Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social. In fact, I think social could become one of the biggest applications of VR. Being able to sit in a virtual living room and see your friend’s avatar? Business meetings? Virtual cinemas where you feel like you’re actually watching the movie with your friend who is seven time zones away?
But I don’t want to work with social, I want to work with games.
Fortunately, the rise of Oculus coincided with competitors emerging. None of them are perfect, but competition is a very good thing. If this means there will be more competition, and VR keeps getting better, I am going to be a very happy boy. I definitely want to be a part of VR, but I will not work with Facebook. Their motives are too unclear and shifting, and they haven’t historically been a stable platform. There’s nothing about their history that makes me trust them, and that makes them seem creepy to me.
And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.
Google+ was pretty dead before the Youtube move. Even now I don't know of anyone, outside of Google employees, that uses it as their main venue/hangout. People put content on there, but the content appears elsewhere (FB, Twitter, their own site) first and foremost. Some of those such as Tumblr, Medium have appeared or taken off since G+ as a venue for e.g. longer form content free of FB and G+'s social/account hassles.
FB's definitely not dead but many people are going off it. Maybe this is about making FB better but I doubt it.
G+'s numbers appear to be made mostly from spurious accounts extrapolated from people's other activities on the internet, and duplicate accounts created by people who don't want the leakage that goes along with that. I've spoken to a few people who turned out to be very surprised to learn that they had a G+ profile, or two, or three...
There's a big difference between a game which can be played socially, like Minecraft, and FB's presumed purpose to force FB style social into games whether or not they benefit from it.
At least as Notch points out Oculus has competitors. Expect them to benefit greatly from this.
#2 according to wikipedia. Yeah, that source might not be perfect....it says "active accounts".....but everything else seems just anecdotal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google+#User_base
My G+ feed's pretty active. Not active with much of value, but then, nothing is.
Probably not a good day for crowdfunding either - sometimes great things come out of it (Pebble, Linux Voice), but this surely illustrates what can happen to all that money you throw at something.
I'm crushed. Really. This was one of those childhood dreams. Funded by the people, loved by geeks everywhere, and then they got John Motherfucking Carmack on board.
And then Fuckface McZuckerFuck had to go and stick his filthy cock in the pie. The one he's already teabagged half the population of earth with.
ThetaReactor wrote:I'm crushed. Really. This was one of those childhood dreams. Funded by the people, loved by geeks everywhere, and then they got John Motherfucking Carmack on board.
And then Fuckface McZuckerFuck had to go and stick his filthy cock in the pie. The one he's already teabagged half the population of earth with.
We have not gotten into all the details yet, but a lot of the news is coming. The key points:
1) We can make custom hardware, not rely on the scraps of the mobile phone industry. That is insanely expensive, think hundreds of millions of dollars. More news soon.
2) We can afford to hire everyone we need, the best people that fit into our culture of excellence in all aspects.
3) We can make huge investments in content. More news soon.
So that's very interesting. Stand alone device for ubiquitous VR. Carmack is a brilliant person to drive HW design.
I can kind of see it making sense, potentially the equivalent of buying a company that's building a replacement for TV.
Light headset with LCD screens that you can set alpha for each pixel would be amazing.