Less than a year after making a $3 billion investment into the future of virtual reality with the purchase of Oculus VR, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was considering another multi-billion-dollar bet to ensure that his company dominated the VR platform, buying Unity, the popular game engine thatR…
RT @TravisScher: A big piece of our @decentraland thesis is that an open, community-owned virtual world > a Facebook owned virtual world - greater autonomy and privacy for users, and more economic and creative freedom for developers https://t.co/bzgjVQTJEA
A big piece of our @decentraland thesis is that an open, community-owned virtual world > a Facebook owned virtual world - greater autonomy and privacy for users, and more economic and creative freedom for developers https://t.co/bzgjVQTJEA
I hope this is not true. While extra funds can help Unity to grow and VR department can get a nice boost from Facebook's experience, I don't want to have Unity as another spyware on our computers. Especially considering its current state in personal license.
Dont you also have to install all of the Oculus stuff? Or can you get Oculus games to run without the whole ecosystem stuff.
That is what worries me. I would not mind trying their games, but I generally just refuse to install FB software, which I assume rules out using Revive, right?
Considering Unity's upcoming IPO, this still isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility. Someone putting in a buy order for 5-10% of the company is enough to get measurable influence over its direction.
I'm definitely biased on this, since I work directly with Facebook, but I really think they get a bad wrap on Reddit despite being equally as bad as other big businesses. They are the one company that puts real time, effort, and money into VR. There still isn't a good alternative to ASW, Touch is still without a rival, and devs are being thrown a bone to increase quality. Facebook has deep pockets and are using those pockets to fund my favorite hobby. This is why I prefer to buy my games on Oculus Home, because it actually goes towards VR development and curation. I am more philosophically aligned with the direction Oculus is going than I am any competitor so far.
I’ve worked directly with Facebook as well, and the thing that always surprises me is how little they seem to understand social in particular. The document in this article expresses that they believe VR will be used for social interaction, and yet Oculus themselves has done very little to encourage meaningful VR social communication. They’ve allowed themselves to be outdone by apps that have been made by a very small team of developers (VRChat, Rec Room, Neos, Hi-Fi), and I don’t think their intention is to ever enable their users to use exclusively oculus apps/tools to communicate with people outside of who they already know- which to me is one of the most magical things about social VR when you find the right people.
Dal1DalMy name on r/oculus amounts to downvotes3 months ago
I would not criticise them as much if it was not for it's locked storefront and the on going data and security issues......what is the deal with all them of late?
Interesting how both sides on the Facebook debate see what they want to see in that email.
As someone who see's Facebook as no better or worse than Google, Apple, Microsoft etc my takeaway from the email is a reaffirmation of how serious Mark Zuckerberg is about VR/AR and his anticipation of bumps in the road which makes me think that less than stellar Gen 1 PCVR hardware sales won't worry him in the slightest. Even the Unity buyout stuff talked about in an internal email remember and he's not talking about using it to crush the competition but more as leverage against companies trying to fuck over facebook when it comes to support. Turns out even that wasn't needed as they all seem to be playing nice with each other in the Khronos Group with OpenXR, Virtual Link etc
On the otherhand, if you are a Facebook Hater you see everything Facebook does as evil or with shady motivations and believe Facebook wanted to hold half your games (made with Unity) to ransom. LOL.
I don't think you have to see it as black and white. I think it's pretty clear that the future of VR tech is in the best hands it could feasibly be in at the moment, but also that those hands are controlled by the same greed that *every company ever* has.
Zuckerberg is an insanely good businessman, and while I think that he genuinely likes VR and wants to see it grow as a technology, this email explicitly states that their goal is to dominate multiple facets of the market for the foreseeable future. That's great for jumpstarting a new technology that investors would be scared of buying into, but isn't great when the market starts to boom and there isn't room for competition anymore.
It's a mixed bag and while I'm grateful that Facebook is putting so much into VR I'm also worried for the future of the industry.
I am with you, this is how big companies are, there is nothing in this email anyway that I think makes them look bad. I think the fact Zuck believes this is where they have to move towards to stay relevant is impressive and with that companies force behind it VR may really take off.
He did an interview about this controversy.
It's the business model that's different. With EA he resorted to business models that pulled the company out of a hole but would go on to hurt the gamers on a long term. He started to view games as software and not entertainment. This was all at the drive of the board of directors that sit behind and pressure the CEO.
With Unity, it is actually software. You have developers willing to pay for sliced up functionality if it means they can bundle only the things they want for cheaper and so on. Unity is much more in line with his business ideas.
Without him we'd still be paying $1700 for Unity instead of having Unity Personal with subscription models. He did a great job on allowing everyone to get their hands on the product to make games. Their business relies on games being made, if developers eating soup every day can't afford Unity then no one wins.
What I like about this post is that it allows to peek into the reasoning/thought process and long term vision of FB/Mark Zuckerberg. One of the things that was surprising to me is how investment in AR/VR is seen (kind of) as a risk mitigation/escape from Google/Apple control over mobile platforms.