[HN Gopher] Facebook will start putting ads in Oculus Quest apps
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook will start putting ads in Oculus Quest apps
Author : marc__1
Score : 141 points
Date : 2021-06-16 19:08 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| cwkoss wrote:
| AVOID OCULUS!
|
| I have a Quest 1. The game selection is alright but expensive for
| what it is, but never found an unmodded game that kept my
| attention for more than ~5 hours - they are mostly VR demos
| without staying power. Modding is a huge pain in the ass, and
| every update breaks it again.
|
| I used to use it regularly for BeatSaber + Custom Songs (though
| its underpowered so can't play _all_ custom songs). For a while I
| was able to limp along by avoiding updates, but it eventually was
| broken by one of them, so I could no longer change custom songs.
| Finally I tried to fix it, failed, and tried to uninstall and
| just get unmodded BeatSaber working again. Quest decided to
| update, and now it doesn 't even load the home screen - just a
| loading icon and then infinite black. I guess I'll try a factory
| reset, but I'm so frustrated with it I'm not sure it's worth
| trying to salvage.
|
| It feels like Facebook is deliberately hostile to modding because
| they want to fortify their walled garden.
|
| I will never buy oculus again. Steam's VR is higher quality, has
| much better game selection, and is much easier to mod as you
| want. My friend has an Index and I prefer it in every respect -
| the only downside is that it's wired and more expensive.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I've used Vive and rift. I now own the Quest 2 ($299). You can
| play any steamVR content on it without a cable using the free
| Air Link or the $20 Virtual Desktop. Better deal than anything
| else out there.
| bingidingi wrote:
| Do you need a FB account to use it with steamVR?
| nickthegreek wrote:
| You will still need a FB account for the initial setup.
| Although FB does sell a corporate FB accountless version
| for $699. I dont know much about that one.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| I'm curious about the economics of this. Does that mean
| Facebook thinks it can get $400 worth of personal data
| for each regular VR headset it sells? I think I read that
| they make roughly $50 per user a year from their regular
| website, so that seems like it's too high for my
| explanation to be plausible.
| dave_sullivan wrote:
| I'm speculating, but it might be a number designed to
| discourage purchase rather than reflect actual value. IE,
| we don't want personal users to buy these so we will
| price it higher than their data is worth but low enough
| that we won't completely alienate potential corporate
| clients. They don't want regular users getting the idea
| that they can opt out by paying extra because it messes
| with their whole business model. FB is just dark patterns
| all the way down.
| murderfs wrote:
| My guess would be that it's the other way around:
| corporate buyers aren't very sensitive to the price, so
| they can jack the price up by $400.
| bingidingi wrote:
| por que no los dos!
| spurgu wrote:
| Even if you need one, can't you just create a dummy
| account?
| cwkoss wrote:
| Facebook will delete/suspend accounts that they don't
| believe are connected to a real identity, so you could
| lose your purchases if you don't use your real name.
| Sr_developer wrote:
| How wonderful! It is so inspiring to see all the
| incredible uses of technology coming out from the Mecca
| of human creativity and accomplishment.
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| I think you have to log in and post once every 6 months
| (or something like that) to keep it active. It can be a
| silly post. I had one when I was job searching, though
| they had a surprising amount of data on me anyway. I used
| an obviously Vietnamese name (I'm white) and they
| suggested college classmates as my friends.... though my
| wife does have an account and uses the same IP =/
| mrfusion wrote:
| Is there like a dumbed down tutorial on how to set this up?
| xnx wrote:
| Does Air Link offer acceptable performance for low latency
| games (e.g. Beat Saber)?
| nickthegreek wrote:
| The best way to use airlink is to have a hardwired
| connection to the PC and a wifi 6 router close to your
| Oculus. I use a 5g router in the basement though and my
| gaming is fine.
|
| Quest2 will also use ASW for helping overcome lag as well.
| https://www.oculus.com/blog/introducing-
| asw-2-point-0-better...
|
| But Virtual Desktop just released a new version that uses
| SSW, and it might even be better.
| https://uploadvr.com/virtual-desktop-synchronous-spacewarp/
| elliekelly wrote:
| So will the proceeds from these ad sales go to Facebook? Or the
| developer of the title(s) the ads are featured on?
|
| Edit- I don't know how I missed this:
|
| > Developers will get a share of the revenue from ads in their
| apps, but Facebook isn't publicly revealing the percentage.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| If you have an old (1st gen) Oculus, is it somehow bricked if you
| don't register a Facebook account to it? If you just want to use
| apps not through the Oculus store (either self-developed,
| sideloaded or through Steam)?
| cwkoss wrote:
| Mine is bricked, and my facebook account was attached. Tried to
| reinstall a mod I was using for over a year that a system
| update broke, and now whenever I turn it on it just shows a
| loading spinner and then hangs on a black screen.
|
| It feels like Facebook is taking a deliberately hostile stance
| to modding because they can't get their cut.
| cfffcvggg wrote:
| I believe if you already have an oculus account you don't need
| Facebook, but I think if you are starting fresh you need a
| Facebook account.
|
| I have one not hooked up to Facebook, but I've had it for a
| while. There are a few "social features" that don't work, but
| it still browses the web and plays oculus store content. With
| the link cable you can play steam games too. It won't stay that
| way forever - 2022 I think.
|
| You're better off looking for something else if you don't want
| Facebook. I am hoping Valve has something by then.
| qq4 wrote:
| Oh no, think of the gamers! Anyone who didn't see this coming is
| a fool.
| dstaley wrote:
| I honestly don't understand the doom and gloom from this
| announcement, which essentially amounts to "leading VR platform
| tests new way for developers to monetize applications with
| personalized ad service". People seem to think this is Facebook
| injecting ads into games all willy nilly, when in fact it's just
| a platform for developers to add ads to their VR apps/games. If a
| developer can't make ends meet with a full up-front purchase
| price for their app/game, I'm totally supportive of them trying
| the ad-supported route. At the end of the day, I'm glad that
| Facebook/Oculus is giving developers access to this so that they
| can make their own choices regarding the monetization of their
| software.
| kd0amg wrote:
| > this announcement, which essentially amounts to "leading VR
| platform tests new way for developers to monetize applications
| with personalized ad service". People seem to think this is
| Facebook injecting ads into games all willy nilly, when in fact
| it's just a platform for developers to add ads to their VR
| apps/games.
|
| This piece (along with others I've read) attributes the action
| only to Facebook and not to game developers, so readers are
| likely to miss that part.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| I think the issue with this announcement is that Blaston isn't
| a free game. Its a game that you pay for and it will now also
| shows you ads.
| imglorp wrote:
| They're also basically captive eyeballs. We've never had an
| ad you literally could not look away from. You can't even
| look at something else while the ad plays; you'd need to take
| off the headset and put it back on a minute later, repeat for
| every ad.
| jowsie wrote:
| Closing your eyes is an option.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Just like TV. Remember that?
| an_opabinia wrote:
| They should focus on giving Blaston depth, but that's a
| different discussion.
| dstaley wrote:
| That's a totally fair point, but the argument to that is
| "don't support this developer" not "sell your Oculus Quest".
| Getting mad at Oculus for this is basically like getting mad
| at Apple because developers are including ads in their paid
| apps.
| grecy wrote:
| I totally agree with you, though it's important to remember
| that ship sailed _long_ ago.
|
| You pay for a TV, and it shows you ads. You pay for a train
| ticket, and the walls and platforms are plastered with ads.
| You buy the fancy surround sound option in your car, and it
| plays ads. You buy a magazine, and it's mostly ads. And so on
| and so on. Our entire world has been taken over by ads.
|
| I think it's important to recognize this not so we let FB /
| Oculus off the hook, but so we can see it's an enormous
| problem overall that needs to be addressed.
| Spartan-S63 wrote:
| I think this is the bigger issue. It's the double-dipping
| from both ends -- getting money from the consumer and getting
| more money from advertisers. It's like cable television all
| over.
|
| Why can't they: 1. Be less greedy 2. Raise the price so I can
| be guaranteed to see no ads
| solaceb wrote:
| It would be even better if they didn't leverage their
| success in one industry (advertising) by publicly posing
| solely as another kind of company (social media) in order
| to buy up other companies (Oculus) to make a lateral
| entrance into VR, an industry unrelated from advertising,
| just to pollute it with more advertising.
|
| This whole thing is shady IMO from top to bottom and just
| another aspect of 2021 tech which makes me think we really
| collectively failed to prevent the wonder of computing from
| just being another instrument to extract capital from the
| people and give it to the powerful
| kardos wrote:
| Or have two price points, one ad-free and one ad-supported
| local_dev wrote:
| > People seem to think this is Facebook injecting ads into
| games all willy nilly
|
| Based on previous behavior, this isn't an unfounded line of
| thinking. Many of the statements made by FB in regards to
| Occulus, while true at the time of the statement, have been
| completely reversed.
|
| It is completely fair to expect that, at some point in the
| future, FB will inject ads into any VR app on Occulus at will.
| cesarb wrote:
| > It is completely fair to expect that, at some point in the
| future, FB will inject ads into any VR app on Occulus at
| will.
|
| "Once we can roll back some of Halliday's ad restrictions, we
| estimate we can sell up to 80% of an individual's visual
| field before inducing seizures [...]"
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| That's about as likely as Nintendo or Sony indiscriminately
| rendering ads on top of the viewport while a game is running
| on their consoles. It's never gonna happen.
| local_dev wrote:
| I disagree. Nintendo and Sony don't earn the majority of
| their profits by selling ads. Facebook does. Nintendo and
| Sony customer base is people buying games while FB's
| customer base is advertisers. At the end of the day, each
| company will do what it must to retain/acquire customers.
|
| Edit: fixing typos
| jfk13 wrote:
| About as likely as youtube interrupting a chamber music
| concert or classical symphony to show ads. It's never gonna
| happen... surely, right?
| alkonaut wrote:
| I don't mind ads I mind Facebook showing ads because they know
| what I had for breakfast and I can't even remember it myself.
|
| Oculus showing ads for monetization is fine. I suspect they'll
| somehow try to tap into Facebook data to target these ads
| though.
| squarefoot wrote:
| And if you ate too much fat for say the last 10 years, the
| information is there, and someone could sell it to your
| insurance company.
| binarymax wrote:
| We can sell up to 80% of the view before inducing seizures
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KpPE85Jogjw
| root_axis wrote:
| Why isn't there a bigger push to regulate the pernicious
| injection of ads into every aspect of society? There is regularly
| discussion about the dominance of big tech and often suggestions
| that we enshrine big tech as permanent fixtures into our life by
| designating them as necessary utilities that we pump into every
| home like running water, yet we rarely if ever hear any
| discussion of cracking down on ads, which are actually the
| primary source of power for big tech and also the source of all
| the things we hate most about them (tracking, behavior and
| demographic analysis, data collection, advertiser driven content
| agendas that result in bans etc). I wish this were more of a
| concern to the public.
| avalys wrote:
| Because the purpose of regulation is not simply "stop people
| from doing things I don't like."
|
| Why is it that the default response of so many adults today is
| to demand that an authority figure impose their own will on
| someone else?
| root_axis wrote:
| Every faction across the political spectrum has interest in
| using authority to impose their will on others, that's the
| only purpose of politics. What I'm asking is why so much
| attention is given to impositions that would do nothing to
| diminish big tech dominance rather than addressing aspects
| that would not only curtail their dominance, but also move us
| away from the ad riddled dystopia that is unanimously
| reviled.
| wanderer2323 wrote:
| I live in a downtown of a medium-size city and right now when
| I look out of my window I don't see a single ad. This is
| because the advertizing is banned. Unregulated capitalism
| would NEVER allow that. A view without ads is not for sale
| without regulations. Same for 'a clean air', 'a clear water'
| and million other things where an unregulated enterprise
| would happily shit its externalities all over the commons to
| make an extra cent.
|
| That is why advertising should be regulated far more heavily
| than it is right now.
|
| As for why 'default response of so many adults today is to
| demand that an authority figure blah blah blah', as you have
| asked -- it's not, stop building strawmen.
| goldenchrome wrote:
| As a society we've mostly regulated away the truly dangerous
| threats to a safe and healthy life. Now the wealthy among us
| have too much anxious energy that gets spent decrying things
| that merely bother them. Without a realistic frame of
| reference, these annoyances balloon into huge threats in
| their mind's eye.
|
| I think rich people have always thought this way, but
| nowadays there's more people who live a rich life thanks to
| technological developments.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I think society needs to have a reckoning around advertisement
| and decide what kinds of ads are moral and societally good.
| There are lots of categories I'd love to ban if king:
|
| - All advertisements to children
|
| - Advertisements for prescription drugs
|
| - Advertisements that intend to evoke emotional responses
| rather than inform:
|
| --- Many ads are designed to make the viewer feel inferior so
| they want to buy the product to remedy the negative emotions
| the ads caused
|
| --- Many ads seek to irrationally associate a brand with a
| positive feeling, which overrides consumers ability to make
| rational purchasing decisions
|
| --- Many ads seek vague 'brand awareness' without any
| informational content
|
| I think there is a narrow case around informative
| advertisements "Hey this product or service exists, it might be
| something you want" that can be societally useful, but the vast
| majority of video and print ads are not doing that.
| lamontcg wrote:
| I'd ban all ads that were intrusive, so that advertising was
| only allowed if you had to go looking for it, rather than
| having it come looking for you. With a bit of an allowance
| for stuff like sandwich boards directly in front of shops or
| "so-and-so's bed+breakfast 3 miles ->" kinds of signs.
| [deleted]
| m0llusk wrote:
| It could be argued that ads are inherently attention diluting
| and therefore can only be harmful. Some research might help but
| this is a difficult subject to study.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| re: "self-sustaining platform" for VR development
|
| I pay for the VR apps, that is not self-sustaining? This is like
| ads in the movie Minority Report - yuck.
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| You're probably going to see this in free social apps like
| VRChat, not inside of immersive games.
| practice9 wrote:
| I'm not opposed to seeing ads if they're relevant and
| stylized thematically for the game / app
| jabbany wrote:
| That's being optimistic... Remember when EA put ads in games
| that people paid for?
|
| They will most certainly try to put it in immersive games if
| they can get away with it...
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| And? There's a million other ways a VR developer can make
| their game suck; at the end of the day, the quality of the
| experience is in their hands.
| rpdillon wrote:
| Blaston is a $10 app.
| https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/2307085352735834/
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Given Facebook's ads, I was thinking more like idiocracy.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| Another Silicon Valley rug pull...
|
| When will we ever learn?
| zmmmmm wrote:
| Step 1 - drive competitors from the market by selling massively
| subsidised hardware below cost.
|
| Step 2 - announce advertising is necessary because the
| "ecosystem" is unsustainable.
|
| I don't know how this is not attracting the attention of
| competition regulators. Coming in 10 years from now after the
| damage is done will be way too late.
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| Remember when FB bought oculus and evangelists insisted that
| people were overreacting?
|
| Can we officially admit that the naysayers were right and that fb
| not only killed the oculus brand but perhaps even tarnished
| public opinion of this generation of VR?
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Im not a FB fan, But they didn't really kill the oculus
| brand... its now the most popular VR headset on SteamVR.
|
| https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78089/oculus-quest-2-is-now-t...
|
| "According to Valve's data, Quest 2 owners comprise 22.91% of
| all SteamVR users, while another 21.58% use a Rift S headset.
| Oculus also owns another 13.49%, with the original Rift, and
| Quest headsets added. All told, Oculus is responsible for
| 57.98% of all VR headsets used on Valve's platform."
| nitrogen wrote:
| This doesn't tell you how big VR might have been if Oculus
| remained independent, or tied to a less controversial parent
| company and profit model.
| spaceprison wrote:
| I would have one if it weren't for the fb requirement and
| this outcome is exactly why I don't.
|
| Are people actually shocked that a company with such a
| pristine reputation for carrying about their
| produ..um..Users now wants to jam ads directly into their
| eyes?
| milkytron wrote:
| They would have had at least one more sale (I still want it
| but not the Facebook part).
| [deleted]
| httpsterio wrote:
| I actively discourage anyone in my social circles to remain
| clear from Oculus. I wouldn't say that VR has taken off yet
| and Oculus could've been the needed impetus had Facebook kept
| their fingers out of it. I mean, if Facebook just owned the
| brand and didn't try to force Facebook down the throats of
| its' users, it would've been quite a viable option.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| You can check Steam's hardware survey for more up to date
| stats. Quest 2 is now up to 29.33%
|
| https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
| [deleted]
| cwkoss wrote:
| Does facebook make profit on each quest sold? I was under the
| impression it was a loss leader subsidized by their
| advertising income and justified by projected future
| monetization.
|
| Another commenter mentioned that the corporate no-account-
| required model costs $699, so that may be a more fair
| comparison. Is facebook subsidizing each Quest 2 by $400 (and
| assuming they'll be able to extract roughly that amount from
| each user)?
| type0 wrote:
| They are selling us the Brave New World
| judge2020 wrote:
| FB probably sells near-cost and makes all their money on the
| backend from taking 30% or so of sales of apps, much like
| consoles (and iOS minus making money on the front end as
| well).
| whoisjuan wrote:
| How? Facebook invests billions of dollars into advancing the
| tech behind Oculus, reducing the form factor and making it
| economically viable, and the conclusion is that FB killed the
| Oculus brand and tarnished VR?
|
| I don't understand why people are not capable of separating the
| good from the bad. Of course you can shit on FB regarding many
| things but this is objectively not one of those things.
| tibyat wrote:
| "objectively"? no. What has become clear to all unbiased
| parties is that all FB has done is invest billions of dollars
| in developing a new ad revenue stream.
|
| it's amazing to me how often someone on HN defending
| FB...turns out to be a FB employee.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I know people, including me and my kid, who absolutely refuse
| to buy a VR system that requires a Facebook login. Of course
| I don't have numbers to back this, but I suspect there are
| quite a lot of people who feel the same way.
|
| Here's a worst-case hypothetical reason why: people _will_
| watch porn on VR. Maybe not everyone, but a lot of people.
| Even people who wouldn 't want to watch it regularly are
| likely to get curious and check it out at least once to see
| what it's like. Now, raise your hand: who wants Facebook
| having access to their porn habits?
|
| Oculus-the-tech is cool. Oculus-the-Facebook-client is
| completely dead to me. No way, no thanks.
| jabbany wrote:
| I think people are not happy about _how_ FB made it
| "economically viable" (by locking the system to tie in with
| an FB account and now by running ads).
|
| Most people probably want to see a VR platform that can stand
| on its own profit mechanisms. Not something that is
| parasitically dependent on another platform's ad revenue
| (either directly with internal ads or indirectly via FB
| accounts). Instead of taking time to explore that (which is
| what many believed would happen after the acquisition), FB
| took the easy way out by bolting existing revenue systems on,
| which then in turn kills any motivation to explore options.
|
| Similar kinds of worries always play out for
| technologies/platforms that are good but aren't profitable
| yet which then get acquired. Will the new owners help the
| technology stand on its own, or will they take the easy way
| out and treat it as a mechanism to bring new users onto their
| existing revenue stream.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I've been following VR technology's development for over
| two decades now, and the concern that those profit
| mechanisms don't exist at the margins necessary to sustain
| the business is real. I think people underestimate how
| fragile this technology space is; we're talking a system
| that only a percentage of the population can use without
| experiencing motion sickness, requiring a dedicated usage
| space that is hard to share with other uses in a family
| setting, which (up until the most recent iterations) sold
| at a price point that was uncomfortable to most people for
| a luxury product.
|
| More revenue streams to support it is better than fewer, at
| least at this stage of its development.
| neartheplain wrote:
| >I think people underestimate how fragile this technology
| space is; we're talking a system that only a percentage
| of the population can use without experiencing motion
| sickness
|
| FWIW the Quest and Index have largely solved this
| problem. There are still certain experiences in VR which
| require more motion-sickness acclimation, such as roller
| coasters or fast-moving shooters. However, 1:1 motion
| experiences no longer cause problems for even the most
| sensitive players, in my experience.
|
| I've demoed current VR hardware to highly sensitive
| friends and family members without issue. The same
| friends and family couldn't tolerate earlier generations
| of VR for more than a few minutes.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I completely agree that the latest generation is much
| better than previous tech.
|
| I'm referring to the fact that 3D will always inherently
| have a floor of non-acclimatable users that TV doesn't.
| People experience motion sickness from TV also, but it
| can be mitigated by sitting further back. There's
| fundamentally no similar option in VR if the immersion
| alone is disorienting; the immersion is the point.
| neartheplain wrote:
| 100% anecdotal, but: my elderly mother can't watch kids
| play console games on TV without rapidly experiencing
| motion sickness. She does just fine in VR (mini-golf is
| her favorite game on the Quest).
|
| I'd love to see actual data on the issue. Until then, I'm
| optimistic that VR's floor of non-acclimatable users is
| similar to or smaller than the same for regular video
| game consoles.
| jabbany wrote:
| Theoretically, the point of venture capital investment
| was exactly to give such a "no-strings-attached" period
| of buffer time to discover what revenue models might work
| for a new piece of technology with promise. (In reality
| there are many other confounds...)
|
| It's why many people wished to see that rather than an
| acquisition (where the new owners can do what they want)
| for Oculus. Back in the day, FB tried to placate these
| worries by suggesting that even with an acquisition they
| would try to behave like a VC and keep Oculus more-or-
| less independent. At this point it is clear that that
| dream is over.
|
| People aren't angry, just disappointed. Eventually we
| will all lose hope on these things. Heck, many already
| have.
| only_as_i_fall wrote:
| Except that FB acquired oculus after they were already
| shipping their prototype as a devkit.
|
| Considering HTC was able to launch what is arguably a better
| product within the same year as oculus I fail to see what
| facebook brought to the table besides dark patterns and
| forced privacy violations.
| jsnell wrote:
| Facebook made a standalone $300 device that just works. The
| other players in the market are making $1000 devices that
| require me to be wired to a $1000 gaming PC.
|
| The Quest 2 is an incredibly attractive device, and I
| basically can't imagine ever getting a wired VR headset at
| this point. From my perspective, Facebook made both the
| most attractive device and the best software ecosystem. I
| suspect Oculus as a standalone company could not have
| managed that.
|
| That said, introducing ads to paid apps is a really bad
| idea. It's going to totally undermine consumer trust, and
| kneecap the ecosystem they built.
|
| (And yes, I also had a visceral distaste when having to
| finally make a Facebook account to be able to use the Quest
| 2. But I can recognize that unifying the account
| infrastructure is the correct engineering choice, there's
| no need to assume malice).
| Retric wrote:
| FB didn't make a 300$ headset, they heavily subsidized a
| headset. So, their going to need to make a lot of money
| from users to break even.
| jsnell wrote:
| I doubt that. The Quest 2 is probably being sold at a
| tiny loss at launch, just like most gaming consoles are,
| and will at the end of its lifespan be sold at a small
| profit.
|
| But where they're looking to make the money is from
| getting a cut from software sales, again just like
| consoles. Advertising is a garbage business compared to
| owning a popular software platform like that.
|
| Let's do some back of the envelope calculations. Let's
| say you can show 10 ads per hour, the average VR user
| uses 30 minutes of VR per day, a CPM of $10, a 50%
| platform vs. app cut of ad revenue, and a device lifetime
| of 5 years. I think these are all generous estimates.
|
| 10 ads / hour * 0.5 hours / day * 365 days / year * $10 /
| 1000 ads * 50% * 5 years = $45.60 total ad revenue for
| the lifetime of the device.
|
| They cannot be subsidizing this for $400 and expecting to
| make it up on ads. The numbers just don't add up. (But I
| don't think they're selling it for a multi-hundred dollar
| loss at all.)
|
| On the other hand, in 9 months of using the device I've
| bought about $150 in software, with Facebook's cut
| probably being about $45. Except that is over 9 months,
| not 5 years. This is where the money is.
| Retric wrote:
| That's some very low estimates for lifetime VR
| advertising revenue and usage of just 900 hours per
| device and 10 ads per hour. By comparison FB makes
| 32$/user as a global average in a world of ad blockers.
| The kind of users buying VR headsets are worth
| significantly more than average, they can't block ads,
| and they practically need to take the device off to skip
| them.
|
| This isn't 4 year olds mindlessly watching YouTube, these
| are the ideal demographic to sell stuff. At even 3.5x
| your ultra low estimate FB is at 1/2 the retail price of
| the device. Massive subsides are an easy choice for FB
| assuming VR doesn't die off quickly.
| neartheplain wrote:
| It's currently impossible to tell how Facebook has damaged
| the Oculus brand, simply due to the lack of a credible mobile
| (aka "untethered") VR competitor. Once someone like Valve,
| HTC, Sony, or Apple finally release untethered hardware at a
| competitive price point, we'll see whether customers are
| really willing to tolerate forced Facebok account integration
| and ads in VR.
|
| Personally, I absolutely love the Quest's price point, form
| factor, and overall software quality. At the same time, I
| despise Oculus as a brand and Facebook as a company for all
| of the above. I'm prepared to jump ship the split second an
| alternative is available.
| [deleted]
| RandallBrown wrote:
| I thought VR was a goofy gimmick until I bought an Oculus Quest
| and played with it.
|
| From my point of view they drastically improved both the Oculus
| brand and the overall opinion of VR as a usable technology.
|
| Oculus may have done that without Facebook or it may have
| stayed tethered to a PC and continued to be awkward to use. I
| don't really know.
| xarope wrote:
| I really like the Quest 2 as a standalone (non-tethered)
| device, I hope FB doesn't end up killing it...!
| Simulacra wrote:
| Anyone want to buy a barely, used mint condition Oculus Quest?
| [deleted]
| enumjorge wrote:
| Nope. But thanks for the offer ;)
| Sr_developer wrote:
| At this moment of the VR craze/wave/hype if you buy an Oculus and
| you get burned by Facebook you kinda deserve it. They have
| demonstrated time and time again how shitty they are.
| [deleted]
| shadowgovt wrote:
| I'm pretty fine with this, though I won't be interested in paying
| $20 for a game that also has ads in it. Blaston is $10, which...
| Enh, that's pushing my personal threshold.
|
| But if it allows developers to build a free ecosystem that's ad-
| supported, that'll lower the activation cost to new VR ideas,
| increase iteration, and generally could increase the health of
| the whole ecosystem in terms of experience diversity.
| baby wrote:
| What's the difference with mobile games choosing to show ads?
| hn8788 wrote:
| There's not much difference, and that's the problem. Mobile
| games are notorious for being asset flips and shovelware
| because being funded by ads means they don't have to worry
| about making something worth paying for. I imagine people who
| were excited about AAA VR games are disappointed that it looks
| like VR technology is turning into a race to the bottom with
| ads subsidizing hardware costs.
| downrightmike wrote:
| I sure as hell don't play those. Not these either.
| [deleted]
| zmmmmm wrote:
| One difference is, in your headset you literally can't look
| away. It can track your head movements and glue the ad in front
| of your eyeballs.
| jabbany wrote:
| I think it's closer to YouTube running ads in videos---it's
| more of a platform level thing rather than a "cross platform ad
| SDK".
| treesprite82 wrote:
| Using your headset requires linking a Facebook profile (with
| your real info if you don't want to risk its deletion), and
| this will use information from it to target ads.
|
| VR ads have a lot of invasive potential which I don't think
| people trust Facebook to stay away from. Ads on the dashboard,
| ads that stick to your vision, ads that pause when you take the
| headset off, ads you have to look at to proceed, etc. There's
| not much of a limit when it's Facebook's hardware on your head.
| amelius wrote:
| Little difference. They suck too. Except you can still use your
| mobile device for other purposes.
| baby wrote:
| Right, but it doesn't make the whole platform bad. Just pay
| for games that don't have ads.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| People have concern that such a thing won't exist, or will
| be the tiniest margin of games.
|
| Personally, I respect that fear but I think it's going to
| be alright. If we're talking about an ecosystem with
| hundreds / thousands of games and 90% have ads as opposed
| to one with fifty games with no ads that cost $10+ each,
| I'm in favor of the more diverse experience space.
| honkycat wrote:
| Facebook has done an amazing job turning an interesting piece of
| technology into a worthless ad-ridden piece of junk.
| lovegoblin wrote:
| It has done this to everything it's touched, including
| facebook.com itself.
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| Because a few developers will choose to place ads inside their
| apps? There will soon be cross-platform ad plugins like this in
| PCVR software, too.
|
| The only reason you don't see it more already is that
| advertisers haven't figured out how to value what exactly
| they'd be buying; There's so many more factors regarding
| visibility/readability/placement in a 3D virtual environment,
| and there's a big difference between a real-life billboard that
| moves slowly past every driver on the interstate vs a canvas in
| a VR game where players might teleport right by in a hurry.
| Even with Facebook solving the technical aspects of measuring
| impressions/"engagement" in virtual worlds, I don't think the
| platform will attract many advertisers outside of the gaming/VR
| industry itself.
| anvemaha wrote:
| I was just starting to come around to the idea of buying a Quest
| 2 :(
|
| I had a CV1, but sold it some years ago, I found the usb-attached
| lighthouses too messy for my setup. Ideally I would like to get
| rid of the headset cable as well. I pretty much only played Beat
| Saber so Quest 2 would have been perfect!
|
| I guess it's time to order a Valve Index?
| Erwin wrote:
| I've used my Quest 2 more in the last month, than the Rift S in
| the 2 years I've had it. With the Q2 there are no cables to get
| in the way, and I can put it on and play Beat Saber instantly -
| no steamvr to fiddle with. It's a more realistic Wii Sports at
| this point, but a fun purchase.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| You can just use the quest 2 with Virtual Desktop and SteamVR
| and save yourself some money.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I would not recommend Quest 2 for BeatSaber unless you'll be
| content without using any mods or custom songs. If you decide
| to go this route, I'd suggest deleting Wifi connection
| information once you get it working the way you like and only
| changing songs via Sidequest, because system updates have
| broken custom song functionality multiple times.
|
| You may need to download a "pirated" copy of an older beatsaber
| version, because afaik, the most recent update broke it again.
| gundmc wrote:
| If they are already using a CV1, I suspect they have a gaming
| PC capable of driving beatsaber. With a quest 2 you can
| wirelessly stream from your PC to the headset to play any
| game including beatsaber custom songs.
|
| I've had Good experience with the latency on this setup, but
| I do have my PC connected to a 5 GHz router via ethernet and
| play in an area next to my router.
| cowgoesmoo wrote:
| I also have the CV1 and am looking to upgrade. The Index has
| better tracking (using lighthouse) and a larger FOV than the
| Quest 2 but much worse resolution. If you want the inside-out
| tracking and higher resolution of the Quest 2 but don't want to
| deal with Facebook, check out the HP Reverb G2. It's pricier
| than the Quest 2 but still much cheaper than the Index.
|
| Resolution comparison between Index, Quest 2, and Reverb G2:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny_OPsxHQmU
|
| Resolution comparison between CV1, Vive, and Quest 2:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTaYQNghAxI
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-16 23:01 UTC)