For a guy who is otherwise rather easy going, Notch can be incredibly pragmatic and strident. Here, he has cut to heart of the issue.
> And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.
> Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social.
He is right - "social", especially in the way Facebook is doing it at the moment, is terrible for VR. Terrible for any technology that has such an incredible potential to change the world.
This acquisition makes one thing very clear: VR does not need social. Social needs VR.
> And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition
He really puts his finger on one of the reasons why this deal feels so weird here, I think. Nobody who contributed to the Oculus Kickstarter did so because they were hoping Oculus would get flipped to a mega-corp. They didn't do so because they wanted the Oculus team to have a big, splashy VC-style exit. They did so because they wanted the Oculus product. And the history of products that have been swallowed by mega-corps, after the swallowing, is not encouraging.
It's an outcome that strikes directly at the heart of the Kickstarter ethos. Everybody wins in this deal -- except the people who donated to the Kickstarter. Those folks... well, they kind of end up looking like suckers.
My guess is that when Oculus Rift found out about Sony coming to market, they knew they needed someone with deep pockets to speed up their implementation.
They were probably in talks with a number of other companies, but Facebook jumped the gun and made an offer they couldn't refuse, in order to prevent their "competitor" from getting it.
</speculation>
I wonder if FB is going to use OR to rebirth Facebook games, or maybe make their own foray into the gaming industry.
> He is right - "social", especially in the way Facebook is doing it at the moment, is terrible for VR. Terrible for any technology that has such an incredible potential to change the world.
It's not just that. VR is not going to be a product that appeals to masses. I don't think it will change the world. It could impact the world of gaming, potentially, and only CERTAIN areas of gaming only.
There are several reasons for that. First, it's a peripheral. You'll need to convince people to buy another 300-400 USD of gear on top of a powerful computer OR a PS4. The PS4 may be winning on the market, but peripherals have a bad History of not selling very well on consoles. Even the Kinect, which sold relatively quite a lot on Xbox360, failed to deliver anything really revolutionary.
For PC gamers, you'll probably need a very powerful graphics card to make full use of it, and we already know that this kind of market is already a small minority in terms of PC users.
There are several issues with VR as well: it's not something you can use to replace the screen completely. You'll probably feel dizzy, nauseous, tired after some time with it. Your eyes will end up hurting. It will work well with cockpit-like simulators (and there aren't many of them left anymore...) but not so well with FPS where camera movements have to be extremely fast. There are other games (3rd person view ones, top view games) where using an Occulus won't really make sense anyway.
As for social applications, I don't know. It's already possible to do videoconference in pretty good quality but few companies actually use it, and still fly people all over the world because they find it works better to have face to face contact to solve issues and discuss projects. I'm not too sure the benefits of VR will outweigh its disadvantages in the everyday world.
And this is coming from someone who badly wants a consumer Rift for gaming.
> And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.
The Kickstarter angle is interesting.
I'd be peeved as well if I was a supporter and this happened. Aren't KS Projects by implication a "Project for the People" first and foremost? Should KS Backers at least get a small return for making a $2 Billion exit possible?
> 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?
Do people really see this as the mainstream use of VR? Do people really see a mainstream use for VR at all?
I can't see it. It's not the future of computing to me.
VR is incredible, it's magical and amazing. I've used the dev kits and the feeling of presence is awesome. The first time I wore the Oculus DK1 was the first time I felt teleported to a different location.
Despite all this, I still don't want to use my Oculus every day — not even once a week. It's a great system but the feeling wears off once you are immersed in the actual experience. It doesn't make my communication or consumption of information any more efficient, not like the way mobile Internet devices have done. Not even like the way my graphics tablet improved my ability to be artistic with my computer.
I see VR as dramatically changing a small but highly focused subset of the entertainment landscape, and being used in many niche areas (such as architectural visualisation). I can't see it replacing the way we use our computers in general. Perhaps I am just shortsighted, and I would be happy to be proven so.
The thing about the future is that it has a funny way of proving you wrong.
I think the vision outlined above is entirely possible. An integrated microphone with surround sound headphones was going to change gamedev forever. Who knows how that would bleed into other types of scenarios than gaming?
I'd watch a movie with someone using an Oculus. It'd be a fun experience.
I think you're entirely right. As other people have said, we're forgetting the previous VR boom, and also the various times Hollywood has tried to make 3D films stick. 3D TVs are currently flagging in sales. In my cupboard of "tech that was once must-have", I have a Kinect, a Wii Fit, a dancemat, and an NVIDIA 3D shutter-glasses set. I suspect VR will end up there too.
Social seems like a more mainstream use, honestly. 73% of adults are on a social network. Only 49% of homes have a game console. Owning a game console is a choice. Owning something like a webcam and a way to browse Facebook is almost a default by now. While what happened is bad for the gaming focus, it is much more likely to end up with broad stream VR adoption just like how webcams are built into most phones and laptops nowadays.
I could also see it used as a "more compact" 2lbs laptop where you could have that portable 50" screen you always wanted, with cameras embedded in the headset so your not blinded. It would also allow you to not be hunched over in a portable situation, not require a desk per say and be outdoors without screen brightness issues, which are all issues with laptops.
Let's not forget that other application area that has historically proven very helpful at driving early adoption of new media. From the Gutenberg press, through celluloid, CDs, GIFs, to the Internet. Hint: starts with 'p', ends with 'orn.'
I can see myself, a few years in the future, using a VR headset daily. Watching movies, reading articles in a different format (just lying there rather than having to hold a book, Kindle or phone/tablet), watching something like TV with augmented social info, playing games, etc.
Years beyond that, if the resolution is there, I think virtual displays will replace the way many of us currently do work.
When it comes to video games, for people who are really into getting immersed it could see major usage. But for every day activities, I think that video conferencing and other forms of communication we already have basically cover those niches.
Virtual reality has existed for thousands of years.
It began with performed and written stories. When storytelling through film became popular in the 20th century, proponents marveled at its technical potential: the ability to control viewers' eyes and to immerse them in a dream world. There were also critics who suggested it might be too immersive: detracting from face-to-face conversations.
Over time the technical "Wow" factor of film mostly faded. In its absence, viewers started to remember what made virtual reality feel real all along: the quality of the content. Sure, some people still marvel at 3D screenings and similar technology, but we mostly focus on the narratives rather than the medium.
If history is any guide, there is no medium for virtual reality. After the initial "Wow" factor of a new viewing experience subsides, we'll realize that the content is responsible for carrying us into a dream world.
I can see the avalanche of negativity coming, and I understand why. However, I don't think we should automatically assume it's a negative thing like Notch did.
Facebook can try to ensure that the games are geared towards social interactivity that benefits their platform, but in the end, the developers truly pick the direction. Anyone can buy a dev kit and see what they can build with it.
Maybe Facebook wants Oculus Rift to operate as a completely separate entity outside their core business. Maybe it's something they believe in and want to expand into a new genre. Mark has some interesting insights on where to take it: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/1010131905052397.
Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't.
Exactly, everybody is trashing the acquisition for no reasons. I feel like I'm the only one actually happy for Oculus that facebook bought them. Now people around me are gonna hear about Oculus, VR was going to be something big, but with facebook to back them? It's going to be the next big thing.
> 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.
Interesting how it all boils down to trust. You could think of all kinds of amazing possibilities, but if you don't trust them, it's 100% off.
> Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't.
Kinect would have been developed independently and be sold the same way the leap motion controller is sold today, and console and game makers would have licensed it instead. Not so bad I think.
Even though Notch writes that he wants to utilize VR for games and not 'social', I'm open to all the experiences that VR can provide, gaming or otherwise.
But I think the bigger issue here is I just don't want Facebook involved at all. Because all roads for Facebook lead to ads, and that is the last thing I want tagged to my eyeballs when I'm trying to enjoy my VR experience.
Even on the desktop/mobile side, I'd gladly pay the $1.05 (or whatever my LTV as a customer is) to Facebook so that I'd never have to seen another ad from them ever again.
I agree. People are hating on social VR here, I think, just because they are upset to see the facebook acquisition and don't know how else to disparage the deal.
Don't get me wrong- I'm extremely upset about it due to facebook's clearly evil history - I don't know how anyone could deny this, given user exploitation and tracking[0] - and the fact that Oculus Rim values the combined ideas of virtual reality and augmented reality (which I don't think should be combined) as 1/10th the value of Whatsapp is beyond me.
However, is souped-up video conferencing really such a terrible idea? I wouldn't go to a 10-year high school reunion on Oculus, but I definitely would reunite with my college buddies every few weeks if we had something less lame than Skype or Google Hangouts to do it on.
Even on the desktop/mobile side, I'd gladly pay the $1.05 (or whatever my LTV as a customer is) to Facebook so that I'd never have to seen another ad from them ever again.
Since their market cap is roughly $100 billion, that figure would probably be closer to $100. Would you pay that much? It's an interesting thought.
Well, that was quick and well stated. I agree with notch, here. I trust Carmack and I'm sure he can pull off something great, but I personally have regretted every tech interaction with FB that I've ever had to build. I'm not sure I would want to work with Facebook either.
This seems to be an unpopular opinion, but I don't believe all the hype about VR. You are never going to be able to get sufficiently passable virtual reality to make up for the hardware hassle. If I want to have a conversation with a friend, I just want to see his/her face, I don't need the whole room simulated for me. Oculus will be a flash in the pan, and it's purchase by Facebook is just another example of the company stretching itself thin in order to grab a larger user base.
I think it's a good way from photorealism and have no especial desire to look at friends' weird avatars. But things I would find it compellingly interesting for including examining architecture and 3d models in general (where it would mesh nicely with the Leap controller if they sort out the problems with that - a it doesn't work well with monitors); space exploration, because I loooove me some astronomy; and staring at fractals, preferably while listening to loud techno music.
I agree regarding the every day activities thing: FaceTime and Skype are sufficient and will probably remain dominant (maybe in different forms) for decades.
But I could see a serious paradigm shift for video games, especially future massively multiplayer games.
I really appreciate that Notch seems to always communicate his opinions, whether I agree with them or not, in such an intelligent and fair way. I think he hit all the right points with this post especially about his initial investment in their kickstarter.
As of now I am looking at this acquisition with intense skepticism. I am interested in the Rift from a pure gaming perspective, and facebook hasn't proven themselves in that field yet, or at least not in the way that I agree with.
With that said I do look forward to seeing what happens with this. Good or bad I believe that this is something that will be talked about for a long time.
> Facebook is not a company of grass-roots tech enthusiasts.
This seems really true to me. Zuck gives the impression that he's in it for the power, and not for the love of technology. That's what makes this acquisition disappointing.
"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?"
"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?" -- But that was Second Life! I'm trying to imagine what 2L would have been like with convincing VR.
First, probably not anywhere near technical feasibility for at least several years. Remember the lag when a bunch of avatars were in one place? Or how long it took for a scene to fill in after you teleported? And the bandwidth, good lord...
But then I imagine what it would be like if the bandwidth and server performance issues were magically solved. And I realize that it was all imagined before decades ago, in Snow Crash[1].
I'm disappointed for oculus that anyone bought them. They had a chance to lead the next generation of companies in revolutionising media... To BE the next Sony. Kudos to Facebook for snatching them up.
Kudo to Notch for taking a moral stance on the Oculus buyout. VR is going to change the world. Let's make it a positive change that respects freedom & autonomy, not a walled garden.
But long story short - As Zuck said, it's a long bet. But one that most gaming companies won't want to be associated with. But they're not going after gaming anyway, gaming was 2 words in the press release. They're going after experiences, of which they have no prerequisites in place (healthcare, sports games, etc.)
I'll be looking forward to whoever shows up in place. It's just such a shame - I felt like they were the awesome people to look forward to seeing help change the gaming landscape.
VR will be like the web. Eventually it will belong to all of us. Once it gets off the ground, no single company will be able to ruin it.
Just like touchscreen smartphones, initially we had the iPhone which is relatively locked down and controlled by a single vendor, but now we have cheap, commoditised hardware of acceptable quality.
More importantly, the real 'platform' for smartphones is the web, which is as open as any we've ever had. Eventually, VR will have something of the same.
Why is everyone looking at VR in terms of what exists? VR is not gaming, though it shares many aspects of gaming. VR is not social, though it will overlap with a lot of how we use social today. It also won't be the Web, though, if it takes off, it will need to borrow the same open network-anyone-can-set-up-there-tent-where-they-want infrastructure.
But will Facebook be the company to make that happen? The great walled garden will turn into the great walled immersive world. If Facebook manages to pull that off we will all be poorer for it.
[+] [-] skore|12 years ago|reply
> And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition.
> Don’t get me wrong, VR is not bad for social.
He is right - "social", especially in the way Facebook is doing it at the moment, is terrible for VR. Terrible for any technology that has such an incredible potential to change the world.
This acquisition makes one thing very clear: VR does not need social. Social needs VR.
[+] [-] smacktoward|12 years ago|reply
He really puts his finger on one of the reasons why this deal feels so weird here, I think. Nobody who contributed to the Oculus Kickstarter did so because they were hoping Oculus would get flipped to a mega-corp. They didn't do so because they wanted the Oculus team to have a big, splashy VC-style exit. They did so because they wanted the Oculus product. And the history of products that have been swallowed by mega-corps, after the swallowing, is not encouraging.
It's an outcome that strikes directly at the heart of the Kickstarter ethos. Everybody wins in this deal -- except the people who donated to the Kickstarter. Those folks... well, they kind of end up looking like suckers.
[+] [-] bduerst|12 years ago|reply
They were probably in talks with a number of other companies, but Facebook jumped the gun and made an offer they couldn't refuse, in order to prevent their "competitor" from getting it.
</speculation>
I wonder if FB is going to use OR to rebirth Facebook games, or maybe make their own foray into the gaming industry.
[+] [-] ekianjo|12 years ago|reply
It's not just that. VR is not going to be a product that appeals to masses. I don't think it will change the world. It could impact the world of gaming, potentially, and only CERTAIN areas of gaming only.
There are several reasons for that. First, it's a peripheral. You'll need to convince people to buy another 300-400 USD of gear on top of a powerful computer OR a PS4. The PS4 may be winning on the market, but peripherals have a bad History of not selling very well on consoles. Even the Kinect, which sold relatively quite a lot on Xbox360, failed to deliver anything really revolutionary.
For PC gamers, you'll probably need a very powerful graphics card to make full use of it, and we already know that this kind of market is already a small minority in terms of PC users.
There are several issues with VR as well: it's not something you can use to replace the screen completely. You'll probably feel dizzy, nauseous, tired after some time with it. Your eyes will end up hurting. It will work well with cockpit-like simulators (and there aren't many of them left anymore...) but not so well with FPS where camera movements have to be extremely fast. There are other games (3rd person view ones, top view games) where using an Occulus won't really make sense anyway.
As for social applications, I don't know. It's already possible to do videoconference in pretty good quality but few companies actually use it, and still fly people all over the world because they find it works better to have face to face contact to solve issues and discuss projects. I'm not too sure the benefits of VR will outweigh its disadvantages in the everyday world.
And this is coming from someone who badly wants a consumer Rift for gaming.
[+] [-] GBond|12 years ago|reply
The Kickstarter angle is interesting.
I'd be peeved as well if I was a supporter and this happened. Aren't KS Projects by implication a "Project for the People" first and foremost? Should KS Backers at least get a small return for making a $2 Billion exit possible?
[+] [-] RandallBrown|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sfaruque|12 years ago|reply
Strident stri·dent strīdnt/Submit adjective 1. loud and harsh; grating. "his voice had become increasingly sharp, almost strident"
synonyms: harsh, raucous, rough, grating, rasping, jarring, loud, shrill, screeching, piercing, ear-piercing
[+] [-] interpol_p|12 years ago|reply
> 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?
Do people really see this as the mainstream use of VR? Do people really see a mainstream use for VR at all?
I can't see it. It's not the future of computing to me.
VR is incredible, it's magical and amazing. I've used the dev kits and the feeling of presence is awesome. The first time I wore the Oculus DK1 was the first time I felt teleported to a different location.
Despite all this, I still don't want to use my Oculus every day — not even once a week. It's a great system but the feeling wears off once you are immersed in the actual experience. It doesn't make my communication or consumption of information any more efficient, not like the way mobile Internet devices have done. Not even like the way my graphics tablet improved my ability to be artistic with my computer.
I see VR as dramatically changing a small but highly focused subset of the entertainment landscape, and being used in many niche areas (such as architectural visualisation). I can't see it replacing the way we use our computers in general. Perhaps I am just shortsighted, and I would be happy to be proven so.
[+] [-] sillysaurus3|12 years ago|reply
I think the vision outlined above is entirely possible. An integrated microphone with surround sound headphones was going to change gamedev forever. Who knows how that would bleed into other types of scenarios than gaming?
I'd watch a movie with someone using an Oculus. It'd be a fun experience.
[+] [-] pjc50|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lnanek2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mahyarm|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foobarian|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|12 years ago|reply
Years beyond that, if the resolution is there, I think virtual displays will replace the way many of us currently do work.
[+] [-] ohwp|12 years ago|reply
'People watching a mobile device all the time!?' Look at we are now...
I wouldn't be surprised when we will be programming with a VR set so you can put almost unlimited lines of code on your retina.
[+] [-] meowface|12 years ago|reply
When it comes to video games, for people who are really into getting immersed it could see major usage. But for every day activities, I think that video conferencing and other forms of communication we already have basically cover those niches.
[+] [-] hawkharris|12 years ago|reply
It began with performed and written stories. When storytelling through film became popular in the 20th century, proponents marveled at its technical potential: the ability to control viewers' eyes and to immerse them in a dream world. There were also critics who suggested it might be too immersive: detracting from face-to-face conversations.
Over time the technical "Wow" factor of film mostly faded. In its absence, viewers started to remember what made virtual reality feel real all along: the quality of the content. Sure, some people still marvel at 3D screenings and similar technology, but we mostly focus on the narratives rather than the medium.
If history is any guide, there is no medium for virtual reality. After the initial "Wow" factor of a new viewing experience subsides, we'll realize that the content is responsible for carrying us into a dream world.
[+] [-] xpose2000|12 years ago|reply
Facebook can try to ensure that the games are geared towards social interactivity that benefits their platform, but in the end, the developers truly pick the direction. Anyone can buy a dev kit and see what they can build with it.
Maybe Facebook wants Oculus Rift to operate as a completely separate entity outside their core business. Maybe it's something they believe in and want to expand into a new genre. Mark has some interesting insights on where to take it: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/1010131905052397.
Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if they didn't.
[+] [-] TrainedMonkey|12 years ago|reply
All of Halo series would be on PC.
[+] [-] jfb|12 years ago|reply
We might have gotten a non-crappy Myth III.
[+] [-] Mikeb85|12 years ago|reply
Maybe Sega would have released the Dreamcast 2...
[+] [-] baby|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SolarUpNote|12 years ago|reply
Interesting how it all boils down to trust. You could think of all kinds of amazing possibilities, but if you don't trust them, it's 100% off.
[+] [-] hrktb|12 years ago|reply
Kinect would have been developed independently and be sold the same way the leap motion controller is sold today, and console and game makers would have licensed it instead. Not so bad I think.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] balls187|12 years ago|reply
Call of Duty and the FPS genre would not have been ruined.
[+] [-] mingmecca|12 years ago|reply
But I think the bigger issue here is I just don't want Facebook involved at all. Because all roads for Facebook lead to ads, and that is the last thing I want tagged to my eyeballs when I'm trying to enjoy my VR experience.
Even on the desktop/mobile side, I'd gladly pay the $1.05 (or whatever my LTV as a customer is) to Facebook so that I'd never have to seen another ad from them ever again.
A sad day indeed.
[+] [-] kissickas|12 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong- I'm extremely upset about it due to facebook's clearly evil history - I don't know how anyone could deny this, given user exploitation and tracking[0] - and the fact that Oculus Rim values the combined ideas of virtual reality and augmented reality (which I don't think should be combined) as 1/10th the value of Whatsapp is beyond me.
However, is souped-up video conferencing really such a terrible idea? I wouldn't go to a 10-year high school reunion on Oculus, but I definitely would reunite with my college buddies every few weeks if we had something less lame than Skype or Google Hangouts to do it on.
[0] http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2011/11/facebo...
[+] [-] mehwoot|12 years ago|reply
Since their market cap is roughly $100 billion, that figure would probably be closer to $100. Would you pay that much? It's an interesting thought.
[+] [-] Jemaclus|12 years ago|reply
And that's a shame.
[+] [-] mjfl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meowface|12 years ago|reply
But I could see a serious paradigm shift for video games, especially future massively multiplayer games.
[+] [-] davorb|12 years ago|reply
Here is a video of a grown man crying like a small girl. If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl7fz__6B-4
[+] [-] ssully|12 years ago|reply
As of now I am looking at this acquisition with intense skepticism. I am interested in the Rift from a pure gaming perspective, and facebook hasn't proven themselves in that field yet, or at least not in the way that I agree with.
With that said I do look forward to seeing what happens with this. Good or bad I believe that this is something that will be talked about for a long time.
[+] [-] sinak|12 years ago|reply
This seems really true to me. Zuck gives the impression that he's in it for the power, and not for the love of technology. That's what makes this acquisition disappointing.
[+] [-] anentropic|12 years ago|reply
These all sound like crap ideas
[+] [-] fernly|12 years ago|reply
First, probably not anywhere near technical feasibility for at least several years. Remember the lag when a bunch of avatars were in one place? Or how long it took for a scene to fill in after you teleported? And the bandwidth, good lord...
But then I imagine what it would be like if the bandwidth and server performance issues were magically solved. And I realize that it was all imagined before decades ago, in Snow Crash[1].
[1]http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Crash-Neal-Stephenson/dp/05535626...
[+] [-] rafe33|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neo_cs193p|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] briantakita|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zachinglis|12 years ago|reply
But long story short - As Zuck said, it's a long bet. But one that most gaming companies won't want to be associated with. But they're not going after gaming anyway, gaming was 2 words in the press release. They're going after experiences, of which they have no prerequisites in place (healthcare, sports games, etc.)
I'll be looking forward to whoever shows up in place. It's just such a shame - I felt like they were the awesome people to look forward to seeing help change the gaming landscape.
[+] [-] mambodog|12 years ago|reply
Just like touchscreen smartphones, initially we had the iPhone which is relatively locked down and controlled by a single vendor, but now we have cheap, commoditised hardware of acceptable quality.
More importantly, the real 'platform' for smartphones is the web, which is as open as any we've ever had. Eventually, VR will have something of the same.
I'm glad to see that at least Notch gets it.
[+] [-] dinkumthinkum|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digikata|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lispm|12 years ago|reply
VR not so.
[+] [-] deerpig|12 years ago|reply
But will Facebook be the company to make that happen? The great walled garden will turn into the great walled immersive world. If Facebook manages to pull that off we will all be poorer for it.