By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Facebook buys Oculus Rift for $2 billion

JGarret on 25 March 2014

Saw this on GAF

I wonder who else was in the bidding war...Google?...MS?



Around the Network
hinch on 25 March 2014

Well, that's.. that then.



VanceIX on 25 March 2014



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

Nem on 25 March 2014

I understand what Facebook wants (basically Playstation home VR), but what i dont understand is that i thought Occulus Rift was croud funded. Is it? Cause if it is i think the model just took a blunt force to the face.
Cant shake off the feeling that someone sold out to the highest bidder.



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 25 March 2014
BenVTrigger said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
BenVTrigger said:

I dont understand why you keep saying this.....they arent the same thing. At all. Its impossible to use AR for something such as VR tourism.

AR like Google Glass is very useful for something to wear daily. VR will be for specialized scenarios such as gaming, tourism, movies, and meetings. The two technologies really pose little threat to each other.

Those specialized scenarios aren't mainstream. VR tourism is a nice concept, but AR does it easier and cheaper, same with meetings. Only with media consuption does VR have the advantage and even then, it depends on how much of the environment you need to be aware of. VR inherently has a disadvantage with multitasking.

Did you just say movies arent mainstream.........

No. I never said that at all.

Your whole argument here makes no sense. AR and VR are different things. They arent even competing technologies.

No again. They weren't competiting technolgies but now that OR is bought by facebook, chances are they will be.

In the realm of technology just because two technologies are different does not mean they can't overlap.

In fact, the only thing that seperates AR and VR is the level of immersion. That immersion gives it an advantage with media consumption but is inherently bad at multitasking. Furthermore, since VR "creates" a new reality rather than augmenting your present one, it can't be mobile at all. In specialized scenarios where the user is sedentary, yes VR has the advantage but social scenarios thrive in mobile situations. Not to mention the other disadvantages VR has in comparison to AR. 





In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Around the Network
BenVTrigger on 25 March 2014
JGarret said:

Saw this on GAF

I wonder who else was in the bidding war...Google?...MS?

I bet there was a big bidding war.

Its clear many big companies think VR could be a game changer and whoever strikes first has the potential to make some serious money.



JGarret on 25 March 2014
EB1994 said:
JGarret said:
So, now John Carmack works for Facebook...

Is this a bad thing? I keep hearing people say this...Did he say something about them in the past?

I don´t know.Perhaps neither good nor bad.It just sounds... weird :P



BenVTrigger on 25 March 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
BenVTrigger said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
BenVTrigger said:

I dont understand why you keep saying this.....they arent the same thing. At all. Its impossible to use AR for something such as VR tourism.

AR like Google Glass is very useful for something to wear daily. VR will be for specialized scenarios such as gaming, tourism, movies, and meetings. The two technologies really pose little threat to each other.

Those specialized scenarios aren't mainstream. VR tourism is a nice concept, but AR does it easier and cheaper, same with meetings. Only with media consuption does VR have the advantage and even then, it depends on how much of the environment you need to be aware of. VR inherently has a disadvantage with multitasking.

Did you just say movies arent mainstream.........

No. I never said that at all.

Your whole argument here makes no sense. AR and VR are different things. They arent even competing technologies.

No again. They weren't competiting technolgies but now that OR is bought by facebook, chances are they will be.

In the realm of technology just because two technologies are different does not mean they can't overlap.

In fact, the only thing that seperates AR and VR is the level of immersion. That immersion gives it an advantage with media consumption but is inherently bad at multitasking. Furthermore, since VR "creates" a new reality rather than augmenting your present one, it can't be mobile at all. In specialized scenarios where the user is sedentary, yes VR has the advantage but social scenarios thrive in mobile situations. Not to mention the other disadvantages VR has in comparison to AR. 




So essentially you just agreed with everything I said. Sweet.

I litterally said AR is something to use in daily life and VR is something to use for entertainment. You are backing up everything I said. Historically items such as that do very little to hurt each other.

AR will be used on the go while VR will be used when relaxing in the home. Both should do very well.



PenguinZ on 25 March 2014
Nem said:
I understand what Facebook wants (basically Playstation home VR), but what i dont understand is that i thought Occulus Rift was croud funded. Is it? Cause if it is i think the model just took a blunt force to the face.
Cant shake off the feeling that someone sold out to the highest bidder.


Hey crowd-funding helped make it into a  something worth 2 billion to someone, so I don't think the model took too big of a hit.



Current gaming platforms - Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Wii U, New 3DS, PC

Figgycal on 25 March 2014

Facebook recently outbid Google for a texting app; it would make sense that they could have been in another bidding war for Oculus. Maybe it was google.