Sony Exec: Oculus Facebook Buyout "Validates Our Efforts"

[Steven Bogos]

Sony Exec: Oculus Facebook Buyout "Validates Our Efforts"

Sony's Shuhei Yoshida is super excited about the Facebook buyout of Oculus.

When Engadget [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/133231-Facebook-is-Buying-Oculus-VR-for-2-Billion-Update-4], "And I was like, yeah!" he continued, laughing and thrusting his arms in the air like an excited child.

And as for why the man was so happy that the direct competitor to Sony's own Morpheus VR Headset [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/conferences/gdc2014/11141-Sony-Reveals-PS4-VR-Headset-Project-Morpheus] had landed such a massive deal? "For me, it was a validation for VR," he said, explaining that "We meant to validate Oculus by announcing Morpheus, and the Oculus guys knew what we were working on. I think they were waiting for us to make the announcement, so it would be Sony and Oculus together."

"But now Oculus being acquired by Facebook is helping to validate our efforts. More people will know about VR"

Yoshida added that "Mark [Zuckerberg] said he believes VR can be the next platform after mobile. That's big thinking, and kind of excites our thinking."

The Sony exec went on to talk about project Morpheus, and how it was working hard to overcome one of VR's greatest entry barriers: motion sickness. "VR of the past, including our own prototype, has been very difficult to use in terms of getting headaches and becoming nauseated," he said, saying that the company has been working with medical professionals on the issue.

Lastly, Yoshida stressed the importance of collaboration in the emerging VR scene. "We need to share knowledge. We can't just make the hardware; it's the game applications that need to be designed well. We need time for developers to experiment and find the killer application and, at the same time, we need to learn how VR applications should be designed."

Source: Engadget [http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/11/shuhei-yoshida-interview/]

Permalink

 

[Exterminas]

Just because a boardroom full of suits decides to throw a couple of millions at something does not mean the customers will accept it. And it certainly doesn't mean that any problem can be fixed by "doing research" which just translates into throwing money at it.

And as long as gimmicks like VR and 3D-Vision cause nausea and discomfort in a sizeable portion of the population, they are not going to "become the next mobile". And frankly, I don't think this problem can be fixed in a way that is marketable. Dizziness and sensation are thins that can very from person to person. Some people start vomiting in the tea cups at Disney World, while others get bored on kickass rollercoasters. I don't think you can make a device that works for everyone.

Pro business tip: If something makes people dizzy, they are less likely to pay for it.

 

[Alterego-X]

And as long as gimmicks like VR and 3D-Vision cause nausea and discomfort in a sizeable portion of the population, they are not going to "become the next mobile".

Pro business tip: If something makes people dizzy, they are less likely to pay for it.

Yeah, that sums it up why the previous attempts at VR failed and why the Rift on the other hand might be the real deal.

 

[LordMonty]

Credit to sony this is a logical stance and they're right more advertising for VR is good for they're future projects. Also people fail to understand how much comunication this componies might be having and a healthy market should have more than one team working on any product to avoid monopolies and to offer choice above all else.

But... meh holodeck or gtfo. To be clear I don't like sun glasses, happy my eyes are still just 20-20 at 30 years old as wearing anything on my head pisses me off bar maybe the odd pen behind an ear. Never liked ear buds, don't mind a big pc headset(for short gaming sessions and its ears not eyes) but wouldn't go out wearing it as its just damned unsocial so frankly maybe when i'm 50 i'll see they tech i'm looking for(and hopefully stillh ave alright eyesight).

 

[Keiichi Morisato]

Just because a boardroom full of suits decides to throw a couple of millions at something does not mean the customers will accept it. And it certainly doesn't mean that any problem can be fixed by "doing research" which just translates into throwing money at it.

And as long as gimmicks like VR and 3D-Vision cause nausea and discomfort in a sizeable portion of the population, they are not going to "become the next mobile". And frankly, I don't think this problem can be fixed in a way that is marketable. Dizziness and sensation are thins that can very from person to person. Some people start vomiting in the tea cups at Disney World, while others get bored on kickass rollercoasters. I don't think you can make a device that works for everyone.

Pro business tip: If something makes people dizzy, they are less likely to pay for it.

60fps really helps prevent motion sickness and headaches in 3D and VR. this is part of why i really hope 48fps with films become a thing as it makes 3D films easier to look at and makes the 3D much much stronger. i have seen both Hobbit films twice in 3D, once each in IMAX HFS 3D, and the second time each on standard 3D, the difference in 3D quality and eye strain is very noticeable. i love 3D for me, i love to see objects to look and feel like objects, and i love seeing depth in films and games. gimmick i know, but i enjoy it, and i wish people would stop complaining. if you don't like 3D, don't buy the ticket and STFU.

 

[jackpipsam]

Sony, what's the bet they'll bring it out and drop support within a year.

 

[KazeAizen]

I like this. Firstly we got a company that didn't publicly announce it was going to screw over customers with its consoles. Then we got another one who has a better track record for handling its acquisitions than basically any other company in the actual gaming industry. I'm kind of excited to see if these two can pull it off.

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

Ugh. Am I the only one that feels like this? The times when I feel like playing a game, I want to sit in a nice comfortable place, with my controller in my lap, and dissapear into an adventure for a bit. I do NOT want to strap on a helmet, have my vision assaulted by stimulation from every possible angle, and wobble my head around. If I want to play with friends, I like to go to their place and hang out (or have them over), and see their faces, and interact with them efficiently. Again, I don't want to strap on a helmet that hides our faces and gets in the way of that interraction. If we have food and drinks I want to see where I'm putting my hand without dealing with taking off and putting on a bucket. This could never be more than a 10 minute novelty for me.

VR is great in my opinion for heavy industry, design, medicine, nano technology and other fields. But not for my personal enjoyment. I can't be the only one, can I?

I see the possibility of it coming, that they'll attempt to pull a Hollywood and hype it, make it ubiquitous, and shove it down peoples' throats until either enough of them submit or it becomes a massive industry failure.

 

[Shadeovblack]

Ugh. Am I the only one that feels like this? The times when I feel like playing a game, I want to sit in a nice comfortable place, with my controller in my lap, and dissapear into an adventure for a bit. I do NOT want to strap on a helmet, have my vision assaulted by stimulation from every possible angle, and wobble my head around. If I want to play with friends, I like to go to their place and hang out (or have them over), and see their faces, and interact with them efficiently. Again, I don't want to strap on a helmet that hides our faces and gets in the way of that interraction. If we have food and drinks I want to see where I'm putting my hand without dealing with taking off and putting on a bucket. This could never be more than a 10 minute novelty for me.

VR is great in my opinion for heavy industry, design, medicine, nano technology and other fields. But not for my personal enjoyment. I can't be the only one, can I?

I see the possibility of it coming, that they'll attempt to pull a Hollywood and hype it, make it ubiquitous, and shove it down peoples' throats until either enough of them submit or it becomes a massive industry failure.

Common reactionary thought. But if you think about it, putting a helmet is as much of an effort as holding a controller. You're just used it.

And it's not like all video games will start requiring VR. And any games that do will probably be rather different than the games we currently have.

 

[matrix3509]

TIL the way to get "validated" in this industry is to get bought out by a multi-billion dollar social networking site that has fuck-all to do with gaming. Got it.

 

[gamegod25]

Just like motion controls, 3D and other such gimmicks this is just another fad cycle like we have seen before. Wake me when we have the holodecks from Star Trek and then I'll be interested.

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

Ugh. Am I the only one that feels like this? The times when I feel like playing a game, I want to sit in a nice comfortable place, with my controller in my lap, and dissapear into an adventure for a bit. I do NOT want to strap on a helmet, have my vision assaulted by stimulation from every possible angle, and wobble my head around. If I want to play with friends, I like to go to their place and hang out (or have them over), and see their faces, and interact with them efficiently. Again, I don't want to strap on a helmet that hides our faces and gets in the way of that interraction. If we have food and drinks I want to see where I'm putting my hand without dealing with taking off and putting on a bucket. This could never be more than a 10 minute novelty for me.

VR is great in my opinion for heavy industry, design, medicine, nano technology and other fields. But not for my personal enjoyment. I can't be the only one, can I?

I see the possibility of it coming, that they'll attempt to pull a Hollywood and hype it, make it ubiquitous, and shove it down peoples' throats until either enough of them submit or it becomes a massive industry failure.

Common reactionary thought. But if you think about it, putting a helmet is as much of an effort as holding a controller. You're just used it.

Is it the same though? I know I can just grab the controller and I'm good. With the headset, I may need to adjust it to fit properly, or I may need to adjust the screen position in relation to my eyes. And I still will have to sacrifice not being able to look away at a friend or the cat or what ever and keep taking it off and putting it back on anytime something else requires my eyes. I just don't see how it could comparably convenient. But I'm also not ignorant of the fact that the extra time put into a device, while inconvenient to me, is simply in service of the desired experience for others. I certainly respect that others feel differently about it.

 

[vagabondwillsmile]

Ugh. Am I the only one that feels like this? The times when I feel like playing a game, I want to sit in a nice comfortable place, with my controller in my lap, and dissapear into an adventure for a bit. I do NOT want to strap on a helmet, have my vision assaulted by stimulation from every possible angle, and wobble my head around. If I want to play with friends, I like to go to their place and hang out (or have them over), and see their faces, and interact with them efficiently. Again, I don't want to strap on a helmet that hides our faces and gets in the way of that interraction. If we have food and drinks I want to see where I'm putting my hand without dealing with taking off and putting on a bucket. This could never be more than a 10 minute novelty for me.

VR is great in my opinion for heavy industry, design, medicine, nano technology and other fields. But not for my personal enjoyment. I can't be the only one, can I?

I see the possibility of it coming, that they'll attempt to pull a Hollywood and hype it, make it ubiquitous, and shove it down peoples' throats until either enough of them submit or it becomes a massive industry failure.

Common reactionary thought. But if you think about it, putting a helmet is as much of an effort as holding a controller. You're just used it.

And it's not like all video games will start requiring VR. And any games that do will probably be rather different than the games we currently have.

You're right, I believe. In fact, I was thinking this exact thing as I was writing, and nearly deleted everything before posting because of the point you just made. I agree.

The only reason I hit the post button is this: when 3D first started to become a thing again for Hollywood, There was a period of time, at least a full year (maybe two), when in the town where I was living, if a film was shown in 3D and you wanted to see it in theaters, you could ONLY see it in 3D. That was Hollywood's way of creating a market for it -- market by limited choice. This is different from console exclusivitly in that it is the content that is exclusive to this or that console, but the delivery method of that content is consistant regardless of console (up to this point). With the movie example I gave, it is the opposite. Consistent content / differing delivery method. I don't know about other cities or regions, but for it really was extremely agressive. And it worked - for better or worse. Enough people wanted to see the movies in theaters (because going to the cinema with friends and sharing the film with other people is fun) that they bought their extra expensive ticket, put on the uncomfortable glasses, and looked at the dimmer desaturated picture and blurry camera movement - despite their chagrin at having NO option to see it in standard format. Hollywood, in my opinion (because again I admittedly can't speak for other cities/regions), made enough people submit to give them a foothold for that delivery method to be accepted and THEN have it take off.

Granted games aren't movies. Interactions with a game, possibilities for differences in gaming experiences, dilivery methods, etc. are all infinitely more complex in the gaming industry than in the film industry. The choices gaming provides far outweigh the choices available for movies, and thus would be more difficult to limit. So in the end, it will most likely work out the way you say. Let me reiterate that I agree with you. But it does worry me never-the-less that there is that possiblity - however small and insignificant and short-lived it might be - that there could be some iteration of a similarly aggressive scheme. I admit that I am maybe a little too suspicious of marketing strategies (and I'm EXTREMELY cautious of FB).

Anyway, good point - it was certainly worth responding to.

 

[havoc33]

Ugh. Am I the only one that feels like this? The times when I feel like playing a game, I want to sit in a nice comfortable place, with my controller in my lap, and dissapear into an adventure for a bit. I do NOT want to strap on a helmet, have my vision assaulted by stimulation from every possible angle, and wobble my head around. If I want to play with friends, I like to go to their place and hang out (or have them over), and see their faces, and interact with them efficiently. Again, I don't want to strap on a helmet that hides our faces and gets in the way of that interraction. If we have food and drinks I want to see where I'm putting my hand without dealing with taking off and putting on a bucket. This could never be more than a 10 minute novelty for me.

VR is great in my opinion for heavy industry, design, medicine, nano technology and other fields. But not for my personal enjoyment. I can't be the only one, can I?

I see the possibility of it coming, that they'll attempt to pull a Hollywood and hype it, make it ubiquitous, and shove it down peoples' throats until either enough of them submit or it becomes a massive industry failure.

I totally feel you on this. Just look at the Wii; the motion controls grew old real quick for a lot of people. Take Skyward Sword, it's an excellent game and the motion controls are actually very good, but due to the fact that using them require extra attention and energy, I rarely ever feel like playing it. It's actually the only Zelda game I have never finished, and that's saying a lot. I can't imagine putting on a helmet and being active while gaming is the kind of thing most people are looking for on a regular basis. It's cool for the odd FPS game (and the sex industry are going to earn BILLIONS with this), but it's not how I want to spend the majority of my gaming time.

 

[Raziel]

Ugh. Am I the only one that feels like this? The times when I feel like playing a game, I want to sit in a nice comfortable place, with my controller in my lap, and dissapear into an adventure for a bit. I do NOT want to strap on a helmet, have my vision assaulted by stimulation from every possible angle, and wobble my head around. If I want to play with friends, I like to go to their place and hang out (or have them over), and see their faces, and interact with them efficiently. Again, I don't want to strap on a helmet that hides our faces and gets in the way of that interraction. If we have food and drinks I want to see where I'm putting my hand without dealing with taking off and putting on a bucket. This could never be more than a 10 minute novelty for me.

VR is great in my opinion for heavy industry, design, medicine, nano technology and other fields. But not for my personal enjoyment. I can't be the only one, can I?

I see the possibility of it coming, that they'll attempt to pull a Hollywood and hype it, make it ubiquitous, and shove it down peoples' throats until either enough of them submit or it becomes a massive industry failure.

I'm kind of concerned about the having to move around. It would require changing my normal seat. But I'm intrigued by how real the sense of presence is supposed to be in these things. Might this be just another fad, absolutely. But I intend to give it a try before ruling it out.