There's rumors microsoft is working on VR. They also have an amazing 3d game creation platform for beginners called "project spark", very good at building developer communities a and would be happy to sell more PC's. Assuming they can create decent VR glasses, they seems to have the winning combination of hardware + content.
Even better - project spark content would be free, which is a powerful tool to achieve mass appeal.
I am sure this article will be followed by some offhand comment from Bill Gates the same as with Whats App. Maybe he will upgrade “bold move” to stealing our lunch.
I think that these types of products aren't worth being attached to in the long run. 1. they aren't real IDE's 2. they age as the technology rapidly evolves around them what their simplicity accounts for today won't capture the platform of tomorrow and 3. these types of tools are meant to be tastes that get you excited in much more robust systems that are out there. I think that if you used any type of platform like this for more that a year or two without trying to move on from it then you didn't really learn anything.
This was exactly my thought, too. Upon investigating Project Spark, it seems like something more akin to a pumped-up LittleBigPlanet than an actual game development framework. I'm sure folks will have fun playing around with it, but not much more than that.
The interesting thing to do is to look at the progression. Project spark is a huge improvement over little big planet 1 both in graphics and game variety , and maybe programming model/power. Why won't this kind of improvement continue , or maybe there will be some collaborative model between spark and some framework ?
From my experiences ODG was more of an industrial design firm than a hardware firm but judging by the Google Glass-like headset on their home page perhaps they were launching into a wearable project and got Microsoft's attention.
Oh god no. I might be just too old. But back in my day Microsoft would buy a company and kill their product. They were referred to as the "Evil Empire" back then, they'd consume companies left, right and center. I still have a bad taste in my mouth and wish they would go away rather than this slow painful death.
So true. Microsoft used to be only about productivity software. Then they became a game company. I see a lot of parallels with Facebook. A social company becoming a game company.
Maybe I don't know enough about the internal workings of Facebook but Xbox was the perfect storm of a number of different initiatives that were going on internally at Microsoft at the time. their existing supplychain around peripherals coupled with the fact that windows PCs have always been the primary gaming platform of choice Microsoft was well positioned to leverage existing relationships in the industry to launch a dedicated platform.
I don't think so. For Microsoft it was natural to make the Xbox. They were involved in the PC so much, and the first Xbox was basically a PC trapped into a black and green colored box. Most of the work they did then was on software, which was their specialty in the first place.
Facebook has no direct connection with hardware, serious 3D gaming, VR or anything close to it. I fail to see how you can draw a comparison between the two. And the Xbox was not an acquisition, it was developed internally by Microsoft.
Skype may still be running but their service has become significantly worse after the centralized all the servers instead of the previous P2P architecture. At least I can clearly tell the difference.
I've had the opposite, the service has improved since MS bought them, I suspect thats because I'm in the continental US, and networkwise close to the datacenters Microsoft/Skype is using.
Probably not, a better solution would be for various companies to license the tech from OVR, put some kind of value-add or design into their version of the device and sell it themselves.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft already has its own VR product in development. That internal leaked doc a couple of years ago about xbox 720 revealed something similar to a wearable headset.
Combine VR with the holodeck Microsoft has going could be interesting in term of VR GUI.
Yeah I just commented to the same effect. Natural fit for the Kinect ecosystem, and their hardware labs love this kind of stuff. And they can even keep a secret!
I have felt like kinetic is a missing piece that could really power up something like the oculus. When facebook talks about wanting to do avatar based conferencing or things like that I feel like having a strong motion capture element would definitely be a requirement.
It seems to me like if they wanted to buy it, they would have done so at a much earlier stage. Their hardware and labs teams seem pretty on the ball to me and would likely be already experimenting with this stuff. I have to guess that they already have something in the oven (VR is a natural match for Kinect) and didn't feel like shelling out a ton of money for something their eggheads were already cracking the code to.
My guess is we'll see a competing VR product from microsoft at next year's E3 or a little before - watch and learn from Sony's overexposed rollout and maybe even nab a few dudes from the Oculus team who want to continue hacking and don't like the Facebook creep.
I think the "if they wanted to they would have argument" misses some nuance of how business actually works. The impression from the stories available was that this deal was inked very quickly. I think that people at Microsoft are probably equally as stunned as the rest of us that this company was acquired. People from Facebook were actively hanging out at Oculus and watching development, you don't get the impression that other companies had this type of access.
I wouldn't be to fast to leap to expecting a Microsoft competitor. The botched Sony launch combined with uncertainty about this purchase by Facebook may make them more likely to pursue other products in the next year and avoid seeming like a band-waggoner.
Knowing how corporations work, I think it's more likely that MS doesn't really have anything in the works.
VR is a funny technology. It's been around a very long time, and attempts keep being made and failing. That means that most big labs probably have had long running programs. A problem with such projects is that once they build up some codebase or knowledge base, it becomes very very hard to start fresh or change directions.
I think the Sony project suffers from this, the product really is not in the same league as Oculus, both in hardware specs and the software/UI support. It feels like one of those clunky early MP3 players vs. the iPod.
I think the concept of augmented reality that things like google glass offers a greater chance of finding purchase over any fully immerse environment short of one that operates in something akin to dream space.
Well, they're different markets. The full VR experience targets core gamers. The AR experience better ties into the modern mobile revolution.
Even if I weren't playing a fully AR game, I'd want something semi-transparent if I were playing on the train. Completely shutting off my eyes in transit would be weird.
I'd doubt this. Hardware requires a supply chain and the suppliers try to sell to everyone, at least initially. The same guys that sell to Sony, sell to Microsoft, sell to Oculus, etc and there's a data exchange of 'what's coming next' in this manner. As soon as you know an idea is possible, reaching into the supply chain can help you link pieces together to get what you need (hardware, software, engineers, etc.) to create a working product.
I'd bet that if Microsoft knows about VR, cares about VR, believes in VR, they have working VR.
Good points. It could be a case similar to iPod. The supply chain is there, and the parts are there, someone just needs to come along and show us how to tie it all together; and show us that it's not OK to: 1) ignore industrial design, 2) optimize for lowest price, 3) ignore software integration/UI. Once that happens get ready for a flood of copycats.
To be honest, I was in a bad mood when I wrote that and made a negative assumption about what you wrote. I'm sorry. I wish HN would let me take that one back.
You are expecting too much from Nadella. He is not the kind of CEO who would be brave enough to pursue something before it becomes an obvious success, which will be already too late.
There will be a flood of "Should X have bought Oculus Rift" articles - almost anyone should have bought Oculus, but I suspect Facebook has a plan, and while I don't know what Facebook is planning, but I suspect its going to be just as much of a surprise as this purchase was.
For what its worth, I'm more comfortable with the relationship I have with Facebook that with Google, because at least its clear on the surface what that relationship is - in the same vein I'm more comfortable with my relationship with Apple, compared to Google, for the same reasons.
I am more comfortable with Facebook in the sense that I know what our relationship is so I try hard not to have one.
The "Should have X" question is more of an acceptance stage, well I guess if they had to get bought I would rather have seen them go to....X than anything else.
But my biggest personal concern is still that this is really a first foray for a company that has never had a hardware product based supply chain. I would have rather seen Oculus go no where on their own then end up at a company that is going to have to build an entirely new business unit from the ground up to support the product.
Because lets face it they already had traction on their own.
I'm looking at this as a strategic investment for Facebook, It's not core to their existing business - but might given then a foothold in the 'next big thing'.
My knowledge of what Facebook is doing, allows me to constrain my relationship with the platform in such a way that I have the upper hand of control. I'm strange though, I actually like targeted advertising - I'd rather have ads for something I might actually possibly buy, over say, tampons.
Facebook has been much more flippant with privacy policies and their use of data than Google has ever been. I only see unfavorable comparisons of google to facebook on HN and it really baffles me. It couldn't be farther from the truth.
Google is still outrunning their 'don't be evil' motto from years ago - and the relationship between Google and my data is murkier, or 'feels' so, because Google just started out with search, then added all this other 'stuff' and the associated privacy difficulties thereof.
With Facebook, from day one, I knew what my relationship with them was, I knew they were out to make a buck with my data, and I needed to be careful what I let loose into their platform.
With Apple, the relationship is even clearer, I buy things from them, they sell me a device, and some minimal services with it, for a fixed price, and the relationship doesnt generally change over the term of me owning that device.
Err, seriously people, the deal is done. It irritates me to see such pointless articles being posted on HN. Can Microsoft go back? No. Is there anything they can do about Oculus? No. They why the heck are we reading this article?
That was my first thought. MS or Google. Certainly moreso either of those than FB. At least there's some product & competency fit. For FB, it just seems like "we need something other than social, lets throw this at the wall and see if it sticks."
Feels like it was more of a missed opportunity for Apple.
Gaming is a weakness of Apple's Mac line. The situation is a lot better than it used to be, but is still a weak area. In one swift move they could've made gaming on a Mac better than anywhere else, and any developers who were not already developing for the Mac would have very good reasons to reconsider their position.
Weirdly enough, I find myself wishing that Microsoft had purchased them instead of Facebook. They've got the hardware experience, and they've proven they're willing to put their money where their mouth is with the Kinect. Never would have though that I'd be sad that a company I liked didn't get bought up by Microsoft...
Plus, Microsoft has had some great hardware on the market. Aside from high-end gaming/graphics peripherals (where other manufacturers excelled better than Microsoft), Microsoft hardware has always been top notch.
However, had Microsoft bought it, I'd be concerned that it would end up being some Xbox/Xbox-live only type item.
Definitely would be something to worry about. But Microsoft did provide PC drivers for the Kinect, which would at least have given me hope for what they'd do with this
With what Microsoft is already doing with Kinect and what little is known about Illumiroom[1] if Microsoft had bought Oculus they could have been left with the conundrum of already having multiple product roadmaps in this space and then having to figure out where Oculus fits in. It might have been too much of a distraction for MS.
The whole VR thing has been around for a while and every now and then a jump in screens and sensors make it better and smaller and lighter as well as cheaper. That aside Oculus from what I can tell have nothing beyond that, a development kit for a device they made, and from what I know and probably wrong, that is it. Ok they have some talented people, but what is stopping Microsoft reproducing what Oculus already have to get a headset that does the next flavour of 3D.
But the only consumer VR affair was maybe a Sega affair and who knows, maybe they have some patents waiting to bite. But it is one of those techs that has been around for a while just waiting to go mainstream. Same was teh case with touchscreens, had them in the 80's even, just better on many levels now. As is the tech for VR headsets.
So should Microsoft of brought Oculus, No as they already have experience in that whole area and or the talent to make a something happen if a market is deemed there. Facebook on the other hand, are not as well rounded in the software and hardware as Microsoft and with that easier to borg in the skills needed and if you can get that as a package bundle, all the better.
54 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadEven better - project spark content would be free, which is a powerful tool to achieve mass appeal.
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/games/project-spark
I am sure this article will be followed by some offhand comment from Bill Gates the same as with Whats App. Maybe he will upgrade “bold move” to stealing our lunch.
http://www.osterhoutgroup.com/
http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/20/microsoft-osterhout/
From my experiences ODG was more of an industrial design firm than a hardware firm but judging by the Google Glass-like headset on their home page perhaps they were launching into a wearable project and got Microsoft's attention.
Xbox is to Microsoft like Oculus is to Facebook.
Facebook has no direct connection with hardware, serious 3D gaming, VR or anything close to it. I fail to see how you can draw a comparison between the two. And the Xbox was not an acquisition, it was developed internally by Microsoft.
Look at Microsoft acquisitions of late - Yammer and Skype being two of the larger ones that come to mind. Still there and running.
Combine VR with the holodeck Microsoft has going could be interesting in term of VR GUI.
My guess is we'll see a competing VR product from microsoft at next year's E3 or a little before - watch and learn from Sony's overexposed rollout and maybe even nab a few dudes from the Oculus team who want to continue hacking and don't like the Facebook creep.
I wouldn't be to fast to leap to expecting a Microsoft competitor. The botched Sony launch combined with uncertainty about this purchase by Facebook may make them more likely to pursue other products in the next year and avoid seeming like a band-waggoner.
VR is a funny technology. It's been around a very long time, and attempts keep being made and failing. That means that most big labs probably have had long running programs. A problem with such projects is that once they build up some codebase or knowledge base, it becomes very very hard to start fresh or change directions.
I think the Sony project suffers from this, the product really is not in the same league as Oculus, both in hardware specs and the software/UI support. It feels like one of those clunky early MP3 players vs. the iPod.
Even if I weren't playing a fully AR game, I'd want something semi-transparent if I were playing on the train. Completely shutting off my eyes in transit would be weird.
I'd bet that if Microsoft knows about VR, cares about VR, believes in VR, they have working VR.
Hate to nitpick, but let's not forget about the awesome women engineers and designers out there, including at Oculus.
For what its worth, I'm more comfortable with the relationship I have with Facebook that with Google, because at least its clear on the surface what that relationship is - in the same vein I'm more comfortable with my relationship with Apple, compared to Google, for the same reasons.
The "Should have X" question is more of an acceptance stage, well I guess if they had to get bought I would rather have seen them go to....X than anything else.
But my biggest personal concern is still that this is really a first foray for a company that has never had a hardware product based supply chain. I would have rather seen Oculus go no where on their own then end up at a company that is going to have to build an entirely new business unit from the ground up to support the product.
Because lets face it they already had traction on their own.
My knowledge of what Facebook is doing, allows me to constrain my relationship with the platform in such a way that I have the upper hand of control. I'm strange though, I actually like targeted advertising - I'd rather have ads for something I might actually possibly buy, over say, tampons.
With Facebook, from day one, I knew what my relationship with them was, I knew they were out to make a buck with my data, and I needed to be careful what I let loose into their platform.
With Apple, the relationship is even clearer, I buy things from them, they sell me a device, and some minimal services with it, for a fixed price, and the relationship doesnt generally change over the term of me owning that device.
Who is next?
Gaming is a weakness of Apple's Mac line. The situation is a lot better than it used to be, but is still a weak area. In one swift move they could've made gaming on a Mac better than anywhere else, and any developers who were not already developing for the Mac would have very good reasons to reconsider their position.
However, had Microsoft bought it, I'd be concerned that it would end up being some Xbox/Xbox-live only type item.
[1] http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/09/microsoft-and-samsung-dem...
But the only consumer VR affair was maybe a Sega affair and who knows, maybe they have some patents waiting to bite. But it is one of those techs that has been around for a while just waiting to go mainstream. Same was teh case with touchscreens, had them in the 80's even, just better on many levels now. As is the tech for VR headsets.
So should Microsoft of brought Oculus, No as they already have experience in that whole area and or the talent to make a something happen if a market is deemed there. Facebook on the other hand, are not as well rounded in the software and hardware as Microsoft and with that easier to borg in the skills needed and if you can get that as a package bundle, all the better.
Either company could also do things like putting you ringside at a football game.