9 ms·

> The reason people don't get this -- or at least, why I don't get it -- and thus responded negatively, is because VR should have nothing to do with Facebook's

> The reason people don't get this -- or at least, why I don't get it -- and thus responded negatively, is because VR should have nothing to do with Facebook's vision, and Facebook -- or social gaming in general -- should have nothing to do with Oculus' vision. Honest question: why shouldn't VR be in Facebook's vision? _Someone_ is going to create a Google Hangouts-style product that incorporates VR. I'm not excited that it is FB, per say, but I can see how a company built on social interactions is going to want a piece of that pie. I get the frustration about the short-term impact on gaming, but I don't (yet?) understand why this is a bad move for VR in general...

pfraze 13y ago
It's not that VR shouldn't be in Facebook's vision. It's that Facebook's vision shouldn't be a primary player in VR.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Why?
  - bane 13y ago
    Have you ever used Facebook?
teacup50 13y ago
> _Someone_ is going to create a Google Hangouts-style product that incorporates VR. Are they? Why is VR inevitable? We already went through this once in the 90s, and the same truths are still true: nobody wants to put a face-covering headset just to communicate with other people.
- wiremine 13y ago
  > Why is VR inevitable? Good point, I agree that I am making a big assumption. That said, I don't think the argument that "it didn't work before" is valid. I don't think people want face-covering headsets that _suck_. If I can wear an _awesome_ headset and have a virtual conversation with my family across the country, I'd purchase one in a heartbeat.
  - bane 13y ago
    Who would you be conversing with? A video of your family with screens attached to their faces or some avatars representing your family members? I don't understand why so many people have trouble understanding that you can't see the faces of people who have something blocking their faces. So if it's avatars, what are those avatars going to be? Some off the shelf selection of Mii/Second Life/WoW avatars? But you'll say "modern technology can provide avatars that are very realistic simulacrums of actual people!" and I say, who will build those models? Now people have to buy high-res 3d scanners for their home as well? Or spend loads of money on modeling teams to build these avatars? Or go to Facebook centers where people get their faces scanned and avatars built? And the rift doesn't yet even support facial expression mapping. How do you think this is going to work? You think people lose their shit over privacy issues now? Wait until Facebook has a sub-mm accurate 3d model of every person's face!
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      You are experiencing a fundamental failure of imagination. VR goggles do not necessarily have to remain large, face-blocking objects forever, nor do high-resolution 3D scanners have to remain large, expensive items. Other people are thinking about the future. You are stuck in the present.
      - bane 13y ago
        So your premise is that something you need to put in front of your eyes to see, won't be in front of your eyes at some point imaginary point in the future, and it doesn't matter if they are blocking your face because 3d face scanners, for which people will use them approximately once, will also become so cheap that people won't mind buying them in some imaginary point in the future. Okay. Sure. I can't argue against arbitrary hypotheticals composed of arbitrarily defined technological sophistication measured against some indefinite point in the future with an unspecified price point that will always fit the future you happen to want. Just like when I was six, and my friend kept changing the rules of the game we were playing so he always won, you got me.
- threeseed 13y ago
  You could say the same thing about computers. Nobody wants to sit in front of a screen just to communicate with other people. Yet billions of people do. Up until now the technology simply hasn't been good enough to address the "presence" issue.
  - honestcoyote 13y ago
    Sitting in front of a screen doesn't completely block your vision. I think there will be a certain level of discomfort, no matter how lightweight the goggles, at being completely blind to your surroundings. I have no idea if this will prevent mainstream acceptance of the technology, but I think it will have a serious effect. Maybe the next generation of this tech will find a way to preserve peripheral vision, and/or provide some pass-through motion detection, while still remaining immersive.
potatolicious 13y ago
There are IMO two angles to this that I identify with (to different degrees): 1 - People wanted Oculus to be a driving force in gaming, and based on recent post-acquisition statement it looks like the company is much more interested in the Metaverse than they are in gaming. This is certainly a more ambitious goal and a harder problem overall to tackle than gaming, but a lot of Oculus fans don't give two hoots about the Metaverse and just want to fly airplanes, shoot monsters, explore dungeons, or what have you. There is (IMO a justifiable) fear that the company is going to abandon, or at least scale back, their efforts in promoting Oculus for gaming, in favor of its own goals creating the Metaverse. Like you said, Google Hangouts in VR. 2 - People are excited that the Metaverse a la Snow Crash is actually going to happen, but do not believe Facebook to the be right people to bring this about. The reasoning for this varies, but mostly comes down to privacy protections, prevalence of advertising, and Facebook's seemingly infinite capacity for nickel and diming their users. In this case people understand perfectly well why VR would be part of Facebook's vision - it just scares the bejeezus out of them. The perceived bad move for VR in general is that Oculus is going to become a Facebook product, rather than a well-supported, well-evangelized platform on which a whole VR ecosystem can be built (i.e., the original vision). The chief fear is that eventually people are going to by the Oculus purely to access Facebook Presents the Metaverse instead of to access a wide ecosystem of VR products.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Nevertheless, there will be competition. Let's say your worst fears realize, and the Rift is a locked down Virtual Facebook Experience. Well, they still need to solve presence, and that means: - Higher resolutions panels. - Higher frequency panels. - Low persistence panels. - Ultra-high bandwidth, ultra-low latency video feeds (a better HDMI or something) - Graphics processing from Moore's Rabbit Hole - And lots of other thing that like the above, they won't develop in-house. Once they have that, somebody will swoop in and create a "Trif" using the better, cheaper material than what the demand driven by the Evil Rift made possible. Remember, the Rift itself is possible because of Retina phone displays. Or someone will jailbreak their Rift.
jader201 13y ago
> I get the frustration about the short-term impact on gaming, but I don't (yet?) understand why this is a bad move for VR in general... That's just it. Fans of Oculus and the Rift were (mostly) interested in the gaming of VR. You have a point, that Facebook can certainly leverage VR to expand their product. But I think it's not in the direction previous/current fans (or even followers) of Oculus were/are interested in. I'm not necessarily questioning whether this move is in the best interest of Facebook or Oculus. I think both companies will benefit from this long-term. My point is that this isn't in the interest of the fans/followers of Oculus, and there's no explanation as to how Oculus would be surprised by the negative reaction of those outside the core community. In fact, the only ones I can think of that would not react to this move negatively are fans of Facebook, and those invested in Facebook and Oculus.
bane 13y ago
There's no reason. The problem with the acquisition is that FB could have been just one virtual experience among thousands for OVR, now it's likely to be the only one.

pfraze 13y ago

It's not that VR shouldn't be in Facebook's vision. It's that Facebook's vision shouldn't be a primary player in VR.

XorNot 13y ago
Why?
- bane 13y ago
  Have you ever used Facebook?

teacup50 13y ago

> _Someone_ is going to create a Google Hangouts-style product that incorporates VR. Are they? Why is VR inevitable? We already went through this once in the 90s, and the same truths are still true: nobody wants to put a face-covering headset just to communicate with other people.

wiremine 13y ago
> Why is VR inevitable? Good point, I agree that I am making a big assumption. That said, I don't think the argument that "it didn't work before" is valid. I don't think people want face-covering headsets that _suck_. If I can wear an _awesome_ headset and have a virtual conversation with my family across the country, I'd purchase one in a heartbeat.
- bane 13y ago
  Who would you be conversing with? A video of your family with screens attached to their faces or some avatars representing your family members? I don't understand why so many people have trouble understanding that you can't see the faces of people who have something blocking their faces. So if it's avatars, what are those avatars going to be? Some off the shelf selection of Mii/Second Life/WoW avatars? But you'll say "modern technology can provide avatars that are very realistic simulacrums of actual people!" and I say, who will build those models? Now people have to buy high-res 3d scanners for their home as well? Or spend loads of money on modeling teams to build these avatars? Or go to Facebook centers where people get their faces scanned and avatars built? And the rift doesn't yet even support facial expression mapping. How do you think this is going to work? You think people lose their shit over privacy issues now? Wait until Facebook has a sub-mm accurate 3d model of every person's face!
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    You are experiencing a fundamental failure of imagination. VR goggles do not necessarily have to remain large, face-blocking objects forever, nor do high-resolution 3D scanners have to remain large, expensive items. Other people are thinking about the future. You are stuck in the present.
    - bane 13y ago
      So your premise is that something you need to put in front of your eyes to see, won't be in front of your eyes at some point imaginary point in the future, and it doesn't matter if they are blocking your face because 3d face scanners, for which people will use them approximately once, will also become so cheap that people won't mind buying them in some imaginary point in the future. Okay. Sure. I can't argue against arbitrary hypotheticals composed of arbitrarily defined technological sophistication measured against some indefinite point in the future with an unspecified price point that will always fit the future you happen to want. Just like when I was six, and my friend kept changing the rules of the game we were playing so he always won, you got me.
threeseed 13y ago
You could say the same thing about computers. Nobody wants to sit in front of a screen just to communicate with other people. Yet billions of people do. Up until now the technology simply hasn't been good enough to address the "presence" issue.
- honestcoyote 13y ago
  Sitting in front of a screen doesn't completely block your vision. I think there will be a certain level of discomfort, no matter how lightweight the goggles, at being completely blind to your surroundings. I have no idea if this will prevent mainstream acceptance of the technology, but I think it will have a serious effect. Maybe the next generation of this tech will find a way to preserve peripheral vision, and/or provide some pass-through motion detection, while still remaining immersive.

potatolicious 13y ago

There are IMO two angles to this that I identify with (to different degrees): 1 - People wanted Oculus to be a driving force in gaming, and based on recent post-acquisition statement it looks like the company is much more interested in the Metaverse than they are in gaming. This is certainly a more ambitious goal and a harder problem overall to tackle than gaming, but a lot of Oculus fans don't give two hoots about the Metaverse and just want to fly airplanes, shoot monsters, explore dungeons, or what have you. There is (IMO a justifiable) fear that the company is going to abandon, or at least scale back, their efforts in promoting Oculus for gaming, in favor of its own goals creating the Metaverse. Like you said, Google Hangouts in VR. 2 - People are excited that the Metaverse a la Snow Crash is actually going to happen, but do not believe Facebook to the be right people to bring this about. The reasoning for this varies, but mostly comes down to privacy protections, prevalence of advertising, and Facebook's seemingly infinite capacity for nickel and diming their users. In this case people understand perfectly well why VR would be part of Facebook's vision - it just scares the bejeezus out of them. The perceived bad move for VR in general is that Oculus is going to become a Facebook product, rather than a well-supported, well-evangelized platform on which a whole VR ecosystem can be built (i.e., the original vision). The chief fear is that eventually people are going to by the Oculus purely to access Facebook Presents the Metaverse instead of to access a wide ecosystem of VR products.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Nevertheless, there will be competition. Let's say your worst fears realize, and the Rift is a locked down Virtual Facebook Experience. Well, they still need to solve presence, and that means: - Higher resolutions panels. - Higher frequency panels. - Low persistence panels. - Ultra-high bandwidth, ultra-low latency video feeds (a better HDMI or something) - Graphics processing from Moore's Rabbit Hole - And lots of other thing that like the above, they won't develop in-house. Once they have that, somebody will swoop in and create a "Trif" using the better, cheaper material than what the demand driven by the Evil Rift made possible. Remember, the Rift itself is possible because of Retina phone displays. Or someone will jailbreak their Rift.

jader201 13y ago

> I get the frustration about the short-term impact on gaming, but I don't (yet?) understand why this is a bad move for VR in general... That's just it. Fans of Oculus and the Rift were (mostly) interested in the gaming of VR. You have a point, that Facebook can certainly leverage VR to expand their product. But I think it's not in the direction previous/current fans (or even followers) of Oculus were/are interested in. I'm not necessarily questioning whether this move is in the best interest of Facebook or Oculus. I think both companies will benefit from this long-term. My point is that this isn't in the interest of the fans/followers of Oculus, and there's no explanation as to how Oculus would be surprised by the negative reaction of those outside the core community. In fact, the only ones I can think of that would not react to this move negatively are fans of Facebook, and those invested in Facebook and Oculus.

bane 13y ago

There's no reason. The problem with the acquisition is that FB could have been just one virtual experience among thousands for OVR, now it's likely to be the only one.