LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Carmack says that Facebook "gets the Big Picture" and confirms his support of the move.
Read more.Carmack says that Facebook "gets the Big Picture" and confirms his support of the move.
Carmack also reasoned that "You don't make a commitment like they just did on a whim."
Oh come off it. $2bn to Facebook is pocket change. You sold out - simple as that.
Who wouldn't take the $2bn? To be honest when that much money is involved who cares what's going to happen to it? You're rich now.
www.leonslost.com
Steam: Korath .::. Battle.net: Korath#2209 .::. PSN: Korathis .::. Origin: Koraths
Motivate me on FitBit .::. Endomondo .::. Strava
So if someone offered you $2bn for your company, you'd refuse on moral grounds?Originally Posted by AlexKitch
Oh absolutely not - I'd be scribbling down my bank details before you could say "private jet".
My point was more about the sense of perspective... or lack of it. Facebook offered $3bn for Snapchat - an app which could be prototyped by any amateur developer in a week at maximum.
At $2bn, Occulus Rift sold out. It was arguably shaping up to be the next pillar of gaming technology. The guy has practically given it away.
There are a lot of gaming peripheral makers worth a lot less than than $2bn, if a big company with huge R&D budget jumped in they might leapfrog Oculus and they'd be worth nothing. $2bn must me a huge return for their investors, only a fool would have turned it down. Oculus are still operating and working on R&D except now they have a powerful backer. Very puzzled what Facebook want with VR though...
Last edited by kingpotnoodle; 31-03-2014 at 10:37 PM.
The number of games that have features allowing you to post on Facebook or where the game can automatically post for you is increasing, it seems like a natural step for Facebook to acquire a technology that will encourage hardcore gamers to get more active on Facebook, I can't see it appealing to casual gamers, Farmville and Bejeweled will not really benefit from Oculus technology. I don't see it as a bad thing, just so long as the user has enough privacy control to be able to decide against Facebook posting an update at every given opportunity then it will be ok, but if posting every action a player makes whilst using the Rift becomes compulsory then I think it would definitely put more hardcore gamers off buying one.
"The real questions were how deeply to parent, and with who."
Word twister here. It should read "partner", not "parent".
Apart from that I find John's second comment much more interesting (actually, disturbing and/or disappointing would be a better term). Luckily, there was an appropriate reply.
It wasn't the App that they wanted with SnapChat though - it was the userbase and data.
On the face of it FB have massively overpaid for OR, and I really don't think it will (would) have the mass market appeal that many seem to think it will. Gamers will not want to reguarly sit there with an OR or similar device on their heads any more than they want to sit there with 3D glasses.
There is definitely a market there and an opportunity for FB to make money, but not $2bn worth imo. I suspect the real purpose of the acquisition is more around patents and market expansion, with Patent acquisition being the biggest driver.
As has been said, the software wasn't the reason they bought snapchat, was the data so they could sell it on
I think overall it will be good for VR, more big players in the race means more money, and so hopefully more progress.
I am not buying Faceboculus. Have a nice day Carmack.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
