Jimquisition: So, That Facebook And Oculus Rift Thing...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Props to Senor James for such a timely response. While I do acknowledge "It could be worse", I can't think of another company more out of touch with the gamer community than Facebook, maybe AOL. I am just afraid the Rift is now a platform that will be leveraged for social media purposes rather than gaming, or that the development for games will be left to atrophy. Why? Facebook has not demonstrated it knows anything about gaming, beyond Farmville and social media games. I'm not knocking them, but they represent a very shallow part of gaming and seems like the Rift is a waste if it's only used for such games. I think it really ties into Jim's previous video on monetization. If the Rift becomes a vessel for facebook and its profit driven practices, what's the benefit to customers? How is value added? When the Rift becomes a revenue vector rather than a peripheral, where does the indignity end? When it subtracts from the gaming experience rather than augments, why even bother? What about the 9500 people who invested in the ground floor and are now left behind? Yes, technically, it could have been worse. It also could have been so much better.

Nobody likes wearing stupid shit on their face. That's the main reason behind why 3D television was a failure and why the Oculus Rift and Google Glass will also fail. It's the same reason why contact lenses were invented. Nobody likes wearing stupid shit on their face.

I agree, consider me a misrable brit as well but all this VR tech seems pretty pointless, lets just keep worknig on cheap 3D light displays(hey let me dream of hard light) so we can skip the terrible glasses or headsets. Not against advancement just against the useless toss that comes inbetween the the good advencements and me.But

I sure hope was worth its two billion...

Slightly off topic but what the hell was that terrible looking dog punching game?

My point exactly. Just saying ;).

Under_your_bed:
I think the best part of this whole upset is the reaction of some rather more upset denizens of the internet. If you go to certain parts of 4chan, there is real upset and fear over the idea that adverts will be made mandatory, and that their Anime porn simulators will be taken away.

Think I'm kidding?

I... I'm so proud :' ) . Oh internet I fucking love you, never change. This is just... bravo, they did it. They made something both genuinely hilarious and soul destroying.

I'm surprised this got a Jimquisition extra because, in all honesty, I don't see this being as big of a deal as other extra episodes have addressed. And, frankly, I agree with Jim.

Or, more like it, I don't have an opinion on it. Facebook has never been an integral part of my life, even when I was in college and it was the only social media you could be on (talking 2005 here), and VR has never piqued my interest, so the idea that FB was spending some $400 billion with the rest coming from stocks on the Rift just did not intrigue me. I see the technology being used more as a competitor to Google Glass (you know FB wanted that) than a real gaming machine.

Facebook can have it because, as Jim said, maybe they'll make something useful out of it. And not give me headaches.

I would like to see you talk in length about the legal missteps that are going to no doubt happen because of this whole fiasco Jim but ok lets talk about what you did say.

It is the same defense I see everyone putting up "Better to sell out then go bankrupt." or "Better to sell to Facebook then to EA." Well that is a classic fallacy the name of which I forget (sorry), but it is the structure of "Ether we Pick A or we Pick B." "Ether we drink poison or we strangle orphan puppies to death." Not a very goo choice is it? It is also not a solid argument. There are many options that they could have taken here not just a couple. Maybe go to steam as you mentioned Jim. Maybe go to Notch who would love to whore himself out for indie products I am sure. Maybe go to another gaming visionary Like good Ol'Pete molluenoxaue(I cant spell :D). Or heavens forbid have a second round Kickstarter to fund the project to completion.

But this whole thing underlines why the Kickstarter system is doomed to collapse in on itself. The investors who gave of their hard earned cash willingly to get something awesome at the end are now left holding a half filled cup of promises while the developers of Occulus Rift are sitting pretty with millions. Regulations need to be enforced by the community or they will be enforced by the government and no one in the gaming community or otherwise wants to see that.

here is an idea: facebook connection + oculus rift + google glasses = seeing through another person's eyes

DrOswald:
This means your niche product will probably disappear for a while, and I can understand why you are mad about that. But if VR actually catches on I guarantee that a niche specific model far superior to the current Rift will be coming your way eventually.

That being said, it kind of destroyed the confidence that any niche company will not be bought out by a corporation at some point, so what are the chances that such a product will ever reach the market, AND be good? I don't know if anybody in crowdfunding will ever willingly invest in this kind of idea again.

On an alternate note, I'm pretty sure the people who actually put money into the product are mad for other reasons besides not getting what they thought they were getting, and don't have the luxury of just being disappointed without having any actual skin in the game.

related only tangentially, but i'm still cringing over that Surgeon Simulator clip. my ribs are hurting from seeing that.

Glad Jim took the time to do a video on this right when it popped up. I had suspected he might.

When the news broke it was cool to totally lose your ***t, but when everyone realized that's what everyone else was doing it consequently became cool to play it down.

Like Jim I have little investment in the OR. I could have sworn a couple years back Sony copyrighted mind control or some 2099 type gibberish. Jim also brings up a good point that I (some users) probably won't want to sit around with this overweight pair of goggles on their head for extended periods of time. Remember that Nintendo Virtual thing?

So overall the only thing I can really get upset about is if the devs really claimed they weren't going to sell out to their Kickstarter backers... and then did.

While I agree that a lot of people freaked WAY the duck out about this, you've said before that just because something "could be worse" doesn't mean we should be complacent in whatever happens to be going on. Still, I suppose it could be worse. Who knows, Nintendo, lord do I love them, could have bought it and turned this thing into Virtual Boy 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Jim is right, that it most likely will never be a mainstream thing. But it had the chance to become an awesome niche application. That chance is now gone, because to justify this expense it must become mainstream whatever the cost to recoup the investment. That means the niche will eventually be abandoned and it will be turned into something entirely different. My bet is that the (for this purpose) usable parts will be turned into a google glass copy and the rest dropped or sold to the highest bidder.

However, the Occulus rift for games is in the mid to long term dead because of this and the dream of VR most likely set back another 1-2 decades thanks to this.

But jim you are wrong in touting instagram and whatsapp as the proof that facebook doesn't tamper with acquisitions. They haven't *yet* but will eventually turn it into facebook attachments.

However, the immediate benefit facebook got out of this acquisitions is not in the services itself, but in the user databases they got in those deals. Especially whatsapp is a goldmine for this, because they got verified phone numbers to add to their data and can generate more precise profiles to sell to advertisers. That is why they paid about 40$ per whatsapp user, that is where the real value lies, a much better more detailed user profile to sell.

And this datamining and profiling is why facebook is that devil a lot of people don't want to make deals with.

Facebook will eventually add the occulus rift in one form or another into their datamining practices, it is after all what they make their money with. And that is why this product has become toxic. I will certainly not allow facebook tampered drivers doing who knows what on my system.

Ironically, I think the fact that the OR is suddenly owned by the largest social media company on the fucking planet is going to spur mainstream gaming support. Hey, if the latest consoles are pushing social media as hard as they are, why stop there?

Which...yeah will kill the OR as a niche game device in a manner of speaking, but for completely different reasons than most are thinking.

It's a move that's left me amused, ambivalent, and largely uncertain.
Though one thing I am certain of: Since hearing the news, I know I've been laughing my arse off a lot more.

MinionJoe:

Jimothy Sterling:

What? No. Niche products are GOOD. I was not insulting OR. Just saying it was not "The Future" Zuckerbergs hopes it'll be.

Er... well... yes, of course that's entirely true. But how's Facebook getting ownership of Oculus VR hardware the lesser of all evils?

I agree that a game company getting a hold of it would have been far, far worse. Same with Microsoft/Sony. They're not interested in catering to niche markets. But neither is Facebook.

So a product that is designed from the ground-up for a niche market that is then bought out and converted for a wider audience isn't going to be good for that niche market. No matter who buys it.

Sure, maybe there's still some hope for the OR under Facebook that doesn't exist with other companies. I mean, the PS4 has root-level Facebook integration, and people can still play games without having to link a Facebook account. I just hope that remains true for the Rift. And it's possible the hardware will remain unlocked enough to work with third-party programs. Personally, I was really looking forward to trying it out with Euro Truck Simulator 2 (about as niche as one can get).

But as a specialized, niche-market product, the Oculus system is very likely dead. Especially if other on-board developers pull out as Mojang has already done.

Actually, there is a very good chance that being marketed for a wider audience will be very good for everyone involved, niche or not. What does a large budget allow? More specialized hardware(and given that John Carmack is on the team, it's a fair bet that he'll be happy about having a larger development budget). What does mass production do? Drive down production costs? What do the sort of DIY tinkerers you find in niche hobbies do with hardware? Pretty much whatever the fuck they want.

As long as we actually get a good VR headset, it really doesn't matter what Facebook wants to do with it. Hobbyists have been re-purposing hardware for their own needs for quite some time now. XBMC on the Xbox, Rockbox on iPod, Linux on... everything... if it is hardware, it can be used. Hell, people have been making head trackers with web cams for a while now. I hope that Facebook doesn't interfere with the core intended functionality of the device(i.e. an immersive gaming experience), but even if they cover half the interface with ads and feed subliminal advertisements directly into our subconscious, as long as the hardware itself is viable, we still win in the long run.

Part of the hype behind Oculus Rift is that it actually does what all the "meet you halfway" technologies promise, such as 3D TV, except it goes the full distance. Granted, I think its good that there is skepticism behind the product. Because we've fallen down this hole several times before. I don't think 3D is worth the money or time. Its fun, but doesn't really add so much that its worth all the extra money, especially since you sacrifice picture quality and brightness to get 3D. Yes, I do question that something like the Rift could ever be used for popular consuming/gaming by the mass market, but I'm excited for it because its the first device I've seen and used that actually does what everyone always wanted with this type of thing in the first place, and does it so well that it totally sells the concept (unlike 3D).

The reason why Facebook even bothered to buy Oculus was because what they showed must have been so convincing, that there was no doubt that it was game changing enough to want to drop $2b on it. From all accounts that I've heard that have used the latest prototypes this is the case. I personally can't wait to get my hands on it. I was really impressed with the first dev kit as crappy as that is, and I honestly can't imagine how it would work out with the current prototypes.

Oculus Rift is like the ultimate zombie game everyone dreams of but never gets made, that's why its got so much hype behind it while 3D TV does not and is often thought of as a gimmick. Everyone is still waiting for "the one" zombie game but it hasn't been made yet. You know, open world survival horror that is true to survival, barricading, intense difficulty that is about living as long as possible in a zombie apocolypse, etc. The closest thing zombie fans have to "the one" game is Project Zomboid, but the fact that its 2D isometric doesn't quite go all the way. State of Decay gets close, but its too buggy and too unpolished and unrefined in certain areas to forever scratch that itch.

People have been wanting "presence" and "full immersion" in games for years. 3D kind of half steps its way here, and its cool, but "lol wow I paid $600 extra to make to make a pop-out-book style TV?" cool. Buying giant monitors is nice cause it takes up the entire FoV. The reason why the OR is exciting, is because it appears to actually fill this need and desire fully that people have been wanting for years - true presence. It combines 3D TV with a giant monitor that wraps your FoV with additonal things just as perfect motion tracking to make you really feel like you are there.

The only reason why the hype is still there for this thing is that apparently it works so well from developer kits sent to homes, demo units at conferences, and prototypes that major industry leaders have gotten on board including Valve and John Carmack (and now facebook), to the point that even Valve is convinced that this will be the next major gaming innovation since the creation of the 3D polygon. Pretty much every major player in the industry beyond these major players has their eye on it too. I'd be skeptical too if it wasn't for that and the fact that I've used one before. It works.

Still, not for everyone. I know plenty of people that just hate the idea of wearing anything on their heads. People who enjoy primiarly 2D games won't benefit from this either. I didn't find it an issue at all though - if you can wear ski goggles or sunglasses without being bothered by it, you can wear these. But back to the former point - this is why I question if this will become some kind of super mass-market technology that Facebook would be interested in. I think it could easily be a huge game-changing tech for the game industry, but beyond that? I don't really know.

Ashoten:
I would like to see you talk in length about the legal missteps that are going to no doubt happen because of this whole fiasco Jim but ok lets talk about what you did say.

It is the same defense I see everyone putting up "Better to sell out then go bankrupt." or "Better to sell to Facebook then to EA." Well that is a classic fallacy the name of which I forget (sorry), but it is the structure of "Ether we Pick A or we Pick B." "Ether we drink poison or we strangle orphan puppies to death." Not a very goo choice is it? It is also not a solid argument. There are many options that they could have taken here not just a couple. Maybe go to steam as you mentioned Jim. Maybe go to Notch who would love to whore himself out for indie products I am sure. Maybe go to another gaming visionary Like good Ol'Pete molluenoxaue(I cant spell :D). Or heavens forbid have a second round Kickstarter to fund the project to completion.

But this whole thing underlines why the Kickstarter system is doomed to collapse in on itself. The investors who gave of their hard earned cash willingly to get something awesome at the end are now left holding a half filled cup of promises while the developers of Occulus Rift are sitting pretty with millions. Regulations need to be enforced by the community or they will be enforced by the government and no one in the gaming community or otherwise wants to see that.

Just out of curiosity, what legal missteps? Is there something I am not aware of that would make them in breach of some contract somewhere?

Also, every option you mentioned they could have taken besides facebook is ridiculous. Valve is busy doing a massive hardware launch right now, there is no chance they could front this kind of money for several years. I don't know of they ever even have had this much money on hand. And Notch is really small potatoes, he is not as rich as you think he is. Notches/Mojang's "vast" fortune is only a fraction of the development budget of a single AAA game or movie. The idea that Notch could front the cash on this scale is laughable. You are off by about 2 degrees of magnitude. The same goes for Peter Molyneux, though we know much less about his finances.

And as for another round of kickstarter? They only managed to get 2.5 million last time. 1/1000th of the cost for the buyout alone, forget whatever else Facebook is going to put into this project they obviously value quite highly. I am sure they made the best use of that money they could, but it was not very much money.

And after all that, even if any of these "options" could have fronted money on this scale, who is to say they would have wanted to? Notch liked the idea of the Rift, but would he have paid 2 billion for it? What could he possibly do with the Rift?

Last of all, KICKSTARTER IS NOT AN INVESTMENT PLATFORM. I don't get why people can't understand this. You are holding the OR team to an idea they never tried to sell you and a promise they never made. I just reviewed their kickstarter. All they said was that they had a better way to make VR tech and they needed 250,000 to get off the ground. All they promised was that if they were given this money they would make the OR and deliver developer kits to backers.

If crowd funding like kickstarter ultimately collapses it will be because people who hold developers to a standard they never intended to shoot for. Why the hell would anybody crowd fund if it means dealing with this kind of shitstorm when you inevitably fail to live up to the artificial standard you never intended to meet put in place by your "supporters"?

The biggest problem FB will have with the Rift is getting people sold on what it's going to do for em. Are we supposed to look at two near identical screenshots side by side and think, boy I need to get me some of that double photo action in my life? The output of this thing can only be truly seen with it on your head. How they plan on instilling the desire to own one through advertising I have no fucking clue.

Sorry, not feeling this as an 'issue' worthy of merit seeing as the rift was never gonna be anything more then a cute 'gimmick' anyway. I mean all it is, is mouse bound camera control on your face instead of a mouse, not exactly a replacement for mice not when the mouse does more.

Facebook seems to try establishing itself on the technology market next to Google, but I am not sure whether they can keep that pace up. Google has a lot of collective knowledge and experience collected under its banner and the funds to back it up. As a programmer and gamer, I will definitely get myself an OR unless Facebook does really horrible things to it, which I honestly doubt.

I agree it could have been worse, however it doesn't make me feel any less disgusted.

The letter on their website, if I read between the lines correctly, basically states "we needed more money and publicity" ( http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/oculus-joins-facebook/ ), and while I would be OK with that but when I see this line:
"Zuckerberg said he could envision people visiting virtual worlds where they can buy goods and are served advertisements." ( http://time.com/37842/facebook-oculus-rift/ ), I get just sick. What happened to "from gamers by gamers"?
Disappeared into the void?

I may be overly idealistic, but if you say and plan for it to be for gaming and then magically expand to a "social" level, sell youself for facebook ( which is a ads hub website, if you'll ask me ) and then mention ads while talking about your product, I basically am at the point of saying that you can take and shove your precious device up your sorry corporate arse because I won't touch it even if you gave it away for free.

Though I have to say, it's getting annoying saying all the stuff about oculus everywhere right it. Let it be forgotten as it's no loger worthy of mentioning.

This was more or less my take on it.

There's a world of difference between an Owner and a Director/Operator. Now, Zuckerberg (or whichever flunkie) might try and get into the Director role, but that hasn't happened yet, and its unclear what purpose it would serve them to do so. Ensuring some level of Facebook utility probably, but every single device on the market prettymuch has that nowadays anyways (along with Twittering and Netflixing, etc).

In a strict standpoint of ownership, all this really does is give Oculus (potentially) more capital from the corporate moneypile, ideally to streamline their product and bring it to market (possibly a wider market via advertising and the like)

Facebook certainly seems content to sabotage their primary operations with increasing barriers to functionality and infesting it with ads, but there's no apparent reason to think they're going to jump onto this property they've bought (with what seems like a debatable level of understanding, and partially some random whimsy of Zuckerbergs) and start telling all the engineers and so on how to build a VR headset with their vast backgrounds in social media software.

DrOswald:
Also, every option you mentioned they could have taken besides facebook is ridiculous. Valve is busy doing a massive hardware launch right now, there is no chance they could front this kind of money for several years. I don't know of they ever even have had this much money on hand. And Notch is really small potatoes, he is not as rich as you think he is. Notches/Mojang's "vast" fortune is only a fraction of the development budget of a single AAA game or movie. The idea that Notch could front the cash on this scale is laughable. You are off by about 2 degrees of magnitude. The same goes for Peter Molyneux, though we know much less about his finances.

He doesn't have facebook money, but Notch does have over $311 million(equivalent. The Swedish newspaper article said 2 billion SEK), in his personal bank account. IE: Not including what he's left in Mojang.

That's more than the entire development and marketing budget for GTA V($265 million), you know, the most expensive game ever made. So I think you're cutting him a little short there. ;)

But he's still short of the facebook bid by a factor of about 6.

Is Jimquisition on every day now?

Anyway, like most things it could be worse. They could have been bought out by EA *maniacal laugh*

Ok, yeah but Facebook isn't going to get anything worthwhile out of this. I figured Microsoft would buy Oculus, oh well.

What's the game shown at 2:45? I feel like saying it's MechWarrior, but I haven't heard anything new about the game for a while.

While I see your point, Jim, I have to say that the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

I think, historically speaking, that Jim's going to end up being wrong on this one.

Yes, in the games industry, they have no track record to speak of. In the internet industry? They're only marginally better than Google on the "evil empire" scale in most people's minds. In fact, I'd argue that they're far worse than Google, because beyond the screwups of Google+ (which isn't as bad now as it used to be) or YouTube (which was honestly always a little screwed up, as anyone who paid any attention knew darn well)....I can't actually think of anything they've done which has really significantly impacted me in a negative way. In fact I use a lot of their services to my own personal benefit on a regular basis. Google generally creates a lot of the useful services that it offers, and most of them are contributing significantly to the growth and expansion of the internet and to technology as a whole.

Facebook, by comparison, is just buying up properties that provide such services, and isn't actually improving them all that much. I don't know where Jim gets this glorious optimism that Facebook won't interfere with Oculus because, historically, Facebook doesn't meddle....when in fact there's evidence of such meddling in the form of Instagram. They adjusted the Terms of Service so as to make photos available for sale to advertisers at Facebook's behest, then changed them back when the uproar got too loud to deal with.

I think the most likely scenario is that Oculus will eventually sink due to executive meddling when it doesn't perform the tasks that Facebook wants it to be used for. Which would arguably be better than having it work....but having your use of the device be documented and sold to advertisers, just like everything else on Facebook is.

Could it be worse? Hell yeah. Does that make it okay? Hell no. Oculus just went from being an intriguing possibility for the future of tech....to being a historical footnote that many people will have forgotten about in a few years.

Cerebrawl:

DrOswald:
Also, every option you mentioned they could have taken besides facebook is ridiculous. Valve is busy doing a massive hardware launch right now, there is no chance they could front this kind of money for several years. I don't know of they ever even have had this much money on hand. And Notch is really small potatoes, he is not as rich as you think he is. Notches/Mojang's "vast" fortune is only a fraction of the development budget of a single AAA game or movie. The idea that Notch could front the cash on this scale is laughable. You are off by about 2 degrees of magnitude. The same goes for Peter Molyneux, though we know much less about his finances.

He doesn't have facebook money, but Notch does have over $311 million(equivalent. The Swedish newspaper article said 2 billion SEK), in his personal bank account. IE: Not including what he's left in Mojang.

That's more than the entire development and marketing budget for GTA V($265 million), you know, the most expensive game ever made. So I think you're cutting him a little short there. ;)

But he's still short of the facebook bid by a factor of about 6.

Hmm. I thought he had around 50M, but that was last time I check about a year ago.

Ok, did the math. I forgot he had hiked up the price of minecraft significantly since I got it several years ago (I got it back when it was $10 or $15), and I forgot to take into account non PC sales.

I was thinking he had about ~$50-$75 Million taking into consideration what I figured he must have spent. Thus, about 1/2 of the typical AAA game or 1/3 of a typical Hollywood blockbuster, if you include advertisement costs which often doubles the total cost. Damn that man has sold a lot of Minecraft. I really underestimated that.

So I guess if Notch had spent his entire fortune simply acquiring Rift it would only be ~1 order of magnitude off of what facebook paid. My bad.

I was expecting the Rift to get picked up by someone (probably a lesser-known hardware maker or maybe razor or Logitech), but facebook really caught me by surprise. If it manages to gain favor in the public eye it could really pay off for all involved. I have to admit my knee-jerk reaction was pretty negative, but given how open all parties have been about using it for social media and advertising I don't feel I was wrong.

Jim has a point, though; it could have been much worse. Sony is a good example of that as they never capitalize on any hardware peripherals; they only do enough to get an initial install base to break even and then never bother with it again. There are still a lot of eye toys for the ps2 floating around in the second hand shops around here. Imagine how much worse it would have been to watch someone release a perfected version and then squander the technology as opposed to outright ruining it. I shudder to think what EA or Microsoft would have done with it for the same reasons Jim mentions.

Nintendo would have just called it the Virtual Boy Wii 3DU and released a wario game on it that only worked in one "retro" color.

To be honest I am glad Valve didn't get it.

Steamworks is the largest DRM which consumes many publishers.

You would have had to log into it just as if you have had to log into Origin if EA had it.

Apparently the minecraft Oculus was canceled because the creator hates FB

I think because it was targeted at a niche market before it had better chances at success.

Both camera controls like the kinect and 3D-everything where aimed both at the big market, the mass audiences.

This will be exactly the same where the whole VR thing will be aimed at a big market, downgraded to the lowest common denominator and in the end tank horribly like nintendos VR boy... anyone remember that headache inducing atrocity?

Add ontop Facebook notoriously gathering and reselling of personal info this screams of an interesting idea being gobbled up by a big company to transform it into an add throwing machine.

Also the difference between a PS 4 and an OR is that Facebook doesnt own PS4... if it did you better believe that Facebook would not be "optional"

Facebook is only interested in this new technology so far as it can force itselfe into it. It has no real interest to make this thing for games, unless its a VR version of farmville or Candy crush saga.

Furthermore i can understand the backers of the project feeling more then a little betrayed. Its like financing your girlfriends boob enhancemend and then afterwards seeing her drive off with an old fart of a millionaire. Kinda... sorta. Sure you spend the cash knowing that once it was spend she wasnt obliged to anything, but its really disheartening how nowadays loyality seems to be worth nothing anymore to anyone and get laughed at and rediculed if you actually expected it... what are you? An idiot? Loyality? So medival man.. go with the times! Betrayal is the way to go in the industries i tell ya!

The project now doesnt hold anymore chances then the other future techs since the niche market it was targeting for will now reject it due to facebooks meddling andbastardisation of the thing into a social media machine... something no one that backed the project wanted.

Meanwhile everyone else will just ignore the thing because no one wants to sit at home with those stupid googles on their head getting headaches.

I'm still hoping this is an elaborate April Fool's prank. Sad Panda is Sad if it isn't.

Most salient point for conversation: That plushie.

Either A: some sort of a store link or makers page to order from or some deal where somebody can somehow buy one

or B: Majority percentage commission for them to make you X number of them for handing out at Con's or the like for an equitable return amount of money.

I'll take 2 so I can have one with me at work.

To the topic of VR:

Facebook may or may not have plans when it comes to the Oculus. Time will tell on that one. But in terms of what it means to Oculus with this purchase is that it much more significantly grants them the where-with-all to actually MAKE GOOD on the promise of the consumer version being more financially equitable to the end user as a purchasable product, WITHOUT them having to strictly be a fringe/hard-core enthusiast that may already have a dev kit or two. I have two 1st gen Dev Kits and I'll be getting 2 DK2's for Open Source programming capabilities, namely because I really wasn't in any position to engage at this sort of level with this tech the last time it came around for PC's.

But the markets today are about a lot more than just our PC's. Steam Box, nVidia Shield, plenty of 'Smart' TV's and mobile devices, plus not being restricted to 'Just Windows' makes now a better time for it than before. Doesn't necessarily mean that it will ultimately be any more successful, just that it has a lot more avenues to explore success in. And that exploration and risk and R&D has to get paid for somehow and in some manner that still allows for the stated goal of accessibility to be a valid promise rather than just a lofty (and missed) one.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here