| > the company would miss out on surveillance based revenue. More than likely most of Meta's revenue from the Quest series other than hardware is based off of, y'know, selling games. I doubt tracking what games you play to target ads in the OS is more valuable than the money they make when people actually buy games. In Facebook or Instagram, you're looking at a space that they can shoot lots of
ads into, and it's otherwise very hard to monetize. But a gaming-focused VR headset is a different story. Most of the time you're not looking at anything that can have ads in it, but you can actually sell stuff very easily. Maybe this'll change someday if they actually get social media shit in there that's popular, I'm sure Meta would love that, but so far that hasn't happened. > But the world where fb doesn't make any headset, and the world where they make an unacceptable headset are basically equivalent to me Popularizing the format is useful for pushing the tech forward. A big player pushing lots of devices means that the supply chains feeding the manufacture of those devices bulk up too, not to mention other knock-on effects like greater consumer awareness, and "free research" for whoever copies what the market leader does (at least for things that aren't IP-protected). > But I am a bit of a Luddite, and I know that people want their toys, and they want them now. I can hear the sneer from over here, yes. |
Isn't that a great argument for why they don't need to have such a hard requirement for a logged in session? Consoles didn't have an internet connection for the longest time, though only because it wasnt feasible yet. They moved a lot of games.
> I can hear the sneer from over here, yes.
I don't mean it as judgment, I know I'm the weirdo here. Sorry if that came off rude.