Q&A z Luckey i Irbie

Why did you decide to do this? Did Sony's announcement spur a deal?

Oculus CEO Brendan Iribe:  We've been working on this relationship for a while. It really started with us just getting to know Mark and his team: they were interested to see a demo, they came down, we showed them a demo, we started talking about the vision, and they got excited.

Basically, Mark said, "Is there any way we can help, is there anything we can do? Any kind of partnership, anything we could invest in or promote? How can we be a part of this and help make virtual reality even bigger and even better?" After meeting and talking and hanging out a lot, we started to get to know each other, we started to trust each other, we started to tell Mark and his team more about the future and how we saw this impacting the world, and how big an impact it could be, and how we were really focused on hiring the very best people in the world... and ultimately how we wanted to get out the hardware to as many people as we could, as fast as we could, at the most affordable price.

As we went down that path, Mark said, "I think we really could help you on that side of it. You clearly know what you're doing on gaming, we don't need to have any real impact on that, but I think we could help you on some other parts." And that's where the discussion went. Oculus is all about the gaming community right now, we're super focused on that. But with this acquisition and with this partnership, we can now get the virtual reality platform out to more people faster, better, and at a lower cost.

 

You had $100 million in funding, and a year ago Palmer told me that the company wanted to be independent. What did you need from Facebook that would be worth changing that? What are you getting from Facebook that could make this happen any differently than you could with $100 million in funding?

Oculus founder Palmer Luckey:  They believe in our vision of virtual reality. There are so many other companies that have been interested, they have a vision of what they wanted to do to fit into our product roadmap, and if they bought us it would be so that we could build what they wanted us to build. Mark does believe in our vision of virtual reality, and we're going to continue operating independently, delivering what we've always wanted to deliver. This gives us a lot of resources to do what we've always wanted to do, but it doesn't change what we want to do.

 

What tangible benefit was there to signing on with Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook right now — something that you couldn't do with $100 million in funding?

Iribe: When you look at this and where it's all going, the hardware business requires a lot of investment. It's very hard, it's very expensive, and ramping up hard on any given platform, whether it's a console or any kind of PC or mobile device, going into the hardware business requires a lot of investment. We had a lot of investment, and that was great, but at this point, we're looking at scaling this, at going out and acquiring components, and doing deals with some of the biggest companies in the world that got behind us and were working with us so that — because they believed in it and they wanted to, and in many ways they were trying to give us the benefit of the doubt, and almost bend the rules on how much of a commitment they normally require from companies.

Now we're able to show up and say "Hey guys, not only are we in this for a very long time, and the risk is a lot lower that we're going to go away or have any financial problems, but we're now ready to step up and actually put in bigger orders and bigger commitments, and hit bigger volumes around where virtual reality can go." I think that's a key part of it.

 

Luckey: Another thing to keep in mind is that up until now, we've largely been driven by the mobile phone market, most of the hardware we've been using is out of the mobile phone market. But as virtual reality gets more and more advanced, the right thing to do is develop hardware that's made specifically for virtual reality.

Great virtual reality has different technical requirements than great cellphones, and like Brendan said, the hardware business is really, really expensive. Designing new display technologies is really, really expensive. This is going to let us do things that would have just been far and away impossible without Facebook. We want to deliver the best possible product, at the lowest possible cost, and this was clearly a panacea to do that.

 

So does this change your roadmap? Does this mean the headset will come any quicker, or any cheaper, or be any better in any particular way than it would have been previously?

Luckey: This does let the headset be better and cheaper. Our roadmap is about the same as it's always been, but there are a lot of things we'd wanted to do that now we can really execute on. This does make the Rift cheaper and better, both in the near term and the long term.

Another thing is that we're going to be able to devote a lot of resources to content that we would not have been able to do otherwise. Virtual reality is a tough sell for a software developer. They have to convince investors that not only are they going to build a good game, which is what they normally have to do, they have to convince them that it's going to be a good game and that virtual reality will be successful. This puts us in a position where we can invest in games because we know virtual reality is going to be successful; we just have to believe in the game.

You're going to see a lot more coming out of our content investment and publishing side

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/25/5547884/interview-oculus-founder-says-facebook-deal-will-make-virtual-reality

 

Palmer odpowiadal rowniez na pytania na Reddit:

 

 

Q Cut the PR.
Most of us will not agree with it.
Most of us will see it as a sell-out.
You had our trust. Now you will have to regain it.

 

Palmer: I understand that, and I am confident that I will.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q Just promise me there will be no specific Facebook tech tie-ins.

 

Palmer: I promise.
Why would we want to sell to someone like MS or Apple? So they can tear the company apart and use the pieces to build out their own vision of virtual reality, one that fits whatever current strategy they have? Not a chance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q Okay, question really all I want answered since you didn't go into detail or even really speak about it.
What will this $2 billion in investment allow you to do with VR that you could not achieve before?
Follow ups...
Is it going to rapidly expand your employee base? Do you worry that it might hurt the company culture or efficiency of a smaller team?

 

Palmer: We have not gotten into all the details yet, but a lot of the news is coming. The key points:
1) We can make custom hardware, not rely on the scraps of the mobile phone industry. That is insanely expensive, think hundreds of millions of dollars. More news soon.
2) We can afford to hire everyone we need, the best people that fit into our culture of excellence in all aspects.
3) We can make huge investments in content. More news soon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q I can support this as a great step forward to a variety of VR experiences, not just gaming VR.
But I have one request: Don't put Facebook updates in my HUD

 

Palmer: Deal!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q What if Facebook tries to create its own version of Steam or Origin where all Oculus games have to go through?

 

Palmer: We are already working on our own VR game platform/launcher, but we are not going to force everything to go through it. Facebook has no interest in changing that, they believe in what we have been doing all along.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q Well, for one thing, I was working on a VR social network platform. It's still extremely early but this news makes me wonder if I'm wasting my time because Facebook may have an "app store" that denies this sort of app.

 

Palmer: We are not going to lock people out because they compete. We have been working on a variety of first party applications, but are completely open to community equivalents. It would be arrogant of us to assume that our solutions will be the best solutions, users can decide for themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q Palmer, as a die-hard fan and supporter since the first day that the kickstarter went live, I am legitimately disappointed by this news, not to mention your response. I feel like your post does not address any of the issues that most people are having, and instead relies on PR doublespeech to avoid our questions. I feel like you have not answered any of the main issues that we are having, such as:

    Facebook is known for it's intrusive tracking of users, not to mention it's extreme focus on advertisement, intrusive logins, and focus on linking to real-life data collection. The appeal of Oculus (as compared to Sony, for example) is because it is on a PC platform, and thus allows us, the developers, freedom over what we want to do with it. How are you going to guarantee that this partnership will not cause the Rift to become "commercialized", so to speak; for example, targeted ads overlaid over games, intrusive tracking of applications or programs that we run, brickwalling indie developers from the rift, and allowing our personal information to be sold/marketed/given to facebook?
    Facebook, although undebatedly a massive company, is beginning to lose a lot of its teenage population due to the more widespread use of it by the older population. The Rift is absolutely targeted towards the gaming population, which tends to be teenage to early 20s/30s, which is the exact population that Facebook is currently losing. By partnering with Facebook, you are gaining access to a massive userbase of people that the rift is not targeted towards, which people might feel is a very bad move. In fact, it's arguable that you are actually targeting the userbase which has the highest chance of actively opposing the Rift, due to how the middle-aged/older population tends to view technology and video games, and especially the negative consequences associated with them. Can you guarantee that this will not negatively affect the Rift's health?
    The fact that Oculus has been acquired by Facebook, not partnering with Facebook. I noticed that in your post, you were very careful to use the term partnering, which suggests that you retain freedom and complete control over Oculus. However, news sites are stating that this is an acquisition, and the price point thrown around of $2b suggests that this is correct. What we fear is not that Oculus will be partnering with Facebook, but that you are selling out the company to Facebook and no longer retain control over Oculus. I can say that I, personally, support Oculus because I believed in the goals and visions that you had. However, now that you have been acquired by Facebook and no longer retain control over your own company, how can you guarantee that you will continue pursuing these goals?

I know that due to the massive negative backlash right now, chances are you will not reply to this post. However, I hope that sooner or later, you will provide us with answers to these issues, since I feel that you stand to lose a large section of your fanbase.

 

Palmer: I am sorry that you are disappointed. To be honest, if I were you, I would probably have a similar initial impression! There are a lot of reasons why this is a good thing, many of which are not yet public. A lot of people obviously feel the same way you do, so I definitely want to address your points:

The appeal of Oculus (as compared to Sony, for example) is because it is on a PC platform, and thus allows us, the developers, freedom over what we want to do with it.

None of that will change. Oculus continues to operate independently! We are going to remain as indie/developer/enthusiast friendly as we have always been, if not more so. This deal lets us dedicate a lot of resources to developer relations, technical help, engine optimizations, and our content investment/publishing/sales platform. We are not going to track you, flash ads at you, or do anything invasive.

The Rift is absolutely targeted towards the gaming population, which tends to be teenage to early 20s/30s, which is the exact population that Facebook is currently losing. By partnering with Facebook, you are gaining access to a massive userbase of people that the rift is not targeted towards, which people might feel is a very bad move.

Almost everyone at Oculus is a gamer, and virtual reality will certainly be led by the games industry, largely because it is the only industry that already has the talent and tools required to build awesome interactive 3D environments. In the long run, though, there are going to be a lot of other industries that use VR in huge ways, ways that are not exclusive to gamers; the current focus on gaming is a reflection of the current state of VR, not the long term potential. Education, communication, training, rehabilitation, gaming and film are all going to be major drivers for VR, and they will reach a very wide audience. We are not targeting social media users, we are targeting everyone who has a reason to use VR.

What we fear is not that Oculus will be partnering with Facebook, but that you are selling out the company to Facebook and no longer retain control over Oculus. I can say that I, personally, support Oculus because I believed in the goals and visions that you had.

This acquisition/partnership gives us more control of our destiny, not less! We don't have to compromise on anything, and can afford to make decisions that are right for the future of virtual reality, not our current revenue. Keep in mind that we already have great partners who invested heavily in Oculus and got us to where we are, so we have not had full control of our destiny for some time. Facebook believes in our long term vision, and they want us to continue executing on our own roadmap, not control what we do. I would never have done this deal if it meant changing our direction, and Facebook has a good track record of letting companies work independently post-acquisition.

There is a lot of related good news on the way. I am swamped right now, but I do plan on addressing everyone's concerns. I think everyone will see why this is so incredible when the big picture is clear.

 

 

ogladanie zdjec znajomych z wakacji czy ostrej biby z oculusem na lbie, wrazenie jakbym tam byl - po co jezdzic na wakacje i miec prawdziwych znajomych, piekne, o tym zawsze marzylem!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Będzie można zobaczyć na wasne oczy, wygrywanie życia przez BoroBoro leżącego w rowie.

[...]olali wersje na past geny co jest wg mnie dobry krokiem bo jeśli Carsy wysżły by na PS3/X360 to wyglądały by gorzej niż Titanfall.[...]

W sumie bym się nawet zgodził, gdyby nie jeden drobny szczegół - Wii U

Wydaje mi się, że kłóci się to z tą teorią, bo Wii U jednak zdecydowanie bliżej do PS360 niż do PS4/XO, a procek (na którym raczej będzie liczona fizyka) jest ponoć jeszcze słabszy niż te w PS360.

Na blogu PS dali tableki z grami na 2014:

Widzę jakieś osiem gier dla siebie, z czego najbardziej interesuje mnie DriveClub.

^ Nie kłam, na PS4 nic w tym roku nie będzie oprócz Ordera.

Szkoda tego oculusa [*]

Na blogu PS dali tableki z grami na 2014:

#4players

Q&A z Luckey i Irbie

 

Why did you decide to do this? Did Sony's announcement spur a deal?

Oculus CEO Brendan Iribe:  We've been working on this relationship for a while. It really started with us just getting to know Mark and his team: they were interested to see a demo, they came down, we showed them a demo, we started talking about the vision, and they got excited.

Basically, Mark said, "Is there any way we can help, is there anything we can do? Any kind of partnership, anything we could invest in or promote? How can we be a part of this and help make virtual reality even bigger and even better?" After meeting and talking and hanging out a lot, we started to get to know each other, we started to trust each other, we started to tell Mark and his team more about the future and how we saw this impacting the world, and how big an impact it could be, and how we were really focused on hiring the very best people in the world... and ultimately how we wanted to get out the hardware to as many people as we could, as fast as we could, at the most affordable price.

As we went down that path, Mark said, "I think we really could help you on that side of it. You clearly know what you're doing on gaming, we don't need to have any real impact on that, but I think we could help you on some other parts." And that's where the discussion went. Oculus is all about the gaming community right now, we're super focused on that. But with this acquisition and with this partnership, we can now get the virtual reality platform out to more people faster, better, and at a lower cost.

 

You had $100 million in funding, and a year ago Palmer told me that the company wanted to be independent. What did you need from Facebook that would be worth changing that? What are you getting from Facebook that could make this happen any differently than you could with $100 million in funding?

Oculus founder Palmer Luckey:  They believe in our vision of virtual reality. There are so many other companies that have been interested, they have a vision of what they wanted to do to fit into our product roadmap, and if they bought us it would be so that we could build what they wanted us to build. Mark does believe in our vision of virtual reality, and we're going to continue operating independently, delivering what we've always wanted to deliver. This gives us a lot of resources to do what we've always wanted to do, but it doesn't change what we want to do.

 

What tangible benefit was there to signing on with Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook right now — something that you couldn't do with $100 million in funding?

Iribe: When you look at this and where it's all going, the hardware business requires a lot of investment. It's very hard, it's very expensive, and ramping up hard on any given platform, whether it's a console or any kind of PC or mobile device, going into the hardware business requires a lot of investment. We had a lot of investment, and that was great, but at this point, we're looking at scaling this, at going out and acquiring components, and doing deals with some of the biggest companies in the world that got behind us and were working with us so that — because they believed in it and they wanted to, and in many ways they were trying to give us the benefit of the doubt, and almost bend the rules on how much of a commitment they normally require from companies.

Now we're able to show up and say "Hey guys, not only are we in this for a very long time, and the risk is a lot lower that we're going to go away or have any financial problems, but we're now ready to step up and actually put in bigger orders and bigger commitments, and hit bigger volumes around where virtual reality can go." I think that's a key part of it.

 

Luckey: Another thing to keep in mind is that up until now, we've largely been driven by the mobile phone market, most of the hardware we've been using is out of the mobile phone market. But as virtual reality gets more and more advanced, the right thing to do is develop hardware that's made specifically for virtual reality.

Great virtual reality has different technical requirements than great cellphones, and like Brendan said, the hardware business is really, really expensive. Designing new display technologies is really, really expensive. This is going to let us do things that would have just been far and away impossible without Facebook. We want to deliver the best possible product, at the lowest possible cost, and this was clearly a panacea to do that.

 

So does this change your roadmap? Does this mean the headset will come any quicker, or any cheaper, or be any better in any particular way than it would have been previously?

Luckey: This does let the headset be better and cheaper. Our roadmap is about the same as it's always been, but there are a lot of things we'd wanted to do that now we can really execute on. This does make the Rift cheaper and better, both in the near term and the long term.

Another thing is that we're going to be able to devote a lot of resources to content that we would not have been able to do otherwise. Virtual reality is a tough sell for a software developer. They have to convince investors that not only are they going to build a good game, which is what they normally have to do, they have to convince them that it's going to be a good game and that virtual reality will be successful. This puts us in a position where we can invest in games because we know virtual reality is going to be successful; we just have to believe in the game.

You're going to see a lot more coming out of our content investment and publishing side

 

 

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/25/5547884/interview-oculus-founder-says-facebook-deal-will-make-virtual-reality

 

Palmer odpowiadal rowniez na pytania na Reddit:

 

 

Q Cut the PR.

Most of us will not agree with it.

Most of us will see it as a sell-out.

You had our trust. Now you will have to regain it.

 

Palmer: I understand that, and I am confident that I will.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q Just promise me there will be no specific Facebook tech tie-ins.

 

Palmer: I promise.

Why would we want to sell to someone like MS or Apple? So they can tear the company apart and use the pieces to build out their own vision of virtual reality, one that fits whatever current strategy they have? Not a chance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q Okay, question really all I want answered since you didn't go into detail or even really speak about it.

What will this $2 billion in investment allow you to do with VR that you could not achieve before?

Follow ups...

Is it going to rapidly expand your employee base? Do you worry that it might hurt the company culture or efficiency of a smaller team?

 

Palmer: We have not gotten into all the details yet, but a lot of the news is coming. The key points:

1) We can make custom hardware, not rely on the scraps of the mobile phone industry. That is insanely expensive, think hundreds of millions of dollars. More news soon.

2) We can afford to hire everyone we need, the best people that fit into our culture of excellence in all aspects.

3) We can make huge investments in content. More news soon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q I can support this as a great step forward to a variety of VR experiences, not just gaming VR.

But I have one request: Don't put Facebook updates in my HUD

 

Palmer: Deal!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q What if Facebook tries to create its own version of Steam or Origin where all Oculus games have to go through?

 

Palmer: We are already working on our own VR game platform/launcher, but we are not going to force everything to go through it. Facebook has no interest in changing that, they believe in what we have been doing all along.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q Well, for one thing, I was working on a VR social network platform. It's still extremely early but this news makes me wonder if I'm wasting my time because Facebook may have an "app store" that denies this sort of app.

 

Palmer: We are not going to lock people out because they compete. We have been working on a variety of first party applications, but are completely open to community equivalents. It would be arrogant of us to assume that our solutions will be the best solutions, users can decide for themselves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q Palmer, as a die-hard fan and supporter since the first day that the kickstarter went live, I am legitimately disappointed by this news, not to mention your response. I feel like your post does not address any of the issues that most people are having, and instead relies on PR doublespeech to avoid our questions. I feel like you have not answered any of the main issues that we are having, such as:

    Facebook is known for it's intrusive tracking of users, not to mention it's extreme focus on advertisement, intrusive logins, and focus on linking to real-life data collection. The appeal of Oculus (as compared to Sony, for example) is because it is on a PC platform, and thus allows us, the developers, freedom over what we want to do with it. How are you going to guarantee that this partnership will not cause the Rift to become "commercialized", so to speak; for example, targeted ads overlaid over games, intrusive tracking of applications or programs that we run, brickwalling indie developers from the rift, and allowing our personal information to be sold/marketed/given to facebook?

    Facebook, although undebatedly a massive company, is beginning to lose a lot of its teenage population due to the more widespread use of it by the older population. The Rift is absolutely targeted towards the gaming population, which tends to be teenage to early 20s/30s, which is the exact population that Facebook is currently losing. By partnering with Facebook, you are gaining access to a massive userbase of people that the rift is not targeted towards, which people might feel is a very bad move. In fact, it's arguable that you are actually targeting the userbase which has the highest chance of actively opposing the Rift, due to how the middle-aged/older population tends to view technology and video games, and especially the negative consequences associated with them. Can you guarantee that this will not negatively affect the Rift's health?

    The fact that Oculus has been acquired by Facebook, not partnering with Facebook. I noticed that in your post, you were very careful to use the term partnering, which suggests that you retain freedom and complete control over Oculus. However, news sites are stating that this is an acquisition, and the price point thrown around of $2b suggests that this is correct. What we fear is not that Oculus will be partnering with Facebook, but that you are selling out the company to Facebook and no longer retain control over Oculus. I can say that I, personally, support Oculus because I believed in the goals and visions that you had. However, now that you have been acquired by Facebook and no longer retain control over your own company, how can you guarantee that you will continue pursuing these goals?

I know that due to the massive negative backlash right now, chances are you will not reply to this post. However, I hope that sooner or later, you will provide us with answers to these issues, since I feel that you stand to lose a large section of your fanbase.

 

Palmer: I am sorry that you are disappointed. To be honest, if I were you, I would probably have a similar initial impression! There are a lot of reasons why this is a good thing, many of which are not yet public. A lot of people obviously feel the same way you do, so I definitely want to address your points:

The appeal of Oculus (as compared to Sony, for example) is because it is on a PC platform, and thus allows us, the developers, freedom over what we want to do with it.

None of that will change. Oculus continues to operate independently! We are going to remain as indie/developer/enthusiast friendly as we have always been, if not more so. This deal lets us dedicate a lot of resources to developer relations, technical help, engine optimizations, and our content investment/publishing/sales platform. We are not going to track you, flash ads at you, or do anything invasive.

The Rift is absolutely targeted towards the gaming population, which tends to be teenage to early 20s/30s, which is the exact population that Facebook is currently losing. By partnering with Facebook, you are gaining access to a massive userbase of people that the rift is not targeted towards, which people might feel is a very bad move.

Almost everyone at Oculus is a gamer, and virtual reality will certainly be led by the games industry, largely because it is the only industry that already has the talent and tools required to build awesome interactive 3D environments. In the long run, though, there are going to be a lot of other industries that use VR in huge ways, ways that are not exclusive to gamers; the current focus on gaming is a reflection of the current state of VR, not the long term potential. Education, communication, training, rehabilitation, gaming and film are all going to be major drivers for VR, and they will reach a very wide audience. We are not targeting social media users, we are targeting everyone who has a reason to use VR.

What we fear is not that Oculus will be partnering with Facebook, but that you are selling out the company to Facebook and no longer retain control over Oculus. I can say that I, personally, support Oculus because I believed in the goals and visions that you had.

This acquisition/partnership gives us more control of our destiny, not less! We don't have to compromise on anything, and can afford to make decisions that are right for the future of virtual reality, not our current revenue. Keep in mind that we already have great partners who invested heavily in Oculus and got us to where we are, so we have not had full control of our destiny for some time. Facebook believes in our long term vision, and they want us to continue executing on our own roadmap, not control what we do. I would never have done this deal if it meant changing our direction, and Facebook has a good track record of letting companies work independently post-acquisition.

There is a lot of related good news on the way. I am swamped right now, but I do plan on addressing everyone's concerns. I think everyone will see why this is so incredible when the big picture is clear.

 

 

Właśnie o tym mówiłem, że ludzie sami sobie dopowiadają pierdoły typu farmville w VR zamiast ocenić sprawę trzeźwo. Cieszy napewno fakt że dzięki pieniądzom FB Oculus będzie bardziej zaawansowany i tańszy.

Mimo to nadal pozostane sceptyczny wobec tego dealu z facebookiem i mimo zapewnień Palmera nadal będę spoglądał kątem oka na gogle innych firm.

Nie pasuje mi tylko stosowanie acquisition zamiennie z partnership bo to dwie inne rzeczy i może wskazywać na to iż Luckey nie chce się przyznać że tak naprawdę to nie on już jest tym który rządzi w Oculus VR.

I nie ma Drivecluba xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

 

Sony wwierca się w odbyt fanom.

Od tego bólu dupy już ci na wzrok weszło i masz problemy z czytaniem?

Edytowane 26 marca 201411 l przez UberAdi

Od tego bólu dupy już ci na wzrok weszło i masz problemy z czytaniem?

Hahaha dokładnie ale nie dziw się, xboty mają 720p a ta lista jest w 1080p, więc dla nich to szok i części mogą nie widzieć 

Od tego bólu dupy już ci na wzrok weszło i masz problemy z czytaniem?

 

TBA w wydaniu Sony nic nie jest warte.

 

 

Dorzuce ekstra $100 jezeli kupia EA.

 

 

Od tego bólu dupy już ci na wzrok weszło i masz problemy z czytaniem?

TBA w wydaniu Sony nic nie jest warte.

Cos Ty znow taki spięty?

Długa lista nie?

Przedstawie Ci teraz liste na XO

2014

 

Out Now

Titanfall

 

 

 

 

 

 

Out This Month

Ogród

 

 

 

 

Spring

Coś na Kinecta - pytajcie Daddiego, on ma mokro jak slyszy o tym tytule.

 

 

 

 

 

Summer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Autumn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Winter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TBA 2014

Ktoś napisal na tweeterze o Horizon 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#tylkoxbox

A może Zuckerberg ma więcej siana przy sobie i byłby w stanie coś jeszcze kupić. Przykładowo Sony.

Dzisiaj w radiu Zet mówili, że aktor Adam Sandler wysłał 400 konsol PlayStation( redaktorka nie podała których) na pomoc poszkodowanym Izraelczykom w wojnie z Libanem.

 

Bosze, Sony takie dobre...

 

 

Od tego bólu dupy już ci na wzrok weszło i masz problemy z czytaniem?

TBA w wydaniu Sony nic nie jest warte.

Cos Ty znow taki spięty?

Długa lista nie?

Przedstawie Ci teraz liste na XO

2014

 

Out Now

Titanfall

 

 

 

 

 

 

Out This Month

Ogród

 

 

 

 

Spring

Coś na Kinecta - pytajcie Daddiego, on ma mokro jak slyszy o tym tytule.

 

 

 

 

 

Summer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Autumn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Winter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TBA 2014

Ktoś napisal na tweeterze o Horizon 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#tylkoxbox

 

#Boldupy sonybojow. Microsoft zapowiada gry i one sie ukazuja w terminie. Sony zapowiada gry i albo opoznia premiery albo je kasuje. turstory

Hmmm z tej listy to w sumie dwie gry bym kupił nie mając pewności czy brać na premierę czy za 100 zeta.

Jak to dobrze że nie sprzedałem 360ki.

<Wstaw dowolny kąśliwy komentarz o ilości i jakości gier na PS4>

Zeratul, jak na pokolenie urodzone w latach 50-tych używasz całkiem młodzieżowego języka

 

Aczkolwiek tutaj masz rację. Sony zapowiada mocne i gorące tytuły i zdążają sie opóźnienia. Na szczęście na One wszystko wychodzi w terminie.

Plants vs Zombies scalakowane?

Edytowane 26 marca 201411 l przez waldusthecyc

głos rozsądku w sprawie Oculusa - http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/26/5549342/virtual-reality-fans-should-love-facebook-at-least-for-now

 

 

The negative reaction to this acquisition has everything to do with the reputation of Facebook as a whole, and absolutely nothing to do with any facts about the situation, most of which are unknown.

 

It’s hard to look towards the far-flung future, but it’s easy to see what this does for VR in the next two years: The retail Rift hardware will be released for a cheaper than expected price, offering better hardware. Virtual reality becomes something people are willing to invest in, which will draw developers and competing hardware.

The Rift is likely to launch as a pure gaming device, because that’s what will move hardware and it’s what the company is good at. Any branching into other uses will happen once the hardware has sold in large numbers and people are comfortable with the technology. By that time, there will likely be competing hardware on the market.

 

głos rozsądku w sprawie Oculusa - http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/26/5549342/virtual-reality-fans-should-love-facebook-at-least-for-now

 

 

The negative reaction to this acquisition has everything to do with the reputation of Facebook as a whole, and absolutely nothing to do with any facts about the situation, most of which are unknown.

 

It’s hard to look towards the far-flung future, but it’s easy to see what this does for VR in the next two years: The retail Rift hardware will be released for a cheaper than expected price, offering better hardware. Virtual reality becomes something people are willing to invest in, which will draw developers and competing hardware.

The Rift is likely to launch as a pure gaming device, because that’s what will move hardware and it’s what the company is good at. Any branching into other uses will happen once the hardware has sold in large numbers and people are comfortable with the technology. By that time, there will likely be competing hardware on the market.

 

 

Blablabla a dla mnie to kolejny kickstarterowy przewał.

 

Ktoś miał pomysł, wrzucił na kickstartera, dostał hajs od społeczności, stworzył z tego projekt który teraz sprzedaje za 2 miliardy dolarów. Sorry ale finansując to czułbym się teraz wydymany równie mocno co posiadacz PS4 odnoście Drivecluba.

Edytowane 26 marca 201411 l przez MaZZeo

 

Blablabla a dla mnie to kolejny kickstarterowy przewał.

 

Ktoś miał pomysł, wrzucił na kickstartera, dostał hajs od społeczności, stworzył z tego projekt który teraz sprzedaje za 2 miliardy dolarów. Sorry ale finansując to czułbym się teraz wydymany równie mocno co posiadacz PS4 odnoście Drivecluba.

 

widać że Xbot, nie ma pojęcia o sytuacji ale się wypowie.

Zeratul, jak na pokolenie urodzone w latach 50-tych używasz całkiem młodzieżowego języka

 

Aczkolwiek tutaj masz rację. Sony zapowiada mocne i gorące tytuły i zdążają sie opóźnienia. Na szczęście na One wszystko wychodzi w terminie.

Plants vs Zombies scalakowane?

 

oczywiscie, ze scalakowane... tak samo jak mgs V. sie gra sie ma

MGS ogrywsles tą wersję w 720p i rozpakcianymi teksturami? Next-gen

Edytowane 26 marca 201411 l przez YETI