halo, they made a pretty good architecture for showing wide landscapes/buildings/vehicles and large-enough numbers of troops onscreen at once. During the alpha experimentation with the game, apparently they seriously took a look at using this to make an RTS (albeit one really outside of the usual starcraft mold), rather than a FPS.
jfb 13y ago
Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't. We might have gotten a non-crappy Myth III.
Mikeb85 13y ago
> Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't. Maybe Sega would have released the Dreamcast 2...
balls187 13y ago
> Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't Call of Duty and the FPS genre would not have been ruined.
SolarUpNote 13y ago
> I definitely want to be a part of VR, but I will not work with Facebook. Their motives are too unclear and shifting, and they haven’t historically been a stable platform. There’s nothing about their history that makes me trust them, and that makes them seem creepy to me. Interesting how it all boils down to trust. You could think of all kinds of amazing possibilities, but if you don't trust them, it's 100% off.
hrktb 13y ago
> Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't. Kinect would have been developed independently and be sold the same way the leap motion controller is sold today, and console and game makers would have licensed it instead. Not so bad I think.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

skore 13y ago

For a guy who is otherwise rather easy going, Notch can be incredibly pragmatic and strident. Here, he has cut to heart of the issue. > And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition. > Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social. He is right - "social", especially in the way Facebook is doing it at the moment, is terrible for VR. Terrible for any technology that has such an incredible potential to change the world. This acquisition makes one thing very clear: VR does not need social. Social needs VR.

bduerst 13y ago
My guess is that when Oculus Rift found out about Sony coming to market, they knew they needed someone with deep pockets to speed up their implementation. They were probably in talks with a number of other companies, but Facebook jumped the gun and made an offer they couldn't refuse, in order to prevent their "competitor" from getting it. </speculation> I wonder if FB is going to use OR to rebirth Facebook games, or maybe make their own foray into the gaming industry.
- kamkazemoose 13y ago
  I'd be surprised if the Sony news had anything to do with this. These sorts of acquisitions don't happen overnight, they've likely been talking for months, doing due diligence and other research into the deal.
  - jeroen 13y ago
    Techcrunch says the deal was made in 5 days. Discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7469885
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      The deal was made in 5 days, it does not mean they were not in touch before.

digikata 13y ago

A CastAR version of Minecraft seems more fun to me anyway.

mingmecca 13y ago

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.

kissickas 13y ago
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/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-keep http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebo...
- smacktoward 13y ago
  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.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mjfl 13y ago

This seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe all the hype about VR. You are never going to be able to get sufficiently passable virtual reality to make up for the hardware hassle. If I want to have a conversation with a friend, I just want to see his/her face, I don't need the whole room simulated for me. Oculus will be a flash in the pan, and it's purchase by Facebook is just another example of the company stretching itself thin in order to grab a larger user base.

benched 13y ago
never You take the long view, I see.
davorb 13y ago
> You are never going to be able to get sufficiently passable virtual reality to make up for the hardware hassle. Here is a video of a grown man crying like a small girl. If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl7fz__6B-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl7fz__6B-4
- uptown 13y ago
  I don't doubt that it's a great experience - but that guy seemed to be playing things up for the sake of the camera IMO.
meowface 13y ago
I agree regarding the every day activities thing: FaceTime and Skype are sufficient and will probably remain dominant (maybe in different forms) for decades. But I could see a serious paradigm shift for video games, especially future massively multiplayer games.
- a3voices 13y ago
  But you can't look at your phone, play with your pet, etc. while using VR. It actually removes value to have both your eyes occupied.
13y ago

ssully 13y ago

I really appreciate that Notch seems to always communicate his opinions, whether I agree with them or not, in such an intelligent and fair way. I think he hit all the right points with this post especially about his initial investment in their kickstarter. As of now I am looking at this acquisition with intense skepticism. I am interested in the Rift from a pure gaming perspective, and facebook hasn't proven themselves in that field yet, or at least not in the way that I agree with. With that said I do look forward to seeing what happens with this. Good or bad I believe that this is something that will be talked about for a long time.

fernly 13y ago

"I think social could become one of the biggest applications of VR. Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar?" -- But that was Second Life! I'm trying to imagine what 2L would have been like with convincing VR. First, probably not anywhere near technical feasibility for at least several years. Remember the lag when a bunch of avatars were in one place? Or how long it took for a scene to fill in after you teleported? And the bandwidth, good lord... But then I imagine what it would be like if the bandwidth and server performance issues were magically solved. And I realize that it was all imagined before decades ago, in Snow Crash[1]. [1]http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Crash-Neal-Stephenson/dp/0553562614 http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Crash-Neal-Stephenson/dp/05535626...

meowface 13y ago
I wonder how the lag problems could be prevented. Even if 1 or 10 Gbps links were in every home, that isn't really going to help with latency if someone in Korea is trying to do something in true real time with someone in the US. It's a big problem even for much less ambitious "VR"-esque worlds like MMORPG games. Usually they'll have to locate one server in Asia, one or more in Europe, one or two in America, etc. to accomodate for lag.

mambodog 13y ago

VR will be like the web. Eventually it will belong to all of us. Once it gets off the ground, no single company will be able to ruin it. Just like touchscreen smartphones, initially we had the iPhone which is relatively locked down and controlled by a single vendor, but now we have cheap, commoditised hardware of acceptable quality. More importantly, the real 'platform' for smartphones is the web, which is as open as any we've ever had. Eventually, VR will have something of the same. I'm glad to see that at least Notch gets it.

jiggy2011 13y ago
I dunno, patents + network effects can give one a pretty damn good head start.
smacktoward 13y ago
The Web belongs to all of us because the people who invented it made the incredibly generous decision to set it free. (I've written a little about how that decision was made here: http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/05/the-act-of-generosity-that-changed-the-world/ http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/05/the-act-of-generosity-that...) I don't see anybody rushing to put their VR IP into the public domain.
- deerpig 13y ago
  But a lot of technologies that could be used for VR, are free, VRML and Web3D, OpenGl etc.

zachinglis 13y ago

I wrote about about my views: http://zachinglis.com/posts/oculus-and-facebook-sitting-in-a-tree http://zachinglis.com/posts/oculus-and-facebook-sitting-in-a... But long story short - As Zuck said, it's a long bet. But one that most gaming companies won't want to be associated with. But they're not going after gaming anyway, gaming was 2 words in the press release. They're going after experiences, of which they have no prerequisites in place (healthcare, sports games, etc.) I'll be looking forward to whoever shows up in place. It's just such a shame - I felt like they were the awesome people to look forward to seeing help change the gaming landscape.

rafe33 13y ago

I'm disappointed for oculus that anyone bought them. They had a chance to lead the next generation of companies in revolutionising media... To BE the next Sony. Kudos to Facebook for snatching them up.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

Wow, this is really a great statement. I applaud him for this stance. I didn't really expect this reaction but it is a very pleasant surprise.

briantakita 13y ago

Kudo to Notch for taking a moral stance on the Oculus buyout. VR is going to change the world. Let's make it a positive change that respects freedom & autonomy, not a walled garden.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

interpol_p 13y ago

From Notch: > Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social. In fact, I think social could become one of the biggest applications of VR. Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar? Business meetings? Virtual cinemas where you feel like you’re actually watching the movie with your friend who is seven time zones away? Do people really see this as the mainstream use of VR? Do people really see a mainstream use for VR at all? I can't see it. It's not the future of computing to me. VR is incredible, it's magical and amazing. I've used the dev kits and the feeling of presence is awesome. The first time I wore the Oculus DK1 was the first time I felt teleported to a different location. Despite all this, I still don't want to use my Oculus every day — not even once a week. It's a great system but the feeling wears off once you are immersed in the actual experience. It doesn't make my communication or consumption of information any more efficient, not like the way mobile Internet devices have done. Not even like the way my graphics tablet improved my ability to be artistic with my computer. I see VR as dramatically changing a small but highly focused subset of the entertainment landscape, and being used in many niche areas (such as architectural visualisation). I can't see it replacing the way we use our computers in general. Perhaps I am just shortsighted, and I would be happy to be proven so.

meowface 13y ago
I think I agree. When it comes to video games, for people who are really into getting immersed it could see major usage. But for every day activities, I think that video conferencing and other forms of communication we already have basically cover those niches.
agumonkey 13y ago
In my imagination, computers will fade away to become as invisible as ubiquitous.
sillysaurus3 13y ago
The thing about the future is that it has a funny way of proving you wrong. I think the vision outlined above is entirely possible. An integrated microphone with surround sound headphones was going to change gamedev forever. Who knows how that would bleed into other types of scenarios than gaming? I'd watch a movie with someone using an Oculus. It'd be a fun experience.

NextUserName 13y ago

>Virtual Reality is going to change the world Just like 3D televisions/displays did? I have heard this for over a decade and I am still not convinced.

rpdillon 13y ago
3D TVs never made sense. VR is a wholly different analysis. I wrote a bunch about this back in 2012: http://killring.org/2012/08/14/the-vr-revolution-begins-now/ http://killring.org/2012/08/14/the-vr-revolution-begins-now/ http://killring.org/2012/08/30/virtual-reality-creating-immersion/ http://killring.org/2012/08/30/virtual-reality-creating-imme...

bane 13y ago

I just realized what this means...."free to play" VR games with a credit card slot right on the headset.

hawkharris 13y ago

Virtual reality has existed for thousands of years. It began with performed and written stories. When storytelling through film became popular in the 20th century, proponents marveled at its technical potential: the ability to control viewers' eyes and to immerse them in a dream world. There were also critics who suggested it might be too immersive: detracting from face-to-face conversations. Over time the technical "Wow" factor of film mostly faded. In its absence, viewers started to remember what made virtual reality feel real all along: the quality of the content. Sure, some people still marvel at 3D screenings and similar technology, but we mostly focus on the narratives rather than the medium. If history is any guide, there is no medium for virtual reality. After the initial "Wow" factor of a new viewing experience subsides, we'll realize that the content is responsible for carrying us into a dream world.

BeggarsAll 13y ago

I completely agree with Notch on this one. Facebook are just buying Oculus because they need to show the investors and board they can innovate. Facebook is a dying product, they're losing users, making bad design decisions and know the only way to remain relevant is to buy up other business regardless of the niche.

scient 13y ago
And you have zero arguments to present to support your claims. Nicely done, future armchair CEO.

sinak 13y ago

> Facebook is not a company of grass-roots tech enthusiasts. This seems really true to me. Zuck gives the impression that he's in it for the power, and not for the love of technology. That's what makes this acquisition disappointing.

teemo_cute 13y ago

I'm surprise nobody mentioned its potential use by the sex industry for virtual/interactive porn. Think of the possibilities. If you what I mean...

cm127 13y ago
We do. http://www.reddit.com/r/oculusnsfw http://www.reddit.com/r/oculusnsfw

lispm 13y ago

What really would improve the world would be clean water for a few more people or a clean energy source. VR not so.

neo_cs193p 13y ago

"Changing the world" is not automatically a good thing, and should never be a goal in itself. Same goes for "making money".

anentropic 13y ago

"Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar? Business meetings? Virtual cinemas where you feel like you’re actually watching the movie with your friend who is seven time zones away?" These all sound like crap ideas

quasque 13y ago

It seems a bit unhygienic having to strap one of these things to your face. Just imagine how filthy it would get after prolonged use. I hope if this stuff takes off then it's designed to be easily washable. The lingering scent of ingrained facial grease would somewhat ruin the immersive experience.

oulipian 13y ago
Fortunately, 80% of the games people will play on this involve avatars wearing space helmets! Ingrained facial grease just makes it more immersive!

deerpig 13y ago

Why is everyone looking at VR in terms of what exists? VR is not gaming, though it shares many aspects of gaming. VR is not social, though it will overlap with a lot of how we use social today. It also won't be the Web, though, if it takes off, it will need to borrow the same open network-anyone-can-set-up-there-tent-where-they-want infrastructure. But will Facebook be the company to make that happen? The great walled garden will turn into the great walled immersive world. If Facebook manages to pull that off we will all be poorer for it.