Top
170°

Oculus CEO: 'We Wouldn't Partner with Microsoft or Sony'

Oculus CEO Brendan Iribe spoke with Business Insider about why they were acquired by Facebook and did not go for a partnership with Microsoft or Sony. He didn't want to partner with a company that has its own gaming platform or OS, or ties with a gaming platform.

Read Full Story >>
vgchartz.com
The story is too old to be commented.
2pacalypsenow1023d ago

If people didn't want to use 3d glasses to play 3d games or watch 3d movies what makes them think oculus will succeed for gaming ?

1023d ago Replies(3)
Askanison41023d ago

3d glasses =/= Oculus

Oculus is a really immersive experience (from what I've seen - haven't been fortunate enough to try one yet).

3d glasses are... eh, they're OK, I suppose. Not a fan of them myself.

mixelon1023d ago

I have Oculus Rift DK2.

Totally different to 3D glasses. Spatial info is conveyed perfectly. You play Minecraft and you get a "feel" for exactly how big each block is. You look up and can appreciate the scale of things. 3D in movies isn't even close to this sort of experience.

You go down corridors, get shot at etc and find yourself instinctively ducking/avoiding things. Something like a lowering ceiling can feel very uncomfortable. Falling off a cliff, or going on a roller coaster can make your stomach turn. (Which is the most surprising thing for me as I though that sort of dizzy motion sickness stuff relied on inner ear movement - apparently not) horror games are a lot more effective when things really feel like they're coming at you.

VR is taking off. Not for everyone, but it certainly has a place.

Mr_cheese1023d ago

I haven't played or used any VR system, but I'm sold. It's the way I've always wanted my gaming experience to be since I was little. I just hope that the games capture the fresh abilities and really offer that experience I've hoped for.

NuggetsOfGod1023d ago

Oculus + silent hill!!!!

Yes I might die but I dont care!

Alsybub1023d ago

It's the difference between going to an Aquarium to look at fish behind glass and actually putting on scuba gear and diving to an actual coral reef.

Very different.

SniperControl1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )

Because Oculus is just not about 3D, I have had the Rift since early August and i absolutely love it, playing Alien Isolation using the rift is a game changer for me, it adds a level of immersion that can never be achieved using a monitor or TV.
Asseto Corsa, Project Cars, Euro Truck Sim 2 and Elite: Dangourous are amazing using the rift, the whole gaming dynamic is changed using VR.

If you have a racing rig setup at home(steering wheel, pedals, seat, headphones) after a while you forget you are sat at home, it actually feels like your are in a real racing car bombing around a circuit at 180mph, it feels that real.

NuggetsOfGod1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )

Becuz vr is way cooler.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1023d ago
DarkBlood1023d ago

What makes him think Facebook is going to spread the tech around and not keep it exclusive?

Snookies121023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )

I doubt they care, they got all that money from Facebook, lol.

stuna11023d ago

That's just it! Without that 2 Billion in the bank, he would be swimming with us little fishes begging for someone to clean the fish tank.

mhunterjr1023d ago

Facebook is platform agnostic, meaning their 3d tech will likely be available to people on a wide variety of hardware.

Besides that, apparently pay off the sales agreement was that use of the oculus wouldn't be tied to a Facebook account.

mixelon1023d ago

Exclusive to what? Facebook don't have hardware.

Better to be hardware/platform agnostic. OR currently works on Windows, OsX and Linux. That's pretty great! Facebook have no reason to limit it to anything, MS, Sony etc would.

donthate1023d ago

This is exactly why it is was best for FB to acquire this technology and not Sony, MS, Google or even Amazon.

The fact that FB has essentially no hardware, means Oculus will have their free reign. I personally think the CEO made the correct choice in the matter.

rainslacker1023d ago

That's what I was thinking. Facebook is it's own platform if you think about it. I can agree that they shouldn't partner with a single platform holder, but nothing wrong with partnering with all of them to actually push their product onto a major part of what will be their initial target audience.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1023d ago
Alsybub1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )

Hopefully Morpheus won't go the way of Jaguar VR or Virtual Boy. Before they came out we all thought they would be the future of gaming.

I would imagine that the tech requires a huge R&D investment upfront and then massive investment to produce the final product at a volume which allows the sale price to be affordable for the average gamer. Then there needs to be motivation to get developers, other than first party, to develop for a peripheral that's tied to one platform, that means yet more huge investment to give devs and publishers an incentive. Install base of the peripheral then needs to be taken into account, which was the Kinect's Achilles Heel and the purpose of it being bundled with every X1, if only 30% of owners of a particular platform own the peripheral then why would a 3rd party developer make a game for it? It doesn't make sense from a business perspective.

I hope Sony's pockets are deep enough, Facebook's certainly are.

I'm not saying this to be negative about Morpheus but, when you stand back and look at it, it is a little on the back foot compared to Oculus. Morpheus is an exciting prospect for PS4 owners but it will only be successful if all of the things I mention above are aligned.

FriedGoat1023d ago

I'm sorry but the only way VR is going to take off is with the casual market, and I can't see the PC with driver updates and fiddling about being an option.

The Morpheous has the advantage, with a 15million install base that can just plug it in and play.

Alsybub1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )

@FriedGoat

As long as the casual market can afford it so that enough of that 15 million buy it in order for devs to want to make games for it.

It's a chicken and egg scenario. If the Morpheus costs anywhere near the same as a PS4 the casual market will not be it's bread and butter. Problem is, I can't see how it could be cheap enough without Sony subsidising it which I can't see them being able to do, or wanting to.

Oculus on PC may be a better proposition because anyone can develop for it and graphics don't need to be restricted like they will on the fixed hardware of a console. With both the Xbox One and PS4 using PC like architecture it would be reasonably easy to carry projects over to them and make it more worth a developer's time and money since if it weren't to be popular on them all is not lost because they haven't been forced to put all of their eggs in one basket.

Fishy Fingers1023d ago (Edited 1023d ago )

Why would they? It offers them zero benefit to partner with anyone. It makes more sense to get OC support on as many devices/platforms as possible.

With Facebook bankrolling it they hardly need the additional funding any partner could offer.

rainslacker1023d ago

Partnering doesn't preclude you from releasing on other platforms. It just helps to push the product on a particular platform. Different companies partner with multiple companies all the time to push stuff.

WeirdShroom1023d ago

Hm. Makes sense. I wonder if/what MS has cooking in this vein. Aside from the ilumiroom shite....PC has Oculus, Sony has Morpheus, Microsoft....Morpculus?

Show all comments (45)
The story is too old to be commented.