Perfect contrast with Facebook.
I'm not familiar with the intimate details of the Ocululs business plan, but their story page says they have a larger view of the potential for VR:
"revolutionize the way people experience interactive content"
and their vision says nothing about games:
"Immersive virtual reality technology that's wearable and affordable."
Perhaps the negative comments here are part of the natural bitterness from insiders that accompanies any technology as it goes mainstream?
Remember the VR-32 and VRML? Everyone was super excited that we were going to start doing all the things in virtual reality, and then we figured out that it's a really cumbersome way to present most information.
Sure, I understand that. My point is that perhaps folks who went to the trouble of dedicating their lives to VR might have a larger vision than this.
In 1992, you could have defined the Internet in similarly limited terms -- after all, using the Internet largely meant text interfaces. I'm just positing that the folks who run Oculus are a) smart and b) have spent a lot of time thinking about how best to spread VR.
If VR takes off, by definition it will mean expanding beyond FPS games, because most people do not play those (you could alternatively get VR to go mainstream by increasing market penetration of FPS and FPRPG games by orders of magnitude, which might be harder than putting VR to other uses).
Carmack is a ridiculously smart guy who is damned good at squeezing things out of hardware that shouldn't be possible, and if there's anyone that I think could work out the how-to of VR, I think it'd be him, but I'm not sure that I trust his read on what the markets want.
The question isn't so much "will VR take off?" as it is "what could VR possibly do beyond FPS games that could make it take off?" and I just don't have any answer to that at all.
"Designed for gamers, by gamers." [1]
Now, I understand that in the Kickstarted it was promised only the first developer kit and that it was successfully delivered, but I feel very uneasy knowing that the Facebook platform is geared exclusively to casual gaming. My worry is that Facebook will be happy with a VR technically good enough for a social VR but that can't stand the requirements for gaming. I may be too old to understand, but I really don't feel the urge to interact in 3d with my friends to say hello or to watch their holiday's pictures.
[1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-...
VR is way, way, WAY bigger than some hardcore gaming nerds (of which I am one).
What sorts of applications can you imagine? The idea of virtual presence being a killer app is silly, IMO - I've played with both the Oculus Rift and telepresence robots - they're neat, but for meetings/gatherings, I'll take a plain old webcam any day. I can't imagine what Facebook would do with this that I would be interested in.
For example, see how well that's worked out for Tesla.
No just Oculus.
Plus, gaming and socialization go hand in hand - it's amazing that others just don't fucking get this yet and see "gamers communities" as just niches or islands.
Valve.
> Not that Mr. Newell hasn’t had opportunities to sell out. Valve has been pursued over the years by Electronic Arts, which would very likely have valued Valve at well over $1 billion had the talks progressed that far, said two people with knowledge of the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.
> Although Valve’s finances are private, Michael Pachter, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, estimates that the company could be worth around $2.5 billion today.
It's guesswork and no method is explained though, so it's not like that's a very reliable estimate or anything.
Facebook is a prototype of what "social networking" should be. Anyone who took five minutes out of their day could think up ten ways "social networking" could be better, and probably all of them would be incompatible with facebook's business model.
The oculus VR acquisition feels special, in that they aren't just buying users/reach, but something more substantial and forward looking. If they're smart, they'll let the oculus team work on the track they've been on, and let Facebook teams develop the "non-gaming VR experiences" they want to push.
Hard to think how much the landscape would need to shift for FB to be broke in 5 years. If Oculus delivers on their VR dreams, that alone could potentially bring an almost-bankrupt FB back from the brink.
I admire what Facebook has achieved, but it's clear to me that they don't understand what their actual role is, or what people "want" from Facebook as a company if it is to survive. There is an air of mild desperations to the whole enterprise that hints at the acknowledgement of an imminent demise. This acquisition reeks of that desperation.
Look at #81. http://www.apcoinsight.com/methodologies/tools/el-top-100-co...
Oculus isn't being conservative here. They're shooting for the moon.
I think what Oculus did was massively de-risk their next ten years. In their business plans, there were undoubtedly very large gray circles with things like "gain overwhelming market share (how?)" and lists of competitors that included, well, everyone in tech.
If you had to pick a tech company to leverage your disruptive new consumer technology, and make sure it kept the 'awesome', and was hacker friendly, who would you go to?
In exchange, they probably lopped another 10-50x of potential value off the top of their company. Not that they won't see some of that realized in Facebook if this is succesful -- they will. But, they will be sharing the gain around in exchange for getting access to that giant global customer base and being able to tap the considerable resources available at FB.