Now that Facebook will own Oculus, are you going to buy an Oculus Rift?

[Ironman273]

[HawkMan]

Im probably going to need to make ties with facebook to use it now, so I guess the answer is no.

 

If they are completely independent products and I don't need to share on facebook that I have/use one, nor is facebook required to log into it/use it, I may consider. While the tech may be groundbreaking sony also announced something similar for the PS4 and I presume this is ony the start.

 

 

These comments make no sense.

 

in WHAT way would it possibly make sense that in order to use the OR hardware with a game, you would need a facebook account...

I've been playing with a 1st generation Oculus Rift and, while interesting, it's very clunky and hasn't increase my interest for a VR product.  I realize things will change as the product (or the VR space) matures but the first impression was "meh".

 

As for Facebook, they're not a charity.  They bought OR because they felt they can monetize it in some way that aligns with their goals.  Not sure why else Facebook would be interested in it besides some sort of data mining.

 

 

Sell hardware for a profit = profit...

[Ironman273]

Sell hardware for a profit = profit...

Yes, but why Oculus Rift?  There are many things that they could sell and make a profit that wouldn't make sense.  They could get in the real estate market and start flipping houses.  There's good margin in that and they have the cash.  Even though OR is in the technology space, Facebook has never been a "maker of things to sell for profit."  

[MikeChipshop Member]

Yes, but why Oculus Rift?  There are many things that they could sell and make a profit that wouldn't make sense.  They could get in the real estate market and start flipping houses.  There's good margin in that and they have the cash.  Even though OR is in the technology space, Facebook has never been a "maker of things to sell for profit."  

 

I'd imagine because the tech is a blossoming and very exciting product. Just because it's not 'Social' doesn't mean a company who found their fortune in that space should be excluded from buying.

[Max Norris]

Wasn't going to get one to begin with. Wasn't impressed with the VR fad last time around when it went nowhere, of a mind it's going to go about the same way this time too. This isn't something new.. just improved. Extra no for Facebook ownership though... they're going to want to recover that $2B, where do you think that's going to come from? It's not all going to be just sales of the device...

[Turk.]

I hate FB, now that OR is part of FB, I never used FB and OR, will never use them. Simple, haters gonna hate.

[Ironman273]

I'd imagine because the tech is a blossoming and very exciting product. Just because it's not 'Social' doesn't mean a company who found their fortune in that space should be excluded from buying.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy what they want.  However, they now have investors to answer to.  These investors purchased into the company because they believed in what and how they did business.  All I'm saying is that buying Oculus Rift because it's a cool technology and they'll be able to sell it as a profit doesn't make sense for a public company to do.  My opinion is that they have something else in mind that is closer to their core business, which on the surface is connecting people but at the core (where the money is) is data mining.

These comments make no sense.

 

in WHAT way would it possibly make sense that in order to use the OR hardware with a game, you would need a facebook account...

In the same way it makes sense that you need a Google+ account to use YouTube?  :whistle:

[Pupik]

I'll wait for the final product and then wait to see how it is, before considering to buy it.

[MikeChipshop Member]

All I'm saying is that buying Oculus Rift because it's a cool technology and they'll be able to sell it as a profit doesn't make sense for a public company to do.

 

What? lol. Please read that back to yourself. That's exactly what a public company should do.

[Dick Montage]

Their loss. The interest they garnered for their product was effectively destroyed with one announcement.

 

Utter nonsense.  To the majority of the online consumer world "Facebook = ooooh gimme".  You and I are have different, but minority opinions.

[+Kyle Subscriber¹]

I love how people act like Facebook is the most sensationally evil company that ever existed. Seems like people are just looking for things to whine about.

[Ironman273]

What? lol. Please read that back to yourself. That's exactly what a public company should do.

Umm, no.  If I had stock in Ford and they decided to start making video games I wouldn't be a happy investor.  I bought Ford because they make good cars and they need to keep doing that.  I'm not saying that making a profit isn't what a public company should do, it's investing in businesses outside of their wheelhouse.

[Boo Berry]

I had major interest - almost pre-ordered a DK2 but since this news hit, I'm not going to. Why? Regardless what Facebook says about independence, they'll always find a way to mess it up in the end. For example, yesterday Mark Zuckerberg already mentioned ads which is a big no-no to me. I have nothing but disgust towards anything Facebook which includes Instagram which I refuse to use and want nothing to do with. As such, I now want nothing to do with the Oculus.

 

I'll wait and see what Valve comes up with.

[TruckWEB]

I had no plan on buting one.  But seeing how FB want to turn this into FaceRift AND FB saying that they don't have any gaming plan for it....  Well, it leave the door wide open for Sony, MS and Valve to do something better.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Umm, no.  If I had stock in Ford and they decided to start making video games I wouldn't be a happy investor.  I bought Ford because they make good cars and they need to keep doing that.  I'm not saying that making a profit isn't what a public company should do, it's investing in businesses outside of their wheelhouse.

 

Many many companies invest in abroad spectrum of other technologies to increase their profits and stock portfolio. I'm afraid what you're saying is plain wrong. Investors want profits, whether it's from cars or video games really doesn't matter, it's a numbers game.

[Ironman273]

Many many companies invest in abroad spectrum of other technologies to increase their profits and stock portfolio. I'm afraid what you're saying is plain wrong. Investors want profits, whether it's from cars or video games really doesn't matter, it's a numbers game.

Many companies do because that's what they do.  There are companies that are strictly patent houses.  There are "inventor" companies.  Facebook isn't one of those companies.  And as for it being a numbers game, the number that they're interested is risk.  The lower the risk the better.  Getting into something they've never done before increases risk and potential profits.  What if one year from now we hear the news "Facebook tried their hand at making gaming hardware and lost out on their $2 billion investment."  High risk.  If, on the other hand, investors were approached and told of how VR will allow Facebook to sell more ads and get more data (Zuckerberg already mentioned ads) then they would think that Facebook is just cornering more of what they're good at. I just don't think that the Oculus Rift under Facebook will have the same ultimate goals as Oculus Rift independent.  Palmer Luckey said that Facebook's money will allow them to get to market quicker. Many founders that are bought out by big companies do so with the money as the reason.  Then they soon realize the big company's goal is not their original goal and leave or get fired.

[SiCKX]

If it's about gaming and VR actually does more than 3D advertising did, I'm sure Sony/MS will pull a better headest.

Didn't care much about Oculus in the beginning, now I care even less. Not because FB is "evil", it's just not the company that seems to be doing stuff with it that might interest me.

[Ironman273]

If it's about gaming and VR actually does more than 3D advertising did, I'm sure Sony/MS will pull a better headest.

Didn't care much about Oculus in the beginning, now I care even less. Not because FB is "evil", it's just not the company seems to be doing stuff with it that might interest me.

Thank you for putting into words what I couldn't.  That's exactly the basis of my whole argument in my previous posts.

 

This is an interesting read: http://valleywag.gawker.com/oculus-grift-kickstarter-as-charity-for-venture-capita-1551921517/@barrett

[XorpiZ]

Why not just wait and see what Facebook will actually do with Oculus Rift, before passing judgment?

[Blackhearted]

I never had much interest in wearing a gigantic device on my face in the first place so... nope.

[Ironman273]

OR is new therefore "cheap" in a product group that while not new(there was home VR headsets before 10 years ago, but they went away) is non existent today and is expected to grow huge. Which means they can get in for cheap now on a nearly ready product who is set to be alone on the market for a long time and get solid profits and be the market leader and set the standard. 

 

If it takes off, which all relies on the technology being good enough, they're set for guaranteed multi million and then some profits just in the early days, never mind the long term. 

 

Sort of, but not nearly, since those are at least both web services. 

All I'm saying is that I don't think OR will be just a gaming peripheral and that's it as it was originally intended.  I think Facebook's involvement will dilute it into some areas I have no interest in.

[HawkMan]

Yes, but why Oculus Rift?  There are many things that they could sell and make a profit that wouldn't make sense.  They could get in the real estate market and start flipping houses.  There's good margin in that and they have the cash.  Even though OR is in the technology space, Facebook has never been a "maker of things to sell for profit."  

 

OR is new therefore "cheap" in a product group that while not new(there was home VR headsets before 10 years ago, but they went away) is non existent today and is expected to grow huge. Which means they can get in for cheap now on a nearly ready product who is set to be alone on the market for a long time and get solid profits and be the market leader and set the standard. 

 

If it takes off, which all relies on the technology being good enough, they're set for guaranteed multi million and then some profits just in the early days, never mind the long term. 

 

In the same way it makes sense that you need a Google+ account to use YouTube?  :whistle:

 

Sort of, but not nearly, since those are at least both web services. 

I had no plan on buting one.  But seeing how FB want to turn this into FaceRift AND FB saying that they don't have any gaming plan for it....  Well, it leave the door wide open for Sony, MS and Valve to do something better.

 

Why would FB have a gaming plan for it, they make the hardware and may make apps to use it with their service, But Other people already makes the games that will interface with it... your argument doesn't make sense here. 

[Pupik]

On front page of reddit now, on why most people are angry:

 

Also, heh:

[dead.cell]

People ask why others are making such a big deal about it, but the reality is, Facebook isn't Sony, Microsoft, or Valve. Hell, if Microsoft made the purchase, I'd be downright excited and would argue that it could be a game changer in allowing Sony to have some real competition which would allow for us to see continued improvements to the tech.

 

Facebook though, we don't know their commitment level, their goals, their ideas, whether they're just trying to make a quick buck or if they're going to actually bring something real to the table. You can throw money at something all you want, but unless you have the RIGHT people that can push things forward, I just don't see it.

 

Arguing aside though, all you guys really should hope that this deal goes through. If it doesn't, I'm uncertain of the future for Oculus Rift, after the damage Facebook's name alone would have done to the company.

[spacer]

When the final version came out, I was probably going to get one. Now, no way.