I don't think people have any idea how large companies actually work. It would make no sense for Facebook to purchase a company and immediately change its focus before allowing it develop an asset with value, and create diverse revenue streams from that asset. Allowing Oculus to finish the Rift in its original conception would end with an asset with insane potential that it could market to hardcore gamers AND use as a platform for social applications.
Let's break it down!
1. Why would Facebook purchase Oculus?: Facebook obviously sees VR as an important part of the future of technology, and sees promise in the technology that Oculus has developed so far.
2. Doesn't that mean Facebook will immediately start stamping their logo on it, ship a half-baked product, and place ads in VR Farmville?: Absolutely not. They don't have anything beyond potential yet. The goal is to create an asset that will eventually produce revenue streams. By purchasing Oculus on friendly terms, they also acquire all of the technical ingenuity that helped develop what they find to be impressive technology. It is in their interest to keep key Oculus team members happy, because, believe it or not, human capital is worth a ton of money.
3. Okay, so Oculus might be able to develop their product independently. Won't Facebook just exploit it to hell once it's finished?: No. It would be stupid to create a high-end consumer product and immediately throw out the vast majority of the public as a potential market by making a social game console. Why do people play Candy Crush Saga and Farmville? Because they're easy to access through devices people already own. Wouldn't it make sense, then, to try and create wide market use before really trying to create revenue streams through "nefarious" advertisements?
4. Isn't Facebook evil?: Facebook is no more evil than Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Valve, or any other major tech company. You don't think EVERY SINGLE ONE of those companies hasn't data mined the hell out of everything you do when you use their services?
It's understandable that gamers dislike Facebook because of its association with social gaming, but it is no different than any other major company: it's after the bottom line, and trying to wring value from an unfinished by rushing and exploiting it isn't something that businesses do. You have to CREATE the value in the asset before you can exploit it. Look at Activision: they create value by pushing a huge, new franchise that they dump hundreds of millions of dollars into, and once that franchise carries value (intangible in the form of name recognition and goodwill, and tangible in the form of assets to lower dev costs in the future), they iterate to hell.
That's what Facebook will try do: create goodwill, cache, and a wide market through a release of a gaming Rift, followed by umpteen trillion iterations aimed at targeted markets.
Log in to comment