Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

POLL: What Do You Think of Facebook Buying Oculus VR?

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 35 comments

Sound off on your thoughts about Facebook paying $2 billion for Oculus VR!

Now that we've all had over a week to let it sink in, we wanted to open up the floor to our dear Tom's Hardware readers to hear what you have to say about one of the biggest acquisitions this year in gaming.

Our take: How Facebook's Oculus Buy Changes Future of Rift, VR

Obviously Facebook isn't the first company that springs to mind when thinking about great matches for Oculus VR, but at the same time, few other companies have pockets as deep as the social network to fund the development of the Rift and future technologies. Zuckerberg also said that the gaming aspect of the Oculus Rift -- which fuels all our collective enthusiasm for the product -- will stay the course.

Carmack's take: Oculus VR CTO John Carmack Talks Facebook Acquisition

Read more: 5 Ways Facebook Could Use Oculus Rift


Follow Marcus Yam @MarcusYamFollow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.

Discuss
Add your comment Display all 35 comments.
  • 6 Hide
    XaveT , April 4, 2014 12:07 PM
    Results of the survey never loaded for me... I'm curious as to what the current numbers are?
  • 2 Hide
    Free2play_noobs , April 4, 2014 12:12 PM
    Where is the result ?
  • 2 Hide
    dalingrin , April 4, 2014 12:14 PM
    Quote:
    How about: No, it's an overhyped technology and I wouldn't want it no matter who owned it.
    Sounds like someone who hasn't used it yet.Though to be fair it should be an option in the poll.
  • 2 Hide
    MrBo , April 4, 2014 12:16 PM
    The current state is overhyped, true. But it has some very interesting promise. If they can solve the input problem (regarding text as well as in games), and make them light and unobtrusive to wear, then the sky is the limit. VR+AR for example, combining cameras showing your real desk and keyboard, with the goggles giving you as many screens as you could ever want. That alone is reason for loads of companies to buy a metric halftonne.
  • 0 Hide
    qlum , April 4, 2014 12:23 PM
    I would be pretty interested in vr like the oculus bit it all depends on software support and on that matter there are a lot of questions for me at least.Facebook owning it may add addition restrictions and over time may steer the oculus away from what I would want, big companies buying things like this over time will always result in changes. this could be exclusives to some facebook gaming platform, or otherwise steering of the tech away from the solitary process of gaming in vr to something less interesting. It could mean less openness or support for open standards resulting in fragmentation of the vr market with games working on one vr set but not on the next. This is actually more a general concern with vr. Ideally you'd want some open standard for tracking positional data and displaying 3d on a vr set. That way you'd ensure that newer games will work on older sets and new sets will still work with old sets. This is essential for vr to really break through as without it you'd get a very fragmented market with limited support per goggle and a need to upgrade just because games don't support your set anymore. Ideally you'd want any manufacturer to be able to build a vr set within a set of standards that will work anywhere and while now vr may be a small market it will break open and more manufacturers will join with each their own ideas. Personally I think I will wait for that moment either way as being an early adopter may result in much wasted money on the longer run. Personally I don't own a facebook account and don't plan to do so anytime soon, this however does not make me boycott anything owned by facebook. Personally I think facebook as primarily a software company is not really helped by vendor locked vr sets as they want the tech to be as widely used as possible and not sell as much vr sets as possible per se so that may actually be a good thing here in the longer run.
  • -1 Hide
    Fokissed , April 4, 2014 12:48 PM
    While I do think all Facebook games are absolutely terrible (especially with share/like/request for progress), I think Facebook is one of the better companies to buy Oculus. I think they have the least chance of screwing it up compared to companies like EA, Microsoft, Valve, Sony, and Apple. Oculus being exclusive to any of those companies can spell doom for it, while Facebook doesn't really have much interest. (in things that could ruin it)
  • 0 Hide
    Inferno1217 , April 4, 2014 12:56 PM
    Will it now be known as the Foculus? On a serious note I think the Facebook money should help progress.
  • -2 Hide
    Inferno1217 , April 4, 2014 12:56 PM
    Will it now be known as the Foculus? On a serious note I think the Facebook money should help progress.
  • 1 Hide
    doomtomb , April 4, 2014 1:45 PM
    People-money is not going to help Oculus, they already had plenty of it. Facebook is gonna ruin this thing
  • 2 Hide
    drapacioli , April 4, 2014 1:54 PM
    Well since I don't have the money to buy it my opinion doesn't matter, but if I DID this wouldn't really change. I would have waited to see what the first consumer release was like and then bought it if I liked it and it wasn't riddled with ads or something stupid like that.
  • 0 Hide
    cracklint , April 4, 2014 2:00 PM
    I am stoked about it , no matter who bought it, the gaming industry represents 10 billion plus. Zuk said the Occulus could potentially pay for itself and become profitable on the gaming aspect alone. From every indication the plans are to allow the development continue with the same team with a hands off approach. Gaming will be the r&d and make the product polished. If and when the Occulus proves to be a viable consumer device that gains the interest of the masses, the market will produce competitive devices just like in tablets and mobile phone. i.e . better screens, lower latency, ergonomics, and etc. The Occulus will pave the way but there will a plethora of headsets to choose from, maybe even better. That is why Occulus needed a large company. The fact is they had chump change compared to companies like Sony, Samsung, Apple. They were one bad launch, undelivered promise, lawsuit, patent troll from being derailed and never making it to a consumer version 2. I tip my hat to those who donated to the kick-starter because they never would have gotten to the point to where they are today without them. But seriously, Palmer was 19 when Occulus was first announced , he had the opportunity to become a multi-millionaire at 21. Kickstarter backers are naive to think as soon as this product came viable it would have stayed independent. How many people from an investor standpoint would invested in a company with a 19 year old CEO at the helm of a public traded company? I wouldn't , especially an unproven one with absolutely no history. So if backers are going to act like investors who got jilted then they should have done risk assessment first , like any good investor.
  • 0 Hide
    Thomzey , April 4, 2014 2:18 PM
    Quote:
    Results of the survey never loaded for me... I'm curious as to what the current numbers are?
    Here ya gohttp://gyazo.com/45373c42f8ce8d947f12c103572df4c1this is what i see
  • 1 Hide
    none12345 , April 4, 2014 3:01 PM
    Even if it wasn't facebook i would no longer be buying an oculus. Its completely wrong to crowdfund a product, then sell it off before the product is even developed. All they have done is crap all over the people who paid to support them. The biggest problem with this is the way it has screwed the idea of kickstarter.Beyond that, i refuse to support facebook in any way. They will not get one penny from me, or even because of me(ie advertisements). I refuse to have anything to do with facebook. So, thats the double death for oculus in my mind.
  • -4 Hide
    icemunk , April 4, 2014 3:03 PM
    Quote:
    I think Zuckerberg's money is the same colour as everyone else's and that butthurt little kids should stop whining about a kickstarter campaign that they almost certainly never contributed to.
    This is the most true comment on the thread.
  • 0 Hide
    ferooxidan , April 4, 2014 3:11 PM
    at time of writing: YES(42.5%) MAYBE(39.4%) NO(18.1%)
  • 0 Hide
    bustapr , April 4, 2014 6:07 PM
    whether this affects me buying it all depends on how exactly facebook will influence it. I like the idea of facebook making apps that have rift support, but Im not all too stoked about the likely possibility of facebook integration to the device. Somehow I have the biggest feeling that every time I turn the thing on it will ask or require me to log in to facebook. If that is in the new Rift, then I probably wont buy it.
  • -1 Hide
    Jason Mackay , April 4, 2014 11:49 PM
    While I am concerned about the Facebook acquisition, it didn't make me cancel my order of the DK2...I have been waiting over 20 years to get a good quality VR headset and I can't wait for July/August to come and my Rift arrives.I am happy that people are cancelling their orders as this sends a clear message to Oculus that people are not happy about the deal but also has the benefit that I may get my Rift quicker because I'll be higher up the queue :-) lolAs long as Facebook don't mess with it and make it into something geared to simply make profit for them I'll be happy enough in the end.
  • 2 Hide
    hoofhearted , April 5, 2014 1:06 AM
    I think the only reason the No's are getting any traction at all is because people are just reading the first word and not the whole statement. The double negative wording is in reverse of the article title.
Display more comments
React To This Article