I’m going to just say that you are looking at this through insufficiently mid-ninties eyes. Remember that back then it was all going to be virtual presence teleconferencing (change your avatar to a bear! Change your BOSS into a bear and make meetings less boring!) and virtual malls with 3D AISLES that you can walk through and browse!
I am pretty sure that is the kind of cocaine that Mark is doing.
I wonder what kind of shitty DRM could be put on these things and how that would effect the experiance.
What kind? You mean any kind?
We’ll see I suppose.
actually I was wondering if “shitty” was redundent but I left it in. EDIT: I guess it would probably be something like, “only Facebook approved apps may be used with this device, please log in to facebook to verify that your browser is Facebook approved” if it were to happen, which I sincerely hope it doesn’t.
When has crowd funding ever been that successful on it’s own?
It’s always been just a gauge of client interest that prompts bigger companies to put real money behind the project.
The only ones that got enough cash to do something with it was Double Fine and they have blundered that up massively.
In what way exactly? I’m just curious as I know next to nothing about them
It’s interesting though, in a way, that the overwhelming response has been “oh shit. Well, that’s that fucked then” rather than “Yahoo! Now OR have the big name backer to really push this into the big time!”
Curiously, the same sentiment gets repeated pretty much every time Google/Apple/Facebook/Microsoft buy anything. Talk about your toxic branding.
A few observations…
First of all, there are very few people in the world that wouldn’t sell out for this kind of money.
Second, anyone who backs a kickstarter and thinks they are part of something is just fooling themselves. Kickstarters serve the developer and no one else otherwise there would be an equity share.
Third, if Facebook ruins the project then there will be another Oculus device to replace it. There is no shortage of innovation in the world.
Let’s move on now.
Not at even remotely the same level. Google and Apple and (modern-day) Microsoft tend to buy things that make sense for their product ecologies, and only sometimes fuck them up. They are also companies that produce decent quality products, more or less (despite the gnashing of internet teeth and rending of internet garments whenever they change UI details or API license terms or what have you.) They have their devotees, but I’ve never heard of anyone actually liking Facebook; people use it because everyone else does and/or they don’t know any better.
The last reaction like this to an acquisition that I recall was from the Mac community back when Microsoft bought beloved Bungie and redirected Halo development to the Xbox. Even that made sense, in a coldly calculating way, and happened during the depths of MS’ bad-actor period.
What? You mean the people who kickstarted it aren’t getting some of that $400 million in cash?
How long will it take, before lawsuits are filed?
I want to put a little note in here from a separate thread I’m on regarding this article, especially for those of you mentioning Kickstarter as here:
The real core of my pain was the hopefulness of Oculus as a new way of doing business. The idea that I could put my money behind an idea rather than a product and really support what it means rather than what it is is a powerful one, and it’s what’s made Kickstarter so successful. It’s partly why I brought my own project to Kickstarter.
Oculus was the first substantial case study in how far that could go. The dream is that it stays at its roots and seeks the public again for more funds. The reality is that that is incredibly difficult because of the time in between Kickstarter and IPO. It may never happen.
I don’t blame Oculus, who it their right mind would turn down a 2 Billion dollar offer?
I do fear this won’t bode well for the companies future and hope that fear is unfounded.
Just imagine how enraging Zynga ads will be on this motherfucker.
A lot of nerds are real mad about Facebook possibly preventing them viewing anime characters in 3d.
Mayne this means that hobbyists and independents should only support exciting new alternatives if they are built on free hardware with open specs and a GPL-style license. If Oculus had been that, other people could have taken over now, or people could have taken over themselves.
If the future of tech is going to be driven by independents and hobbyists, everything needs to be open and hackable, hardware AND software. In that case, even a Facebook acquisition doesn’t have to destroy everything.
…said the man posting to a Boing Boing thread about 3D goggles.
A Serious Question:
Has VR ever worked in real life? From the 90’s VR craze…to the Google glass stuff of today.
It’s always been a phase. For early adopters.
There’s no mass movement to this technology, outside of Video games and online chat people. There’s no objective reason to move or purchase this technology. (will it be compatible with the xbox, PS, nintindo?..will virtual tours of art, architecture be available?)
The big question and one that isn’t answered is this technology is it something a corporation is adopting as a ‘for profit’ standard for the device…or a open source device and allowing content to flow free…or charged…as what cases may be.
For an excellent exploration in SF about how VR could become pervasive in society read “Ready Player One”.
In fact don’t read it…DL the audio book read by Will Wheaton.
Seriously…a VR tech that’s tied to a corporation is doomed to failure.
HENRY ROLLINS neck muscles?!?!?
And this is the problem with patents.
