cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Facebook Begins Testing of Oculus VR Advertising

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

 

kevinw729_0-1623873364342.png

 



https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/16/facebook-to-begin-testing-ads-inside-oculus-virtual-reality-headsets...

https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
194 REPLIES 194


@Zenbane wrote:

 

For me, I'm hoping that Facebook implements these Ads in creative, innovative, and non-intrusive ways.

 


It wouldn't be as annoying if they went for the movie industry style rather than mobile game style.

Get product placement in there, have coke cans around HalfLife Alyx or whatever. I'd much prefer that to a mobile style unskippable ad videos. Like the Monster cans in Death Stranding.

 

I'm sure Coke would jump at the chance, they just dropped $4 billion in value because Ronaldo (soccer guy? Don't know or care) moved two bottles of coke off camera and held up a water bottle before the start of an interview.

 

If ads are going to be there, make them a seamless part of the game world, not an interruption to it.

 

Author: Oculus Monitor,  Auto Oculus Touch,  Forum Dark Mode, Phantom Touch Remover,  X-Plane Fixer
Hardware: Threadripper 1950x, MSI Gaming Trio 2080TI, Asrock X399 Taich
Headsets: Wrap 1200VR, DK1, DK2, CV1, Rift-S, GearVR, Go, Quest, Quest 2, Reverb G2

A little while back we had reports that Facebook wanted to lower the cost of their headsets which are already subsidised. Unless we look at every decision Facebook make in isolation we're likely going to miss the links.

 

The people who don't want an Oculus headset will benefit from increased numbers of Quests out there, by virtue of more developer interest so bemoaning decisions like this seem short-sighted to me. If that's the view, just don't buy an Oculus headset but enjoy VR experiences that possibly wouldn't exist without the user base that we're beginning to see now.

 

I'm no fan of advertising if it's in any way obtrusive or dumb and I've yet to see a system of advertising on-line that isn't at least one of these things. But I'm not going to just poo-poo a decision without seeing the bigger picture.

 

If a further reduction in the price of hardware is being considered it can't just be funded by the value that Facebook puts on account sign-ups. Whoever is involved in financial planning at FB would have been sacked if they didn't balance the books in some way.

 

If you want YouTube without adverts you have to pay for it, I don't like adverts in there but I don't want to pay so I'm not going to say they shouldn't do it.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

The making available the sophisticated hardware represented by Quest2 at a massive discount (loss leader) is amazing, but is the decision of the Facebook board and executives. Other manufacturers have equally powerful hardware and have decided to sell it at a margin more in reality with their business approach. 

To say that the Loss Leader approach has to be subsided by the inclusion of intrusive and questionable business practices is not really a relevant argument, and may be seen more as a defense of the obvious and inevitable backlash from an audience - that only three years previously had been promised that these activities (mandatory login, inserted adverts, ecosystem development), were not going to be the future for the platform they were investing into.

You decided on a loss leader business approach to achieve the created billion user target - will pulling down the VR community achieve that? Will inserting adverts, selling track user data and forcing into a walled garden help this community or hinder it - that is your business decision, not a necessity of this emerging market.

I really hope that FB considers a two stream approach, with a advert, tracked version and a normal no tracked version of the hardware that the VR community has supported, invested in and promoted.



https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

But kevin, all company decisions can be attributed to the board or executives if you look upstream.

These decisions though aren't made without financial analysis, which was my point.

 

Loss leading doesn't mean loss, it means balancing initial losses against gains they think they'll make elsewhere. And by 'think' I definitely mean based on financial analysis.

 

And how do you mean pulling down the community? as i said people are free to choose another headset. The consumer community is much more dependent on content than it is on perceived issues with advertising. And content is something that Facebook have invested in... I would ask on balance, is Facebook bringing the community down of lifting it up? and I repeat... on balance?

 

You've not used VR for consumer purposes... or at least when I asked what VR consumer experiences you enjoyed, you said you didn't, your interest is enterprise, I'm more interested tbh in what consumers think on this subject as they're the ones affected.

 

I agree that dual stream would be good for many people, maybe Facebook haven't ruled that out but I suspect decisions are made based on the overall long term results which are likely to be heavily skewed towards the subsidised headset alone.

 

I'll have to look into the YouTube example, I wonder how many people have paid for no adverts.

 

Edit: looks like (as of 2020) 30 million people have ad-free YouTube subscriptions, which sounds like a lot until you find that total users are 2.3 billion and that subscription includes unlimited music (I think). So that's 1.3%, which, if it was the same for FB VR use probably wouldn't make a big impression on board/execs decisions. At least not until the user base has increased a fair bit.

Yeah, the "they all do it" defense, or the "they also did". Not really a defense but a deflection from the point. I am not a fan of this kind of debating, but understand the point you want to make and will respect that. 

I also notice that you miss represent me again - even after I strenuously answered your questions the last time. Its as if you did not like the answers so tried to forget them. Its not a good look for an individual in your position - but I will humor you this one last time.

I do not only use commercial VR, I also extensively use consumer VR - as you know, but feign ignorance, I am a senior judge of the VR awards, and also am a advisor for the consumer games association (along with my media and consultancy work). I play a good portion of released consumer and commercial game titles, and try all aspects of headset design. To claim I do not understand this market is to be very disingenuous, as if wanting to try and make a point (not a good look man). 

If you want to know what consumer VR experience that is drawing me in now - I am trying the Beta of the Medal of Honor multiplayer again as a start the process of evaluating the nominees for the VR Awards 2021. And I think you will find I am "more use" to VR than you - though I think its unfair to make this a competitive argument as you did!

I would like to get back to the point, rather than trying to attack the poster of the discussion, (or claiming that they are a hater as a counter to a civil point raised).

You are right Loss Leader" should not mean loss - though in the 1920' Loss Leader's were used to force out competition that could not subsidize to the same level products. The Razor Blade principle a factor in this hard business approach. And so FB planned to eat the pricing on the next three generations (Q2, Q3/Pro and Q4). Their decision - and if they need to cover that loss with advertising, selling tracked data and ensuring users only use their portal - so be it.

Its just if that is good for the growth of VR, or an attempt to monopolize it?

EDIT - You may have made a mistake in thinking that the payment for no-ads is the only answer to now adverts on YouTube, you should also look up the percentage of users using smart-browsers with this feature or those using apps separate to Youtube to achieve this. The best analogy will be those using "Jailbroken" Quest2 to avoid having to be tracked or login, in order to use purchased content say on SteamVR. 

https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

Your mistaking this conversation as defence/attack. it's an increasingly common thing on the forum unfortunately. What I'm giving is an explanation as I see it, you're free to disagree but it's better to take each point I've made and say why it's incorrect. Feigning ignorance is not something I don't know if I still have a copy of the conversation where I asked what VR experiences were that you enjoy are and your reply, maybe I need to dig it out. I don't think I've ever seen a post on the forum where you've extolled the merits of a game or sim that you enjoy using but I'll have another look. So yes, I'm always going to be more receptive to consumer opinion when a non-consumer say something like Facebook are bringing the VR comunity down... because there different VR communities which posters represent. That's not an attack by the way just a point of fact.

 

Agree about forcing out competition being a negative tactic. If if that's what the fear is than it explains some posters ongoing stance towards Facebook.

 

In the case of VR though, there's a company with an income stream from software sales that puts them in a unique position to counter such competition if they wished and that would be Valve. So championing them is the way to go for those people.

 

All companies have their tactics, their pros and their cons, I would just ask that the balance of actions be taken into account before the bringing-the-community-down-bandwagon gets driven too far.

 

There may be ways to view YouTube without adverts illicitly, but it's only a mistake to discount that if those numbers are significant, or affect the decisions being made by YouTube execs on whether to continue to place advertising within streams.

 

My point with YouTube was that I chose to watch the adverts rather than pay. That's the reasoning for my comparison there which I don't thin is totally wrong.

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

I think the reason the interpretation of needing to be defensive of your post may stem from the use previously of pejorative terms like "hater" and then seeing comments like "I'm more interested tbh". It feels like you may have not worded the statements as it came across, but again - I had already questioned the direction.

Thank you for confirming I am free to disagree - though I already knew that from our previous interactions, I also feel its important that we can agree to disagree and be civil about it with out using pejorative terms like hater.  I am concerned that you dismiss ones views over another - but see you want to focus on "consumer users". Just please not lets dismiss others views who do use the hardware from a much wider perspective.

I think you may have misconstrued my posting as "championing", I play no favorites, I am more skeptical of some over others, but I do not see any golden lights in the pack, and am concerned of Sony board as much as the FB executive team. I also take no prisoners, especially if attempts are made to Dox posters. 

I am not sure where your comment about " bringing-the-community-down-bandwagon" comes from - there are posters talking about a decision by FB that is contentious with many - again I think you may see this space as a "safe space" for positive only discussion. This is not the case and never has been no matter the attempts made. No one is here to see one side win and another fall - we want to see business and growth for all not a monopoly for one. 

Thank you for the clarification on the Youtrub comment - I see it was from a personal lens rather than the reality of the situation that sees since the pandemic lockdown a growth in avoidance of the adverts on the service through other means than pay, (if I have the time I will dig the numbers up but am pressed  at the moment). 

Once again thanks for the clarification of your points, always appreciate the time taken. 



https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

RuneSR2
Grand Champion

Nearly 1,000 have already upvoted "Don't Buy Blaston" (the first VR game with ads) on Oculus Subreddit - interesting where this goes, might need some popcorn... 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/o1eeld/dont_buy_blaston/

 

Quote: 

 

Facebook is about to start dangling the carrot of ad money in front of developers and the first to bite is Resolution Games’ Blaston. They want you to pay for the game and then also to show you ads and of course track your interactions with them.

Ads are the scourge of the internet and we’ve been lucky that developers who care about VR and its users have avoided integrating ads. No surprise Facebook is the one to go against the tide.

Don’t support this. Don’t buy games that have ads. Don’t interact with ads.

 

Thanks!

 

Then again, Blaston is a Quest game isn't it?

 

https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/2307085352735834/?locale=en_US

 

Btw, I think it's the most awesome idea filling stand-alone Quest games with tons of ads - as long as they keep the Rift games ads-free! 🤗 👌 👍

 

EDIT - seems I just got worried for nothing it appears - Blaston is just another low-poly stand-alone Quest game, it's not available in the Rift Store:

 

Unavngivet.jpg

Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

kevinw729
Honored Visionary

It was going to be inevitable. The way FB used the term "testing" was more "testing the waters"!

The VR community existed long before Oculus, and to be fair a lot of support, help and investment was caused by the VR community who feel "owed" by the company. The breaking of the promise to never sell out just started the ball rolling regarding community action against them. The help that HTC received was to ensure a two horse race rather than a monopoly. And I expect to see a push back from the community over this - and also what we can expect from the mandatory login. 

As some point FB will realize that their plans for Social VR and what the VR community will support will see major divergence, and the goodwill of the quest2 loss leader will not be paid back as fast or as deep as they would expect. The recent Oculus departures may speak of more of a change in the way they face to the VR community - and the acceleration of elements like ads and tracked data.

The one thing corporations can not always corral is the community when their ire is stoked.

https://vrawards.aixr.org/ "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities" https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959

I appreciate your comments too kevin, always do. Debate is something any forum thrives on provided it doesn't become too entrenched. I'm particularly receptive to criticism of Facebook from Oculus users.

 

My personal lens is definitely just that, but lenses are things that we see though, towards what is going on in the world. If you think that what I'm seeing isn't the reality, that's ok... I think it is 🙂 and am happy to debate the points more rather than the perceptions about posters which we're probably both guilty of... so I apologise for my part in that. I don't like to use the word hater, which I haven't done here I think.

 

My point was that there are different communities as I said and to decide whether Facebook is indeed bringing down a community... it deserved more debate.

 

My choice regarding YouTube I think is salient, do you use YT? if so what's your choice regarding advertisements? have them? pay to not have them? or use some way to disable them without paying?

 

With any of these choices the decision of YouTube as the provider remains the same, have adverts or not, have another income stream or not.

 

With Facebook, one choice is reduce the headset price further or not... and do they subsidise the reduction in some way. There's also questions about software development costs from Facebook.. do they continue to invest heavily in that? what's the return? what get's the most headsets into people's hands? what achieves the end result of VR becoming self sustainable so that it no longer needs subsidising?

 

If destroying completion is something that you think is the aim, ok. I tend to think a self sustainable VR ecosystem is the prime aim... headset usage.

 

Whether it's inside-out tracking, untethered VR, work on ASW or non-reliance on PCs. The focus seems to me to be making VR more popular. It's probably because of this history that I tend to see advertisement and hardware price drop reports as being linked with this same drive.

 

I'm probably over-sensitive to comments about bringing the community down than I am about anything else, because of that history. It seems to me to be a wholly undeserved sentiment. But again, that isn't an attack, it's my view and debating point.