6 ms·

I wonder what Facebook wants out of VR. I'm sure they're not counting on it to propel Farmville 2.0 (at least I hope not). Perhaps they feel that VR will be a

I wonder what Facebook wants out of VR. I'm sure they're not counting on it to propel Farmville 2.0 (at least I hope not). Perhaps they feel that VR will be a new interface paradigm - The mouse/Keyboard or the touchscreen of the 2020s. Being the first one to define this paradigm would give Facebook a huge advantage in the next fight for computing and communication mindshare - scary I know. It sounds a little off right now, but imagine if the VR set becomes more mobile and easier to put on and take off... or why even take it off. You could interface with data in three dimensions or communicate with people as if they were right there next to you. I think this is a much longer play for Facebook than anyone gives them credit for.

lmg643 13y ago
I don't see the fit here. I get Microsoft buying the Kinect platform for Xbox. Instantly plug it into games, you have an incredible game option, and additional features get built down the line. Seems like the first stop for a VR headset would be with an existing top-tier game console manufacturer. for the sole reason that they already have a library of material, most of which is an immersive world you navigate with a joystick, which would benefit greatly from a headset. additional use cases down the line. Sony was launching their own, so nintendo or microsoft would make sense. for facebook - most facebook games are simple, like farmville - not really benefitting from a VR helmet. how do i interact with my friends in a VR helmet if they are wearing one too? neither face is actually visible - step down from facetime, hangouts etc. photo immersion perhaps? I guess i will be one of the stunned outsiders when i see what amazing use case facebook has for this.
- mladenkovacevic 13y ago
  I was trying to make the argument that Facebook probably DIDN'T buy them for games (ie Farmville). I'm saying that it's a longer bet. Maybe they see it as a new interface for general computing. It certainly has that intimate, only-I-know-what-I'm-doing quality that voice commands (Siri and Google Now for example) don't have.
  - lmg643 13y ago
    I hear you. When the bet is so far out that you can't even guess at it - either we're just too dim (likely), or the theory is pretty shaky. the mouse is a good parallel - just a way to interface with content. many people have figured out how to build one. the star of the show (and the revenue) remains the content we use it to point at.
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    The problem is, without establishing a beachhead in gaming, there's no real path towards adoption. You can't just leapfrog the gamers and expect to build a market with other stuff that might or might not turn out to be compelling: gaming is VR's no-brainer killer app. People are going to be buying this for games first, and when a critical mass assembles, other stuff. So, this is either a very, very long range bet, or a misguided one.
ekianjo 13y ago
> It sounds a little off right now, but imagine if the VR set becomes more mobile and easier to put on and take off... or why even take it off. It will take a long time to get there. Even gamers who have eyes moving faster than normal people have had nauseous sensations after using the Rift for extended periods of time. Stuff like that will make it a big hurdle for VR to go mainstream in the short-mid term.
badsock 13y ago
I can't help but be reminded of eBay's acquisition of Skype. Back then people talked about how it must be part of some grand strategy that would surely be revealed as eBay played its hand, because it didn't make a lot of sense at the time. What use could an auction site have for what is essentially a telecom company? Turned out there really was no concrete business reason, just senseless feeding frenzy and hand-waving about vision. Terrible idea for both companies.
- mladenkovacevic 13y ago
  This buy could also be a purely preception-shaping move for Facebook. Sort of to send investors the message that "We're not just a spammy social network, we've interested in bigger things". The uptick in stock price alone from this kind of change in perception could make up for the Oculus investment many times over (I think the cash part of the deal was "only" something like 400 million?)

lmg643 13y ago

I don't see the fit here. I get Microsoft buying the Kinect platform for Xbox. Instantly plug it into games, you have an incredible game option, and additional features get built down the line. Seems like the first stop for a VR headset would be with an existing top-tier game console manufacturer. for the sole reason that they already have a library of material, most of which is an immersive world you navigate with a joystick, which would benefit greatly from a headset. additional use cases down the line. Sony was launching their own, so nintendo or microsoft would make sense. for facebook - most facebook games are simple, like farmville - not really benefitting from a VR helmet. how do i interact with my friends in a VR helmet if they are wearing one too? neither face is actually visible - step down from facetime, hangouts etc. photo immersion perhaps? I guess i will be one of the stunned outsiders when i see what amazing use case facebook has for this.

mladenkovacevic 13y ago
I was trying to make the argument that Facebook probably DIDN'T buy them for games (ie Farmville). I'm saying that it's a longer bet. Maybe they see it as a new interface for general computing. It certainly has that intimate, only-I-know-what-I'm-doing quality that voice commands (Siri and Google Now for example) don't have.
- lmg643 13y ago
  I hear you. When the bet is so far out that you can't even guess at it - either we're just too dim (likely), or the theory is pretty shaky. the mouse is a good parallel - just a way to interface with content. many people have figured out how to build one. the star of the show (and the revenue) remains the content we use it to point at.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  The problem is, without establishing a beachhead in gaming, there's no real path towards adoption. You can't just leapfrog the gamers and expect to build a market with other stuff that might or might not turn out to be compelling: gaming is VR's no-brainer killer app. People are going to be buying this for games first, and when a critical mass assembles, other stuff. So, this is either a very, very long range bet, or a misguided one.

ekianjo 13y ago

> It sounds a little off right now, but imagine if the VR set becomes more mobile and easier to put on and take off... or why even take it off. It will take a long time to get there. Even gamers who have eyes moving faster than normal people have had nauseous sensations after using the Rift for extended periods of time. Stuff like that will make it a big hurdle for VR to go mainstream in the short-mid term.

badsock 13y ago

I can't help but be reminded of eBay's acquisition of Skype. Back then people talked about how it must be part of some grand strategy that would surely be revealed as eBay played its hand, because it didn't make a lot of sense at the time. What use could an auction site have for what is essentially a telecom company? Turned out there really was no concrete business reason, just senseless feeding frenzy and hand-waving about vision. Terrible idea for both companies.

mladenkovacevic 13y ago
This buy could also be a purely preception-shaping move for Facebook. Sort of to send investors the message that "We're not just a spammy social network, we've interested in bigger things". The uptick in stock price alone from this kind of change in perception could make up for the Oculus investment many times over (I think the cash part of the deal was "only" something like 400 million?)