Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Did Facebook Buy Oculus To Counter Google Glass?

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the magic-8-ball-says-looks-likely dept.

Facebook 108

Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes "In a statement soon after Facebook announced the acquisition of Oculus Rift, CEO Mark Zuckerberg suggested that the bulky Oculus headset had the potential to transform VR into the "most social platform ever." Whatever his reasons for shelling out $2 billion for the company, it's clear that Facebook is now a player in the augmented-reality space, which Google is also exploring in its own way. Yes, Google Glass serves a different function—overlaying maps and text over the wearer's view of the real world, rather than immersing people in a virtual environment—but the potential customer base for both devices is basically the same, and now Google has some real competition if it wants to transform Glass into some sort of gaming device. And despite some blowback from Markus Persson, it's likely that developers will continue to explore Oculus as a gaming platform, Facebook or no. Zuckerberg might be talking a good game about virtual realities far into the future (does he have to pay to promote his own posts on Facebook? Joke.), but this acquisition was likely a short-term play, as well."

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Does it matter? (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#46595259)

Virtual reality games and augmented reality tools, in spite of both using your eyes, are so far apart in functionality, that if this were the explanation, the shareholders would be justified in a lynching.

Re:Does it matter? (5, Insightful)

bobaferret (513897) | about 6 months ago | (#46595353)

this. Augmented reality is about interacting with the real world. Virtual reality is about being cut off from it. The market segments are so different I can't believe this article even came into existence..... Oh wait, this is from news.dice.com..... It's that who owns slashdot.... ah! I believe I see what your trying to do there..

Re:Does it matter? (4, Funny)

paulpach (798828) | about 6 months ago | (#46595705)

...but the potential customer base for both devices is basically the same...

Technically yes, both are for human beings that don't wear eye patches, which is basically the same customer base for eye drops.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46595891)

I'd wager that humans with eye patches have an increased need for eye drops because they'll have more difficulty with a little dirt in their eye, or compensating for dry eyes by temporarily accepting lower resolution.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46596065)

but that is only if they have eyes.
so really we should say this is for people who have eyes.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

gnupun (752725) | about 6 months ago | (#46595709)

this. Augmented reality is about interacting with the real world. Virtual reality is about being cut off from it.

But virtual reality can be based on real data. Imagine you want to visualize certain aspects of the billions of petabytes of data that Facebook has mined from its users. What's better than a VR headset for such a purpose?

Re:Does it matter? (4, Informative)

Immerman (2627577) | about 6 months ago | (#46595969)

True, but that is simply data visualization and has nothing to do with augmented reality. Augmented reality specifically allows you to see reality, and then augments that visions with synthetic enhancements overlayed upon it.

Re:Does it matter? (3, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#46596497)

The new rift comes with a camera, it's not impossible.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46599225)

That camera sits in front of the user for motion tracking of the infrared leds on the headset, like the PS3 camera and XB360 kinect.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#46600223)

Back to duck tape and web cams for 'the plan' then.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

abies (607076) | about 6 months ago | (#46600585)

But this camera is not mounted on the device, but rather looks at you in Kinect-style.
So, unless you are talking about Augumented Selfies, it is not going to help.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 6 months ago | (#46596817)

"this. Augmented reality is about interacting with the real world. Virtual reality is about being cut off from it."

Just add a camera to Occulus and you can walk through a New York without the rats, where crazy and homeless people are moving pieces of art, the subway cars always brand new and so on.

Unfortunately without an Nosolus Rift, you'll still have the smell of pee.

Re:Does it matter? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46597593)

Have you been to NYC recently? It's changed a lot since the 80s, these days Manhattan is basically a giant office park/shopping mall for rich people.

Re: Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46597291)

There is nothing more social than sitting alone in a room with a VR helmet

Re:Does it matter? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 6 months ago | (#46599685)

The error in the article is down to the writer of the article and their preferences in conjunction with seeing the world in 'their image'. They have failed to step back and see the world in the shape of the majority of people, they kind of people that make up the facebook user market. They use facebook to extend their social experience not cut themselves off from it. Quite simply virtual reality can suit introverts as it adds to their non-social experience, a minority but altered reality suits extroverts the majority as it adds to the social experience.

How intense and all encompassing the virtual reality experience is can make it desirable to a much broader group for limited interaction at a much higher price which is where a full body harness and virtual reality gym/hotels come it ie you either charge a little for a whole lot of the time or charge a whole lot for a little of the time.

So does virtual reality suit facebook as a social web company, nope, not at all. Can virtual reality suit facebook as a investment tech company, looking to diverge its income base, certainly, if it can properly focus the investment beyond a myopic viewpoint of their social web business. Unfortunately tech companies have a history of being very bad at this ie M$ and MSN.

Re:Does it matter? (4, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | about 6 months ago | (#46595405)

It's more simple than that. Another case of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org] aka bad posts from a bad author who consistently posts complete fucking garbage.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

multimediavt (965608) | about 6 months ago | (#46598279)

It's more simple than that. Another case of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org] aka bad posts from a bad author who consistently posts complete fucking garbage.

Brought to you by the same people responsible for the redressing of /. Also, complete fucking garbage.

Re:Does it matter? (4, Interesting)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 6 months ago | (#46595441)

Meh. Look at Neuromancer, Snow Crash, and Surrogates, now mix Occulus Rift with Playstation Home and you have those worlds. Those realities aren't too far off. Google Glass allows you to walk bodily in the world, but VR allows you to become someone better than yourself, and, as the internet has shown, plenty of people hate themselves enough to pretend to be someone else when they can. The virtual main streets of Snow Crash may be the future, or the body doubles of Surrogates may be the future. Either way, those are competition to Google Glass, but it's a bit further sighted.

Re:Does it matter? (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about 6 months ago | (#46596447)

Look at Neuromancer, Snow Crash, and Surrogates, now mix Occulus Rift with Playstation Home and you have those worlds. Those realities aren't too far off.

Well, being as good as in those stories is a ways off, but I agree with the gist of your comment. However, I disagree that Oculus Rift itself will be part of the mix. That's a Facebook thing, now, so the most talented developers are far more likely to use a different platform that isn't tied to the like of Facebook.

Or, so I hope. I really want such a thing to happen, but if I have to be a part of the Facebook ecosystem for it, then it's as good as nonexistent to me.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46600789)

"Those realities aren't too far off. "

You're wrong.

Computers don't allow the types of interactions that you read about in neuromancer etc.
Games are pretty fucking stupid under the hood.
Take a game like GTA V.
It's reasonably big (tho not even slightly big enough to harbour a super hero fantasy) but all the buildings are closed cardboard boxes with no interaction to them. In the seemingly busy world there is absolutely nothing to do, nothng to see, that was not put there as a landmark. Sure you have some funny looking ai and stuff, but nothing that i would confuse with a populated world.
It would take computers a factor of , i dunno, 1000x or more computing power to make anything like the real world seem to take place inside the goggles in a consistent manner.

For now we are very much stuck in these worlds filled with empty boxes and triangle approximations without mechanics to make vr anything like in the books.
We are still pretty far away from those realities.

By the time facebook will feel the urge to generate retrn on the oculus investment technology would not have evolved enough for them to capture the market you talk about and they will make booboo all over their product in an attempt to salvage the situation. They will put themselfs out of the vr business in a few years..

Re:Does it matter? (5, Funny)

paulpach (798828) | about 6 months ago | (#46595653)

Next Nerval's Lobster article:

Winzip vs Microsoft word vs C++, which one is right for you?

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46597279)

Next Nerval's Lobster article:

Winzip vs Microsoft word vs C++, which one is right for you?

Sounds more like a Jeff Cogswell article to me.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595785)

I'm so glad the first post was exactly what I was thinking.

I don't even need to rtfa. The summary is completely retarded. It's bad when people manufacture news to get page hits. It's worse when they have no idea what they're talking about.

Re:Does it matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595865)

potential customer base for both devices is basically the same

Customers capable and willing to shell out for not yet mature products.

Nevermind Google Glass isn't even AR (3, Informative)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about 6 months ago | (#46596487)

It's even dumber than that. Google Glass doesn't 'overlay' anything. It's a screen above your field of view.

How do stories like this get approved?

Re:Nevermind Google Glass isn't even AR (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#46597755)

AR!=HUD. But point taken.

Re:Nevermind Google Glass isn't even AR (2)

multimediavt (965608) | about 6 months ago | (#46598307)

It's even dumber than that. Google Glass doesn't 'overlay' anything. It's a screen above your field of view.

How do stories like this get approved?

All Dice crap is now slammed down our throats whether we vote for it or not. It bypasses the firehouse and pees directly on us.

real answer (5, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 6 months ago | (#46595277)

Everyone who uses Facebook seems to be in their own little self-centered world anyway. That's why they bought Oculus. It simply matches.

Re:real answer (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 6 months ago | (#46595333)

C'mon, don't be so cynical - think of the benefits! Now when your "friend" posts a pic of their tasty sandwich, you can almost imagine you're holding it yourself!

I predict Facebook's next purchase will be buying the rights to John Water's Smell-O-Vision.

Re:real answer (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 6 months ago | (#46595493)

OMG and I can totally have it transform 2D pics into a 3D estimation and virtual beat the crap out of my frenemies. Yay!

"like"?, where's the "punch" button?! (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 6 months ago | (#46595673)

This.

I said when this story first broke out, the only way I'd join Facebook was if I could virtually punch people in the face. typical obligatory slashdot catcalls of internet tough-guy apply

Re:real answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46596099)

dont lie. you know you are going to use this to fap with.
virtual porn, so good you think you are actually having sex with her.

Re:real answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46597863)

That's going to require some additional peripherals that I don't look forward to cleaning.

Re:real answer (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 6 months ago | (#46595513)

Now when your friends and family all tell you that you live in your own little world, they can really mean it!

Re:real answer (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 6 months ago | (#46598529)

Who needs real friends and family when you can have thousand of them on Facebook?. Oh, and now, with virtual reality! So you can now see your firends, half of which are advertisement pages, virtuuaaalllly...ooooooooh

Re:real answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46596087)

Farmville 3D!!!

Re:real answer (3, Insightful)

geoskd (321194) | about 6 months ago | (#46596285)

Everyone who uses Facebook seems to be in their own little self-centered world anyway. That's why they bought Oculus. It simply matches.

No, Facebook bought Oculus because they are sitting on a pile of cash, and no good strategy for making profits. Facebook is not Google (which has a massive short term revenue stream), and it has no long term strategy for making social pay out the big bucks. Facebook also does not have the engineering talent to follow Googles "try everything" strategy, so Facebook is trying desperately to buy revenue diversity instead of creating it for themselves. Ultimately this is a loosing strategy, and a sign of weak / stupid management with very poor planning skills.

Buying Whatsapp was a gamble on that companies ability to monetize an otherwise non-revenue generating user base. Oculus likewise has no proven user base. For an established company like Microsoft or Google, this kind of acquisition makes sense, since they can eat the loss if the investment goes sour (they usually do). Facebook cannot afford to have any of these mega deals go bad. They simply do not have the revenue stream and they can never again go IPO and raise another pile of cash. So instead of sitting on the cash, and waiting for a strong investment opportunity, they are squandering the money like kids in a store. It is hauntingly reminiscent of the dot-com boom, and likely will end the same way.

Re:real answer (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 6 months ago | (#46597105)

Facebook makes plenty of revenue from ads, just like Google. http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]

The digital economy has its own economies of scale, just like other industries. Whatsapp is also big enough to make money. Oculus? Dunno, maybe Zuckerberg is feeling nostalgic about the 90's VR hype.

Re:real answer (1)

Zalbik (308903) | about 6 months ago | (#46597837)

Yes, but I think the GP's point was that FB doesn't make enough revenue to be buying multi-billion dollar speculative investments as rapidly as they are.

It certainly appears as though FB is just casting about randomly, hoping to latch on to the "next big thing". Whatsapp was a particularly strange investment as their income entirely depends on the business model of telecom companies. The minute telecoms wise up and just package SMS in with data, Whatsapp's revenue stream dries up.

It's as though Zuckerberg wants to be as cool as Jobs (in the prior to being dead way)....but has no idea how to do it.

Re:real answer (2)

geoskd (321194) | about 6 months ago | (#46597957)

Facebook and Google are worlds apart. Googles Net earnings is greater than Facebooks gross revenue. Ditto, every other tech company that counts. Facebook has made a concerted effort to generate revenue any way they can, to the point of almost pissing off customers, and they still are almost an order of magnitude below any of the other big players (Google, MS, Apple). Worse still, the market is showing signs of a shift, and as Myspace can tell you, when your user base goes, they go quick.

Re:real answer (1)

multimediavt (965608) | about 6 months ago | (#46598327)

Everyone who uses Facebook seems to be in their own little self-centered world anyway. That's why they bought Oculus. It simply matches.

You got modded funny but I wonder how insightful that comment REALLY is.

Probably not (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595299)

Unless Oculus VR have been developing a pair of glasses that no one has breathed a word about in several years... no. The idea that the Oculus Rift is portable is laughable (right now, it relies on an external head tracking camera).

Re:Probably not (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#46595325)

And a cable running to an electrical outlet. And a couple more running into a PC.

WTF? Both are eyewear therefore the SAME! (2, Insightful)

GodInHell (258915) | about 6 months ago | (#46595315)

The use cases for google glass (overlaying information ontop of really - i.e. augmented reality) and Oculus Rift (a VR display that supplants and replaces your view with a different view - i.e. virtual reality) are entirely different. That would be like buying a car manufacturer to help catch up with SpaceX in building heavy launch vehicles - yeah, both are things you catch a ride in - but the technology that powers them doesn't cross pollinate.

No. Next question? (5, Interesting)

gelfling (6534) | about 6 months ago | (#46595317)

fb's user growth flattened out as fb less cool to its own target demographic. It's just randomly looking for the next cool thing it can use to be cool. And trust me, google glass is not cool. Google glass is something your douchebag fratboy older brother uses to be cool to HIS boss. It's this year's bluetooth earbud.

"No" (1)

chispito (1870390) | about 6 months ago | (#46595341)

Next question-headline, please.

Well, you did ask (3, Informative)

gargleblast (683147) | about 6 months ago | (#46597331)

Is Betteridge's Law Of Headlines finally due for retirement?

Yes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595345)

Except, they fucked up because Oculus is about immersion away from reality, and Glass is about augmented reality.

What? (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about 6 months ago | (#46595351)

I really don't see how the Augmented Reality application and Virtual Reality gaming markets overlap, beyond the need for a head-mounted display. The Rift would have to have cameras to do AR and that would entirely warp its purpose.

Though I'm certainly open to the idea of it as an add-on, since it looks like DevKit2 (Which I want one of so badly to experiment with drone telepresence and stuff) has USB accessory ports on it...I could see attaching something like a stereoscopic Kinect to the front. But I think everything's screwed if the hardware gets redesigned to try and serve two very different purposes.

Re:What? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46596317)

I really don't see how the Augmented Reality application and Virtual Reality gaming markets overlap, beyond the need for a head-mounted display. The Rift would have to have cameras to do AR and that would entirely warp its purpose.

I have no idea how it would entirely warp its purpose.

The only way in which this claim would make sense, though, is if they had a way to track your eyes and a way to overlay the 3d video over reality. And it has to not be so bulky as to be inconvenient. I think a lot of people would put up with looking like a complete tool (instead of just a weirdo, like with Glass) in order to use something like that.

Re:What? (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about 6 months ago | (#46599793)

What I meant is that if the focus of the Rift's development shifts, or it tries to encompass the capabilities needed for both... There's bound to be tradeoffs or compromises. And when that happens, usually everyone loses.

Cameras (And it would have to be plural if it were to keep stereo vision) would add weight and bulk to the front, never good for an HMD. There's also price considerations...especially if they somehow come up with the perfect camera solution and create a product that's the best of both worlds... I'd expect the price to increase by 50%, at minimum. Whereas right now, at the pricepoint of a high-end GPU or a monitor, I think it's about perfect for what it is and will probably ensure very good sales.

(And that's not even taking into account the fact that Facebook might try jacking up the price anyway, even on the devkits, just to turn a profit.)

Re:What? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 6 months ago | (#46599803)

I'm still waiting for an eyetap. In such a system, the cameras are off to the side, and they also don't need a dedicated lens. It's aligned to your pupil width, so eye tracking is relatively easy.

Re:What? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#46596675)

I'm pretty sure the new rift comes with a camera and has a way of attaching it to the front. Obviously; I haven't gotten mine yet.

Re:What? (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | about 6 months ago | (#46599729)

According to the information on the website, the camera pictured with 'DK2' is used to augment the head-tracking system.

At any rate, being that it looks like a pretty standard little webcam thing, I can't imagine it would provide any suitably high quality video to the wearer, which would be a step backwards in AR, or at the very least, standing still. I mean, the point is to overlay the Augmented Reality over something near as good as you see without the device, or better, no? (Besides, one camera? No stereo.)

But obviously, the USB accessory ports offer the opportunity for something to be developed down the road. Off the top of my head, it occurs to me that someone (Not me since I can't afford a devkit) could come up with something based on the guts of two of those Chinese keyfob cameras, with 120-degree sensor/lens modules mounted to the front of the Rift at IPD. I got one for FPV flight with a quadcopter, and for a $50 camera that easily fits in the palm of your hand it shoots pretty damned good 720p video.

You know the old saying... (1)

spads (1095039) | about 6 months ago | (#46595397)

When you don't know what to do, do something! :)

VR Chat Rooms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595411)

VR shopping malls? VR classrooms? There are lots of potential applications that FB might be interested in that don't involve gaming.

Re: VR Chat Rooms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46597871)

So why by a gaming peripheral, "Made by gamers for gamers"

Not slashdot worty. (1)

mnt (1796310) | about 6 months ago | (#46595457)

Did bigX buy littleY to ________________?

Not even close (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 6 months ago | (#46595473)

"Oculus headset had the potential to transform VR into the "most social platform ever."
Actually, when I have it on, everyone else can fuck off. That's the point of virtual reality, lol.

VR vs AR (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | about 6 months ago | (#46595491)

I'm more interested in AR than VR. Oculus is VR, and Google Glass and CastAR which seems useful for daily life. Most of the VR I see are either modeling or video games. AR I can see additional information on my current work, personal assistant providing information in my daily life, assisting in my current job and providing additional information to any task I'm doing.

Apps like Augment need to take off. I'd love an overlay when I look at a back of a switch or router that the ports light up with names. Or looking at a EMC and the cables could change colors so I can see which are plugged in. Maybe look around the room, and my remote lights up with a big arrow so I know where its hiding. Could even have AR assist you while you type, just as pop up boxes or IDE dialogs. [youtube.com]

Oculus seems to me more for entertainment, which facebook is.

Re:VR vs AR (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | about 6 months ago | (#46595501)

I really wish you could edit posts. :(

Re:VR vs AR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595663)

I really just don't see this kinda thing taking off, at least not in the near or reasonably close future.

It has a very gee-wiz "house of the future" kinda feeling to it, but when it comes right down to it, most of the "real world" applications would require extensive pre-setup to work, and have already been solved fairly adequately by other technologies.

I can see it in some niche markets, where it might actually make sense to have a live updating display with some kind of information (the implications for things like surgery seem really cool), but day to day, I don't see much that isn't already solved by the phones most people already carry around.

I want terminator vision as much as the next guy, but I just don't see a practical use that isn't really a thin justification in disguise.

Re:VR vs AR (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 6 months ago | (#46595927)

When when you look at the back of a switch you're not authorized to maintain, it can instantly notify the sysadmin. I'm starting to like this!

Beautiful (5, Funny)

Anrego (830717) | about 6 months ago | (#46595511)

One of those oh so rare moments in this community, which most days won't agree on anything, can all come together around a unifying understanding that the author is a complete idiot.

Re:Beautiful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595647)

+1

Re:Beautiful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46600359)

Also, fuck beta.

It really doesn't matter. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595529)

Regardless of what their goal might be, the actual result will be that they're going to kill the Oculus Rift.

Watch out Google! (1)

gwstuff (2067112) | about 6 months ago | (#46595541)

Facebook is coming after your ass with fashionable headsets to make your nerdy looking glasses look even nerdier. What's more.. they're DEPLOYING BTRFS!!! Be afraid.

Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595737)

Do you really want to walk around looking like this everyday?
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091121172827/dragonball/images/d/db/MercenaryTaoCellGamesSaga..png

I can see it now.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595749)

The day Facebook glasses come, is the day I delete my Facebook account.

XFp tac^o (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595789)

of reality. Keep [goat.cx]

incoherent (4, Informative)

samantha (68231) | about 6 months ago | (#46595791)

Google glass and Oculus Rift are in completely different spaces. One is Augment Reality and the other is Virtual Reality. One is for overlaying outside reality and the other is for replacing at least visual outer reality with other content. One is for augmented interaction with in commonly perceived visual world the other for deep immersion in a virtual world/worldview.

It is pretty sloppy thinking to consider them competitors.

What really happened (4, Funny)

slapout (93640) | about 6 months ago | (#46595807)

Mark Zuckerberg is setting around with his friends at a bar. Everyone's drinking.

Bob: "How Mark, how much money is Facebook really worth?"

Mark: "It's worth a lot."

John: "I bet it's not. I bet you've blown through most of it."

Mark: "No. We've got money in the bank"

Bob: "Prove it."

John: "Yeah. Prove it. Buy something really expensive"

Bob: "Yeah. Buy something that costs a lot. We dare you."

John: "Something that costs millions of dollars"

Mark pulls out his phone and makes a call...

Incredible logic (5, Funny)

janoc (699997) | about 6 months ago | (#46595835)

This argument really goes like: "Oculus Rift is targeted at gamers, most gamers like bacon too, ergo Oculus Rift is competition for bacon."

WTF, people ... Why the most clueless idiots have to be the ones getting published at Slashdot ...

Re:Incredible logic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46596837)

While you make an interesting point, I think that

MMMM BACON

Re:Incredible logic (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 6 months ago | (#46600043)

But what if the next generation of the Oculus Rift comes with a bacon scented "smell-o-vision" cartridge?

The answer is easy. (1)

cheetah_spottycat (106624) | about 6 months ago | (#46595913)

No. Next :)

Third time's the charm (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | about 6 months ago | (#46595941)

I'll say it one more time, and probably get modded as "-1 doesn't know when to stop" but the above comments support this:

Augmented vs virtual reality are very different, yes, and FB should NOT compete with glass imo.

Facebook would be best served in buying (or if they're actualyl smart are already considering buying) Valve. Shell out obscene amounts of money. Sign contracts. Whatever it takes. Fold the user base of PC Gaming As We Popularly Know it into the Oculus user base, let it organically grow into the Facebook ecology (I know this is idealistic, FB is much too hungry for revenue, methinks).

I don't care much for Steam's friend system, but if I coudl push a button on FB, ro get updates that all my friends are playing something on Steam right now, pop on those goggles and go? I'd pay for a service like that, or I at least interact with it if it doesn't try to plaster ads all over my eyeballs...

If I were CEO for one day, this is what I'd maneuver for. Any thoughts, slashdot?

Re:Third time's the charm (1)

DigitalHammer (581235) | about 6 months ago | (#46596191)

Sounds great, if it gets Half Life: Episode 3 released. :P

Seriously? (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 6 months ago | (#46598459)

If Facebook bought Valve...No. No. No. The world as we know it will be over. Look what Microsoft did to Rare. If the Facebook Machine with all its drama comes to ever buy Steam, *shudder*, then I will reach out through this comment box, and slap the next person lauding the advances of "social media".

sickness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46595961)

Does AR sickness exist in a similar way as VR sickness? Like, the overlay of information not changing precisely with head movements?

Re:sickness? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 6 months ago | (#46596547)

Current AR hardware (glass) covers a tiny part of your field of view.

Phones too (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 6 months ago | (#46597015)

Smartphones and tablets are also used for AR, as you said with Glass, they too cover only a tiny part of your FOV, not nearly enough to make you sick even though the display lags from reality.

Dear Slashdot (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46595991)

More facebook articles please. Maybe they'll buy the place from Dice.

What worries me... (1)

MCROnline (1027312) | about 6 months ago | (#46596089)

Is Facebook integration. Could you imagine being on your Steambox, playing Modern Warfare 7 using the Oculus Rift and suddenly a message pops up "John has posted something : Having a Kebab for dinner, yum!", not only would it be distracting, it would be annoying, and I bet a Facebook account would be compulsory.

Sex with Friends VR Edition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46596163)

Facebook VR: where you can meet and have "the most social experience" with all the cute members of the other sex. This is facebook's move into virtual sex interactions.

Get it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46596365)

Fuckerberg

Who cares (1)

ShaunC (203807) | about 6 months ago | (#46596699)

The bubble has burst, and "being acquired by Facebook" is no longer sexy. In fact after a long string of acquisitions this is the first one I recall having a public backlash. I figure it's all downhill (for them) from here.

I'd still take the money, sure. But advertise on deez nuts. A billion a ball for your tattoo of choice.

Re:Who cares (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 6 months ago | (#46597281)

This kinda reminds me of what AOL became.

Once you were bought and rolled into AOL, it basically meant the coolness had been sucked out. When AOL bought Netscape, we all knew it was over.

Quick Poll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46596981)

Which other awesome tech. should FaceBook ruin by becoming involved with ?

Re:Quick Poll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46597103)

Sure; everyone likes cake and if some company makes the best cake it makes sense to buy them and profit from selling the best cake to everyone

BUT

who's gonna eat it if it's been smeared with the faeces on your hands; huh?

You may wanna wash your hands and commit to never again dipping them in shit before attempting to hand people cake.

You mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46596991)

The same way Facebook countered competition with the HTC First?

Not the most social platform ever (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46597567)

What happened to sharing an actual, physical space with someone and communicating without the use of third-party servers or, in fact, any kind of technology as the most social platform ever?

Oh, Facebook... do fuck off now, there's a dear.

article is really reaching (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 6 months ago | (#46597791)

Google Glass seems to be countering Google Glass all by itself, why would anyone purchase an unrelated technology to counter something that has so far proven to be somewhere between hideously unpopular and the social equivalent of a wet fart. Dumb story even for slashdot.

My question (1)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46598593)

Is who gets final say on the "business" and purchase decisions that Facebook makes?
They seem so inept I feel I'm not privy to some future World view where they make sense, or it's just some 29 year old, shark eyed, douche bag giggling as he hits the buy key.

Facebook the new Microsoft (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | about 6 months ago | (#46599359)

So lets say Facebook is the king of social media, but they are a one trick pony, they have their web site and little else. I guess they will buy their way into markets. Sound familiar? It is like he copied the Microsoft business plan, buy anything their competitors would be involved in.

It did not work for Microsoft, and it is not going to work for Facebook.

Apples to oranges? (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 6 months ago | (#46599491)

I don't know. Glass used for AR games makes sense, specially if technology advances further. Occulus is VR, though...
So in one hand you got AR which is overlaying "cyberspace" into reality, and then you got VR that tries to deliver that entire "cyberspace" without accounting for your location or environment, it provides its own and that's the point. One aims to augment reality (forgive the redundancy) and the other to create one of its own.
I like both technologies, but they don't seem related at all, except in that they are used through a headmount of sorts. Very different purposes.

Bullshit in OP (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 6 months ago | (#46599857)

> it's likely that developers will continue to explore Oculus as a gaming platform, Facebook or no.

I hate personal opinions without any basis of fact being presented passed off as statements of fact we should just accept because OP says so.

No. (1)

Lisandro (799651) | about 6 months ago | (#46600435)

Facebook bought Occulus because it has more money than it knows what to do with these days.

Why I'll buy Oculus and Google Glass ASAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46600575)

I just hope Oculus and Google Glass will help me take more photos of strangers in public without their knowledge or permission, as I'm a street photographer in Hungary (Chrysanthi Lykousi or ) and my livelihood depends on photographing people and selling the photos in fine art galleries and museums for as high as $30,000.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>