Top
750°

Oculus Rift Kickstarter backers rage against Facebook sale

Kickstarter page flooded with negative comments following VR company's $2 billion sale to social networking behemoth.

Read Full Story >>
gamespot.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Evilsnuggle1244d ago

Yes I try hard on all my pics . Bubble for funny please .lol lol :-)

Hatsune-Miku1244d ago

Morpheus will be the future of VR and best for gaming

Minimox161244d ago

@ Hatsune-Miku
Morpheus its the future and the future its morpheus!?
:p

UltimateMaster1244d ago

When you have this interesting prototype with a concept novelty idea, you want to make it a success. That's why they went to kickstarter to make it.
But when a company offers 2 billion for a company not making any money that's still in the projects, that's a big investment.

The question is, are you still motivated to pursuit the success when you're already rich.

darthv721244d ago

This isnt quite the same but there may be some relevance. the android OS started as a spin off from linux but it didnt really take off until google bought into it. Google used their prowess to pursue mobile device makers into using it and...fast forward to the 'droid' being a huge success in the mobile market.

FB is not google but they also have an interest in anyhting that looks promising. It isnt like they are buying OR to remove them from the market. That would imply they have their own product and are just removing competition.

We really dont know what this will lead to. There are some funny meme's about the potential but for now its all just speculation and FUD until something tangible is made public.

FB could be trying to get ahead of the curve by investing so much into this idea to take it from possibility to reality. There are a couple of examples of a non gaming company taking an interest in making a gaming product work.

Tonka (the toy company) helped Sega get off the ground with the Master system in the mid 80's. From that, Sega was able to market their followup platform into a big success. the Connecticut Leather Company made leather goods but ultimately turned their attention to making toys as well as the colecovision game system. Sadly the market crashed before the CV had a real chance to show its strength but it is still revered as one of the best platforms in retro gaming.

would i classify FB in the same sense as those two examples? Its just to early to tell. Lets let things get sorted out and then decide.

thorstein1243d ago

From now on, the Rift formerly known as Oculus, shall be known as the Ouya Rift.

morganfell1243d ago (Edited 1243d ago )

I do not think we should wait and see. I realize this may seem harsh to some. But Facebook did not buy Occulus because they saw the promise of gaming and doing some incredible things. They saw profit. They saw a chance to head of their enemies. Yes companies have a right to make moves to protect themselves but now these interlopers are in our backyard.

Yes companies need to make a profit, but this Facebook endeavor was not born of a love for gaming with the thought they will also have a financially viable way to do something they love. Not at all.

We know the history of Zuckerberg. We know the history of Facebook. The last thing I want is for them to use their money to do something that will have a harmful and irrevocable impact on gaming.

Proactive > reactive.

miyamoto1243d ago

Sly move MS!

Just like you did with Kinect!

Microsoft

Status: Corporate Investor
Founded: 1975
Location: Seattle, WA

Facebook stake: 1.6%
Value: $1.36 billion
Beaten in search by Google, and wary of Google's acquisitions in web video (YouTube) and banner advertising (Doubleclick) , Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer (pictured) was willing to do whatever necessary to get in bed with Facebook, and seal the Seattle software goliath's foray into Web 2.0. Though interested in acquiring Facebook outright, an idea Zuckerberg nixed, Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) opted for a complicated arrangement that included an advertising partnership and a small stake in the social network. Microsoft invested $240 million in the Fall of 2007 at what appeared to be a nosebleed $15 billion valuation, which garnered Ballmer a 1.6% position. Eager that the investment not appear inflated, Microsoft welcomed the participation of Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing in the Series D round. Terms also precluded Google from making an investment in Facebook. The deal looked pitiful when DST bought a larger stake at a $10 billion valuation less than a year later. However, Facebook's current $75 billion valuation means Microsoft's stake in privately-held Facebook has outperformed its own publicly-traded stock 5x.
- See more at: http://whoownsfacebook.com/...

Ju1243d ago

Well, two things.

a) I think this is Zuckerbergs irrational decision. This has no business sense what so ever. We are talking $2B in 72 hours - no lawyer or analyst can run a analysis of a deal that size in that short amount of time. Zuckerberg simply can afford it - and can afford loosing $2B with an estimated (private) net worth of $13B (and growing).

b) From a kickstarter backer perspective I can imagine to have an issue with this. Those guys spent some cash to pull this off the ground - sure as well as the engineers. Question remains what they are getting out of this deal? Of course you'd expect something in return shelling out cash to let them grow - and now after a $2B infusion what's the margin? Probably nothing since this is not a stock market and they don't own shares. A bit of a sleezy business which can threaten the whole Kickstarter idea, IMO.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1243d ago
WalterWJR1244d ago

Essentially whoever paid towards the 2 Million raised for Kickstarter has lined the pockets of the creators to the course of 2 Billion. It is a disgrace, the money should be split up back into the original investors.

guitarded771244d ago

I agree. The investors should get some profits. But this just shows how kickstarter is a bunch of crap. There is no protection for the investor of loss or gain. Sure in the real world there is no protection of loss... but there is the potential for gain. If I was an investor, and knew I was getting a portion of the profit... yeah... I'd want to take a 2 mil investment to 2 bil.

WeedyOne1244d ago

It would be cool if you could buy and trade shares of kickstarted funds, would make it like a mini stock market!

frostypants1244d ago (Edited 1244d ago )

Giving money to a company through Kickstarter isn't an investment. It's a donation. Unless someone tells you that you now have X% of equity in the company, and there's a contract to prove it, you don't.

But yeah, this still sucks.

Scatpants1244d ago

They got their dev kits. They should be happy. or if they invested less than the price of a dev kit then they're just stupid.

InTheZoneAC1243d ago

if I pledge to a game or device on kickstarter, as long as I get the product I pledged I should not care how much they make, whether it's a million in profit or 2 billion.

vulcanproject1243d ago (Edited 1243d ago )

Yeah, it's INCREDIBLE how this has gone from being a crowd funded project less than 2 years ago to a multi billion dollar company in such a short amount of time.

The people who just got insanely, incredibly rich beyond most people's wildest dreams have A LOT of people to thank, and a lot of answers to give....

Several people involved are no doubt worth hundreds of millions of dollars now from this alone. It is pretty astounding how quickly something like this can grow and a lot of it only was possible because of those donations.

After that kickstarter interest the project garnered large investment from other sources.

Palmer Luckey by name, Luckey by nature.

McScroggz1243d ago

Except the people who Kickstarted OR are far from investors. To say otherwise is sheer folly.

People who donated to the OR Kickstarter had their rewards explicitly laid out for them. If you pay X amount you get a newsletter, if you pay Y amount you get a demo kit. It's black and white. Every one of these people got what they "paid for."

The initial Kickstart money allowed them to develop demo units that were encouraging enough to rally developers and overall support for VR headsets. This lead to FB buying them out. The OR is still being worked on, and now has even more money to improve the design and lure developers.

But take a step back. Do the initial people who donated around 2.5 million REALLY think that would sustain the people working on the OR through multiple iterations until it was consumer ready, pay for marketing and all the other costs of manufacturing. I mean, that's an absurd notion.

What people are mad about is the potential for the OR to not end up as good of a product as they hope it would have. The problem is if the OR was ever going to succeed it absolutely would have needed the company/product to be bought outright (which it did) or it would need a substantial investment that would have likely had just a big of an impact as an outright acquisition.

People need to calm down. Screaming investment entitlement and being stabbed in the back make all of us gamers look bad.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1243d ago
hellzsupernova1244d ago

Great picture!!!!

On topic i cannot say i blame any of them with this sellout, who here would honestly turn down 2 billion dollars? mere days after the biggest competitor annouces a competing product?

And by the sounds of it Facebooks bank account is going to speed up the development of the technology.

My biggest hope now is that sony makes their headset compatible with pc's because that would kick facebook in the balls. especially after Facebook saying their is advertising potential in this product.

thorstein1243d ago

The real question isn't whether any of us would accept $2 Billion, it is, "How much would you give back to the people that believed in you?"

Without Kickstarter, there is no ORift.

hellzsupernova1243d ago

yeah i think by rights there has to be some argument here? it really sucks for the backers of the project, but facebook would still have to hold all of the backers teir gifts they paid for right?

Copen1243d ago (Edited 1243d ago )

It's not the fact that anyone would turn down the money they were paid. The point is without all their backers on Kickstarter there wouldn't be an Oculus Rift VR unit. That's the point by selling out what they've done is effectively used their backers money to springboard to greater fortunes and the issue is are the backers owed any compensation regarding this issue? I'm inclined to say yes they do deserve some part of that 2 billion because without the backers to get Rift where it is now they wouldn't be in the position to sell out like they did. I don't think any rational person could look at this objectively with all the facts in front of them and come to any other conclusion. The Kickstarter backers got screwed bottom line. I won't go and put this all on Oculus though because when you give money to a company to help them get started the risk is there for this type of thing to happen 100% of the time. The backers believed in the product so they funded the project and by doing so were in effect "investors" themselves. Facebook has a pattern of buying up things that they view as a threat to their company so the skepticism is valid that this could potentially hold the Rift back more than advancing the project only time will tell but right now this is a huge mess likely headed to court because the backers are already planning to sue.

hellzsupernova1243d ago

@copen ethically sure but in terms of legally oculous doesnt have to give them shit. it sucks but that is the nature of kickstarter

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1243d ago
NYC_Gamer1244d ago (Edited 1244d ago )

I can't blame the supports for being upset about a concept they supported being sold out to a social experience/advertisement company

malokevi1244d ago

lol. Well, whatever. They can cry about it, and I'm sure Occulus wouldn't mind giving ppl their money back if this is so horrible. I mean... they can afford it =D

I dont see how this is a bad thing. Facebook can give Occulus the support it needs, financially and otherwise. So long as they don't drop AAA games to focus on Occulus: Farmville.

Orange Juice1244d ago (Edited 1244d ago )

Why would they need to drop games when games are already dropping them?
http://notch.net/2014/03/vi...

T21244d ago

of course they will focus on VR farmville/candycrush ... those are the types of games they make. there is no reason to think otherwise unless we see a large shift in focus. OR is owned by facebook no matter what words they throw around like "partnership"...

however , i don't see how kickstarters can be angry, don't you kick-start a project to see it be successful? you don't like the direction the company is headed? Then why the hell did you give them free money with no stocks exchanged!!! never understood kickstarter mentality and still don't... you are giving them free money, don't expect them to listen to all your great advice just because you donated to them. you don't tell a charity where to spend their money when you give them a stack of cash either.

AceBlazer131244d ago

Well oculus should have went straight to facebook with their concept instead of presenting a gaming headset to the supporters to sell a social device to facebook.Shit like this is gonna break peoples trust in kickstarter.

malokevi1244d ago

Big companies see independent start-ups start to gain traction, things that look promising, and they scoop them up and commercialize them. Welcome to planet Earth. Population: 7.3billion. It's nice of you to drop by.

Scatpants1243d ago

If they just focus on Farmville or candy crush there will be no reason for anyone to buy one. Casuals don't buy stuff like this. I think Facebook might be using Oculus to legitimately throw their hat in the ring of real gaming. Not to mention all of the other possible uses for the Rift. We'll see if they allow Oculus to be their own company or if it becomes the Facebook Rift.