
Virtual Reality is going to change the world - bpierre
http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to-change-the-world/
======
skore
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.

~~~
smacktoward
_> 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.

~~~
samstave
Personally, I think this illustrates a severe gap in how crowd-funding works.

10K drops by an individual are no different than an angel investor.

There should be a chip-in-level for crowd-funding campaigns that require the
OP to provide some % equity into the project.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "10K drops by an individual are no different than an angel investor."

They are different. An angel investor is investing - they may lose that 10K.
Someone dropping 10K on a crowd funding project is told the rewards they will
get up front and receives them when the project is complete.

~~~
Jtsummers
There's no guarantee that you'll receive anything. If the product or project
fails, you get squat, or maybe a t-shirt. An investor gets a stake in the
company, if it succeeds their investment grows. A backer gets nothing extra if
the project succeeds beyond the promised reward.

------
interpol_p
From Notch:

> _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
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.

~~~
interpol_p
Yes, I think we'll have to see how the next few decades pan out to see whether
the future holds more overt computing (VR, stuff stuck to your face) or more
subtle computing (in your pocket, information when you need it). My money is
on the latter for mainstream, with the former being reserved for a subset
entertainment and niche uses.

I'd watch a movie with someone using an Oculus, sounds fun. But I can't see it
beating the experience I have now: once a month I invite family and friends,
we cook food, sit around and use the projector to watch a good movie on a
large screen. If VR can beat that experience, I could see it going mainstream
for entertainment.

My argument isn't that VR has no use, it most definitely does. It's that I
can't see VR fundamentally changing how we use computers (like mobile has
done).

~~~
nostromo
I think you're exactly right. Look at 3d television: they aren't selling.
People don't want to wear glasses just to watch a movie.

Which is why Google is focusing on AR not VR. The use cases for AR seem more
immediately obvious and valuable to a mainstream audience.

VR's killer use case is gaming. This is why I'm sad about this acquisition.
Zuck's post about VR being the future of social seemed way off base. First,
get gaming right, then broaden your vision.

With Sony now in the space, I'm positive we'll get an announcement from
Microsoft sooner than later. I'm not a huge MS guy, but to me, they are the
company to look toward for getting VR gaming right.

~~~
jsilence
"I think you're exactly right. Look at 3d television: they aren't selling.
People don't want to wear glasses just to watch a movie."

For me, 3D does nothing to get more immersed into the story. Frankly most of
the 3D movies suck. Weak plots sprinkled with in your face 3D effects.
Booooring.

It is about the plot and the acting. The content, not the form. Look at
Hitchcocks movies. Would adding 3D do anything for them? Look at Jim Jarmushs
movies or at "Lost in translation", would adding 3D do anything for those?
Would adding VR do anything for those? I don't think so.

In the end it is about content. Second life and "there" was all the hype
around 2005 but the hype wore off. Maybe it is time for 3rd life with the OR
and the myo armband now. I think it depends on whether there is something in
there that makes it worth while to come back after the initial "whoa this is
awesome, wow" effect wears off.

For my own part, I'd love to see a VR based construction application like
Sketchup where you are IN the model and build something with gestures. I'm
pretty sure that would fly with the maker possy.

~~~
justincormack
Not sure how many people even saw Dial M for Murder in 3D as 3D was pretty
much over by when it was released.

People don't remember the first VR boom either.

------
xpose2000
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](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/1010131905052397).

Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if
they didn't.

~~~
TrainedMonkey
"Think about when Microsoft got into gaming and created Xbox. Now imagine if
they didn't."

All of Halo series would be on PC.

~~~
jiggy2011
It was originally a Mac title!

~~~
TrainedMonkey
AFAIK Mac is a type of Personal Computer. As long as games would not be locked
to console with joystick being only option I would be happy.

------
hawkharris
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.

------
mingmecca
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.

A sad day indeed.

~~~
kissickas
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.

[0] [http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2011/11/facebo...](http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2011/11/facebook-settles-ftc-charges-it-deceived-consumers-failing-
keep)

~~~
smacktoward
I don't even think they're hating on "social VR" as a concept, so much as they
are on _the specific involvement of Facebook._

Facebook has accumulated enough ill will over the years -- with its cavalier
attitude towards users' privacy, with the multiple times it's screwed over
developers who bet the farm on their platform, and so forth -- that people
just automatically assume now that if you lie down with Facebook you get up
with fleas. "Facebook" means technology that, at its heart, is looking for a
way to screw you over. It's a tainted brand.

If it were any other company making this acquisition -- Yahoo, Google,
Microsoft, _anybody_ \-- you'd see much more willingness to give it the
benefit of the doubt. But people see the Facebook logo being slapped on the
Rift and assume, from bitter experience, that this means their Rifts will be
turned against them, in the same way that Facebook turned their browser and
their smartphone and their network of friends against them.

~~~
fennecfoxen
I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm going to hate on both.

Coming soon to an immersive 3D VR headset near you: a lame Facebook-branded
knockoff of _Second Life_.

Filed under: #metaverse

~~~
rjd
What I instantly thought of shared experiences with the game recording
features of the PS4, or even ghosting along other players in real time. Its
the type of tech that could take the competitive gaming community to whole new
levels of enjoyment and participation.

But yes second life applications... I don't see it at all.

------
Jemaclus
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.

And that's a shame.

------
mjfl
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.

~~~
meowface
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.

~~~
a3voices
But you can't look at your phone, play with your pet, etc. while using VR. It
actually removes value to have both your eyes occupied.

------
ssully
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.

------
sinak
> 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.

------
anentropic
"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?"

These all sound like crap ideas

------
fernly
"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].

[1][http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Crash-Neal-
Stephenson/dp/05535626...](http://www.amazon.com/Snow-Crash-Neal-
Stephenson/dp/0553562614)

~~~
meowface
I wonder how the lag problems could be prevented. Even if 1 or 10 Gbps links
were in every home, that isn't really going to help with latency if someone in
Korea is trying to do something in true real time with someone in the US.

It's a big problem even for much less ambitious "VR"-esque worlds like MMORPG
games. Usually they'll have to locate one server in Asia, one or more in
Europe, one or two in America, etc. to accomodate for lag.

------
rafe33
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.

------
neo_cs193p
"Changing the world" is not automatically a good thing, and should never be a
goal in itself. Same goes for "making money".

------
briantakita
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.

------
zachinglis
I wrote about about my views: [http://zachinglis.com/posts/oculus-and-
facebook-sitting-in-a...](http://zachinglis.com/posts/oculus-and-facebook-
sitting-in-a-tree)

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
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.

I'm glad to see that at least Notch gets it.

~~~
smacktoward
The Web belongs to all of us because the people who invented it made the
incredibly generous decision to set it free. (I've written a little about how
that decision was made here: [http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/05/the-act-of-
generosity-that...](http://jasonlefkowitz.net/2013/05/the-act-of-generosity-
that-changed-the-world/))

I don't see anybody rushing to put their VR IP into the public domain.

~~~
deerpig
But a lot of technologies that could be used for VR, are free, VRML and Web3D,
OpenGl etc.

------
dinkumthinkum
Wow, this is really a great statement. I applaud him for this stance. I didn't
really expect this reaction but it is a very pleasant surprise.

------
digikata
A CastAR version of Minecraft seems more fun to me anyway.

------
lispm
What really would improve the world would be clean water for a few more people
or a clean energy source.

VR not so.

------
deerpig
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.

------
BeggarsAll
I completely agree with Notch on this one. Facebook are just buying Oculus
because they need to show the investors and board they can innovate. Facebook
is a dying product, they're losing users, making bad design decisions and know
the only way to remain relevant is to buy up other business regardless of the
niche.

------
bane
I just realized what this means...."free to play" VR games with a credit card
slot right on the headset.

------
quasque
It seems a bit unhygienic having to strap one of these things to your face.
Just imagine how filthy it would get after prolonged use. I hope if this stuff
takes off then it's designed to be easily washable. The lingering scent of
ingrained facial grease would somewhat ruin the immersive experience.

~~~
oulipian
Fortunately, 80% of the games people will play on this involve avatars wearing
space helmets! Ingrained facial grease just makes it more immersive!

------
NextUserName
> _Virtual Reality is going to change the world_

Just like 3D televisions/displays did? I have heard this for over a decade and
I am still not convinced.

~~~
rpdillon
3D TVs never made sense. VR is a wholly different analysis. I wrote a bunch
about this back in 2012: [http://killring.org/2012/08/14/the-vr-revolution-
begins-now/](http://killring.org/2012/08/14/the-vr-revolution-begins-now/)
[http://killring.org/2012/08/30/virtual-reality-creating-
imme...](http://killring.org/2012/08/30/virtual-reality-creating-immersion/)

------
teemo_cute
I'm surprise nobody mentioned its potential use by the sex industry for
virtual/interactive porn. Think of the possibilities. If you what I mean...

~~~
cm127
We do.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/oculusnsfw](http://www.reddit.com/r/oculusnsfw)

