Submitted by Evilsnuggle 522d ago | news

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. (PC)

« 1 2 »
Jarrettjawn  +   522d ago
Greatest picture ever
Evilsnuggle  +   522d ago | Funny
Yes I try hard on all my pics . Bubble for funny please .lol lol :-)
BattleN  +   522d ago
lol no more bubbles
Hatsune-Miku  +   522d ago | Well said
Morpheus will be the future of VR and best for gaming
Minimox16  +   522d ago
@ Hatsune-Miku
Morpheus its the future and the future its morpheus!?
UltimateMaster  +   522d 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.
darthv72  +   522d 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.
thorstein  +   522d ago
From now on, the Rift formerly known as Oculus, shall be known as the Ouya Rift.
morganfell  +   521d 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.
#1.1.8 (Edited 521d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(5) | Report
miyamoto  +   521d ago
Sly move MS!

Just like you did with Kinect!


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/...
Ritsujun  +   521d ago
Ju  +   521d 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.
WalterWJR  +   522d 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.
guitarded77  +   522d 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.
WeedyOne  +   522d ago
It would be cool if you could buy and trade shares of kickstarted funds, would make it like a mini stock market!
frostypants  +   522d 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.
#1.2.3 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(17) | Disagree(2) | Report
Scatpants  +   522d 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.
InTheZoneAC  +   522d 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.
vulcanproject  +   522d 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.
#1.2.6 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
McScroggz  +   521d 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.
hellzsupernova  +   522d 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.
thorstein  +   522d 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.
hellzsupernova  +   522d 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?
Copen  +   522d 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.
#1.3.3 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report
hellzsupernova  +   521d 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
NYC_Gamer  +   522d ago
I can't blame the supports for being upset about a concept they supported being sold out to a social experience/advertisement company
#2 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(56) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
malokevi  +   522d 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 Juice  +   522d ago
Why would they need to drop games when games are already dropping them?
#2.1.1 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(23) | Disagree(3) | Report
T2  +   522d 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.
AceBlazer13  +   522d 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.
malokevi  +   522d 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.
Scatpants  +   522d 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.
Ghoul  +   522d ago
Every (almost)investment model is based on a short logic

"i give you money because you dont have any, and in return you give me back more when your successfull"

this simple logic is completly wrong with kickstarter (sadly)

there is a clear misconception here to WHY people fund projects on kickstarter and whatnot in the first place.

I think:

its NOT only because they want the product offered, almost everyone i know used to use such fundings to push the PEOPLE behind it, the idea or simply the fact that they counter corporate structures.
Sure the product itself is the sellingpoint here, but not the whole reason for a sucessfull funding.

i find it a DISGRACE that a funded company funded by privat persons even CONSIDERS selling theyre "on poeple" build business. Doesnt matter if its released or not.

dont worry im a realist, i know how this all works and why. But that doesnt protect me from beeing really disgusted about this.
#2.2 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Hellsvacancy  +   522d ago
"the deal is beneficial to virtual reality supporters because it accelerates our vision, allows us to execute on some of our most creative ideas, and take risks that were otherwise impossible"


I probably would of done the same, so would you "2 BILLION? hand me the pen mofo"

I bet Sony are rubbing their hands

Edit: Please don't think i'm happy with this news, it's disastrous news

It's not that bad, it'll probably spawn loads of companies making vr headsets, look how many companies make mobile phones, if vr is the next big thing (I think it will be) they'll want to get in on that money
#3 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
DJ  +   522d ago
At this point, the Oculus headset (as we know it) may not even come out. I've seen situations where companies sell their tech, and then that tech never gets released because the buyer had a similar internal product in the works...
#3.1 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
SteamPowered  +   522d ago
Twitter was pretty bitter last night regarding the OR sale. No, I would not say too many people are happy.
Scatpants  +   522d ago
Anyone that has a problem with this sale is a moron. Lets take a look at Oculus' options.

Option 1: Sell, get 2 billion dollars and have infinite resources for production and marketing.

Option 2: Nothing.
warczar  +   521d ago
Your completely overlooking the fact that the Rift has come from NOTHING to what it is now without the aid of some a-hole corporation. And What the hell does Facebook know about VR gaming anyway, I could be excited if an actual game maker bought the rights to the Rift but not Facebook. What the hell do they know about gaming besides how to ruin it?
Baka-akaB  +   521d ago
While i got nothing against the buy out , "option 2" is widely exagerated . Every was already praising Occulus and its initial success , and the wide support it was getting from the pc game community ...

but suddenly now its " get the 2 billions , or die alone ?"
grailly  +   522d ago
I guess upset people don't get what kickstarter is about. The funding is about getting the project off the ground, not force the company into being forever owned by funders.

EDIT: upset about kickstarter, I mean, I understand people being upset over the purchase.
#5 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(28) | Report | Reply
Twinblade  +   522d ago
It was supposed to be used for PC games, not facebook.
KonsoruMasuta  +   522d ago
Facebook games are technically PC games.
aliengmr  +   522d ago
Who said it wasn't going to be use for PC games?

In fact why can't the Oculus be used for both?

Seeing as how Facebook is a big greedy corporation why would they not want the the Rift sold to PC gamers AND Facebook users?

What everybody is suggesting is that Facebook will cut out a potential revenue source because, reasons. It makes no logical sense that they would just use the Rift for Facebook when it can be used for more than that.

As of right now, the Ocuclus founders plan to go ahead with their original goal. Sure they could just be blowing smoke, but they may not be either.
starchild  +   521d ago
It's still going to be used for PC games and there's not a single shred of evidence to the contrary.

The second it stops supporting PC games and is all about facebook is when you can complain. Right now all of you are unjustifiably attacking Oculus and barking at the moon.

I've always know that a lot of gamers are stupid, but you guys don't have to keep making it so damn obvious.

There's going to be a whole lot of eating of crow over the next few years.
Godmars290  +   522d ago
And those people, who have yet to see or experience anything for their investment, have just seen another larger entity take over "their" investment so that it could do what it whatever it wants with it. Even or especially go in a wholly different direct than originally promised.

Hell, people might not even receive their Kickstarter rewards.
Fireseed  +   522d ago
See now here's the divide I have with people on it... I can understand Kickstarters being upset over not getting their Kickstarter rewards (which they likely still will seeing as Facebook bought OR and all it's obligations). Buuuuuuuuut


Facebook bought the VR company... cause they want to produce a VR headset... Are you afraid they're going to turn OR into some kind of toaster? I mean ffs they're still making a VR headset! I could see people being upset if you had to put info into your OR... but theirs no user data they can possibly extract from you other maybe what you're playing at the time...
Godmars290  +   522d ago
How about if its only used for social related features? Emphasis on gaming becomes a second rather than first priority and in what's suppose to be an immerssive tool winds up with a sub window for ads.
Fireseed  +   522d ago

HOW?!?! It's no more a utility than a monitor... you put what you want on the screen. And even if THAT changes... Do you think anyone will want a VR headset ONLY to check social features... No one would buy it, and they damn well know that.
Godmars290  +   522d ago
More like "Virtual social features" rather than simply check social apps. Being at a live social event like a concert or state park. Partnering with Google so someone with OR can see through Googleglass and have "Twitch plays Pokemon" sessions.

The point is that anything Facebook might think up to make up for their investment could have an impact on game development. Leave it right were it is now, which is only as a monitor. If it can be anything else.
grailly  +   522d ago
I thought all backers already got their rewards? I couldn't find any source for this though.
McScroggz  +   521d ago
They already have. The Kickstarter was for the original dev units, which they have already sent out and are now working on their 3rd or 4th Oculus Rift model.

They made no investment other than hoping their donation would lead to consumer grade VR gaming headsets. By all accounts that is still happening, and regardless they have been compensated.
LordDhampire  +   522d ago
Dude how are you not mad? This dude made 2 billion off none of his own money
grailly  +   522d ago
That's how funding works.
MajorGecko  +   521d ago
funding from the average joe not multi billion dollar companys i didnt see facebook chipping in any cash when this thing wa getting off the ground.
ramiuk1  +   522d ago
i expect this will cause issues for future projects too
BakPAin  +   522d ago
So if you gave me $10k to help me get my company started and I then go and sell my company, you wouldnt be upset? I find that hard to believe man! Where is your 10k investment? Shit I think im gonna start a kickstart myself and just take peoples money!
grailly  +   522d ago
People should really get this... On kickstarter you're not investing into a company, you're helping people build their company, that's it! rewards are put up as incentives to give your money. In no way do funders own a part of the company, unless the rewards say otherwise.

I've often been saying that kickstarter isn't consumer friendly. This is why!
BakPAin  +   522d ago
@ grailly,

Well if thats the case consumers need to get more than just consolation prizes for your money! Backers should ask for a piece of the pie when giving money!
Godmars290  +   522d ago
Thought it was more about getting individual projects off the ground. If so then to some it would come off as especially bitter that before such a project was really completed it was sold off by those who originally asked for help. At a substantial profit no less.

Not that I'd saying that you are wrong in your conclusion. That really, people are getting what they deserve.
grailly  +   522d ago
@BakPAin & Godmars
Backers really should "ask" to be investors, but that wouldn't work, so the solution really is just to not fund a project.

The F*cked up thing about kickstarter is that the consumer is taking over the financial risk of the company (or future company) , which leaves absolutely no risk for the company. This creates a situation where companies can just go to kickstarter, try a pre-sell some of their product. If it works they'll earn good money and if it doesn't they'll just have lost the few hours it took to build the funding page. I believe a company trying to make money should be the one taking the financial risk.

I still do believe, though, that kickstarter is great for smaller projects.
Godmars290  +   522d ago
The basic concept, I think, for Kickstarter is like layaway, only you're paying to have what you're buying to be made. Enough other people also buy the thing, meet some goal, the product gets made and everyone who bought in gets the first ones off the line. But you are not an investor.

The real problem here though is that the use of the product involved is just too broad of scope. That the people initially involved with it wanted a game controller but now with an actual investor coming in they could wind up with something that does Julienne Fries.
starchild  +   521d ago
Yeah, but what evidence is there that we backers are not going to see the realization of the vision of VR that we had hoped for?

I for one am happy about the acquisition and see it as the best chance we realistically had to get the Rift and VR in general to where we wanted it to be. This was very good news. The only bad part about it for me was the comically absurd knee-jerk reactions of many people.
SynestheticRoar   522d ago | Immature | show
SliceOfTruth888  +   522d ago
ROFL at going to oculus facebook page to complain about companies buy out from facebook....yo dawg
ion666  +   522d ago
All the supporters are like wheres my cut?. If this was a bookie back in the dayz there would be alot people with no pinky fingers.lolz
#8 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
ravinash  +   522d ago
What was promised to the people who invested from Kickstarter?
Were they promissed a head set, news letter, a paper hat?
If the company was successful, what were they going to get.

A lot of people invested because they wanted the idea to become successful.
Now I'm as nervoius about what facebook is going to do to VR as the next person, but fact of the matter is the company now has a bottomless money pit to access to make the best product in the shortest time. so the end result might be good.
I just hope facebook does not try to f*** us over with it later on.
Dewitt  +   522d ago
They put their money into funding an idea with an open platform, now funded idea has been sold to a media giant who has their own ambitions for the product that were never originally discussed when people backed the project. They have a reason to be upset and I could see some of the bigger supporters filing a class action lawsuit over this as they did not get a say in this buyout.
DCfan  +   522d ago
I could never trust Kickstarter.
BakPAin  +   522d ago
Lol why? Did Kickstart take your money? Kickstart has nothing to do with OVR and Facebook. You should not trust developers and make sure you do your research before you help fund a project!

There should be a clause that Kickstart projects not be sold within a year or two of project release. Also if you invest you should get a set amount of stock in the product depending on how much you put in!
hkgamer  +   522d ago
Don't see why they are unhappy. they should be happy that the person who took this VR concept so far and is finally getting paid back for it.

In a year or 2, VR could be nothing. He/they cashed in and handed it to a company that seems to have endless cash right this moment.

Side note:

Also kickstarter are not investments. All you are doing is preordering a product. not buying stocks/shares from this company
Ripsta7th  +   522d ago
They better give the oculus to people that helped fund it. But I doubt that might happen now
bleedsoe9mm  +   522d ago
mark zuckerberg should write each kickstarter contributor a check for 100X what they put in
jhoward585  +   522d ago
What a way to ruin kick starters reputation.
I hope he gets sued by kick starters.
ramiuk1  +   522d ago
this is the issue now isnt it.
Future projects will lose out now.
risk of selling out to corps who have basically saved a fortune by getting joe public to get something off group then just buy once they see if public want it.

save billions R&d
hkgamer  +   522d ago
yeah be against the big corp who may be the only company that can afford to keep this VR afloat.
DJ  +   522d ago
So Oculus Rift was just a money grab?

Kickstarter better change their terms of agreement. The backers haven't even gotten the final Oculus units that they were promised, and the company already sold itself for $2 billion?

This just doesn't seem right because this sale completely changes the product's future. Had anyone known ahead of time that the Oculus founder was just waiting to sell his company at a moment's notice, very few people would have backed Oculus Rift on Kickstarter.
hkgamer  +   522d ago
no oculus rift was not a money grab and was made truly to make VR happen and gamers happy.


if it was you, me or anyone we would have sold it for a lot less.
Blasphemy  +   522d ago
this is kinda messed up because they will probably not get what they originally signed up to get it. im sure many were not expecting to be blasted with facebook ui once they put their headsets on.
lelo  +   522d ago
This is one of the reasons I don't put money on Kickstarters. So many things can go sideways during development, and this is a perfect example.
I only purchase finished products ready to be delivered.
spektical  +   522d ago
i know friends who contributed to the kickstarter campaign. For them it was devastating. However, those where the consequences of giving money away with no contract. Who honestly wouldnt have signed the dotted line for 2 billion? Facebook will only turn oculus into a virtual reality chat room with your friends. Devastating, my thoughts are with those developers who put heart and soul into their awesome demos on the oculus. I hope SONY keeps their Indie vision open for the sake of VR.
hkgamer  +   522d ago
a VR chat room? you think its going to end up like south park?


this thing will still be used for games. only a mega corporation owns it and actually has the funds to back it.

Sony is too poor to throw in too much money into VR.
mochachino  +   522d ago
Should the early supporters get 1000 times their investment back if they're unhappy.
hkgamer  +   522d ago
well. if they managed to get in contact with the owners to buy company stocks then maybe.

kickstarters a just a little too stupid to prepay for something.
FAT MAN GO BOOM  +   522d ago
what a sell out.. I mean no wonder kickstarted backers are pissed. I would be too.. no way I am supporting this.

kickstart people should be payed back there investment or donation. 100% if they want it back... it is disgusting that this happened and it is going to be sadly the norm.
aliengmr  +   522d ago
1. They weren't making an "investment".

2. They were funding the Rift to get consumer VR to the masses.

3. By all accounts that goal is still there.

So what do they really have to be upset about? Set aside the Facebook hate and consider this...

If Oculus follows their plan with this additional funding (Which they are saying they will do) what at this point do they have to upset about?

Kickstarter is supposed to be about getting a project off the ground, not forever binding the creators of that product to the will of its supporters.

Its quite a different story if the Oculus team doesn't fulfill their original goal, but NOBODY knows that yet.
Bonerboy  +   522d ago
If people didnt see something like this coming then they are retards. Backers are pissed? Then clearly they didnt properly weigh the risks before investing in a BUSINESS. Notice that last word there? BUSINESS. When was there ever a guarantee in investments? You took a shot in this company and it didnt work out how YOU wanted it too? Shitty deal for you. That's BUSINESS and BBUSINESS is in the BUSINESS of making MONEY, not kow-tow-ing to the gaming community....Sadly. Not to mention seeing a return on ones investment is not how kickstarter works unless specified in some way by said company. Read that last line again. Jesus give it a rest.
I agree FB is shit but people would be livid no matter who bought it. Would people be rejoicing or bitching any less if Apple or MS or Virgin bought it? I highly doubt it...and it WOULD have been bought eventually as everyone has their price, clearly even Palmer.
I was on board to buy this thing but now I will wait to see how things play out over the next couple of years. Im annoyed to no end as well but unfortunately that's how she goes. No use crying over spilled milk.
I wonder if Mr.Carmack will stay or go?
A sad announcement for all gamers.
#19 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
hellzsupernova  +   522d ago
The people complaining about their investment need to realise kickstarter is not an investment you have no stake in the company you basically bankroll a company without a stake or shares or anything, just a promise of a cool product you still have to buy unless that was your backer bonus
Fz6soldier  +   522d ago
but when you are presented with a very specific idea, an you donate towards the cause, then they turnaround and sell to Facebook who will most likely after the original vision for OR Drastically, I would be upset too.
sypher  +   522d ago
Well that's the difference between giving your money freely or being an actual investor where you have a say.

And why a lot of companies are moving over to the KS model. Free money, no hassle? If only the banks were so kind!

Eventually the KS model will go bust of course. Goodwill only gets you so far before lawsuits start happening and then welcome to reality.
#21 (Edited 522d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
solidt12  +   522d ago
Facebook owns some of the most powerful and advanced Data Centers in the world. I wonder if they plan on doing some cloud gaming with the Oculus?
johny5  +   522d ago
I see a dark and unpleasant foreshadowing for the future of kickstarter!

I don't see people donating as much anymore after this mess!
Clown_Syndr0me  +   522d ago
All of those investors should receive a cut.
What do they get now its sold? Nothing? If so that's basically theft?
please correct me if I'm wrong I have limited understanding on the topic.
annus  +   522d ago
And everyone who has bought from McDonalds should get a cut right? All the money you give McDonalds from food is used to further increase the company. Hell, maybe everyone who bought Crash Bandicoot should get a cut from when it was sold.

The Kickstarter was to get a development kit. The development kit has been out for ages. No contracts have been broken.

Did the consumers come up with the idea? Did the consumers build it? They bought a product, gave feedback, then the company got bought buy a bigger company. Companies buy other companies all the time, it doesn't mean you have the rights to own it.
cell989  +   522d ago
youre missing the point, we gave our money to these guys because we saw how passionate they were for their product and the promises they made. Do you think people had donated if they had put this as their kick starter plea:

We want to make a virtual reality headset that really sets VR gaming into the right direction, if our project becomes successful we will sell it to a big corporation the minute we get an offer and have them continue on our work, we just need the money to get our biz venture going, please help us make billions of dollars

annus  +   521d ago
You are Kickstarting a product so that an organisation can get the funding required to literally 'kick start' the organisation so that they can start producing their product.

If you go to the bank and get $100k and then suddenly you transform that money into $1b it doesn't mean that the bank has the rights to a heap of money does it?

Also everyone is blowing this crap way out of proportion. They see the word facebook and suddenly think that OR is going to merge with it.

Google doesn't plaster google over all of the shitloads of companies they own. Facebook hasn't put crap all over whatsapp or most (if any) of the other companies they own. They simply fund it and get a bit of the money. That is EXACTLY what Sony, MS, EA, and all of the other big companies do to the ones they own.

Edit: The point I was also replying to didn't have anything to do with the fact that people felt bad about this, it was that you aren't entitled to any money (see my second paragraph).
#24.1.2 (Edited 521d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
starchild  +   521d ago
"youre missing the point, we gave our money to these guys because we saw how passionate they were for their product and the promises they made."

No, you're missing the point. And you don't speak for me or other backers either. There are lots of us that see this as a very positive thing.

I see how passionate Palmer and all the Oculus guys STILL are and I believe this is only going to make the Rift better and give it the best opportunity to succeed.

The sad thing is, a lot of you don't really care about VR. You would rather see the Rift die a cold miserable death if you can't have Oculus be exactly the way you want them to be. It's more about sticking it to the man or some such deluded crap.
Clown_Syndr0me  +   521d ago
Sorry guys didn't mean to start an argument!
Read through some more of these comments, and I've kind changed my mind. I misunderstood what the purpose of kickstarter really was.
metalmatters  +   522d ago
I just think it was a total D**k move what they did. They had all these people donate money to support their project and when success came up they sold out, at least thats what it looks like to me. They used all those people and they are the only ones that really benefited.

This is why kick starter is not for everyone, some of them are blatant scams and passionate gamers fall for it, sad
cell989  +   522d ago
to think that they made a profit out of my and the thousands others donations is what really pisses me off, not cool. They sold out on the first chance they got
RollinThunder  +   521d ago
"Obviously hardware isn't Facebook's business, but software is, and the Oculus is useless without software/games." I was cracking up. Hopefully this guy wasn't implying what I think he was.

I will say this situation is more an ethics/moral issue than legal but it's definitely schmitty where I come from. I get the mindset that now OR has more of a sure footing financially and will possibly progress faster(especially after this backlash; there will probably be a push to say "See, we stayed true!") but its much more my style to say they should have gone to market alone at least initially.

I just see ol' Luckey getting bullied in a board room somewhere by suits; telling him how much expertise they've got, how they'll bring OR to the masses and it will work; in the interim of papers being signed Zuckerberg slides over next to Luckey and places a hand on his shoulder. "We could make this great; your vision realized. I had a vision once..*looks around all starry eyed* I never thought i'd be here." Luckey bites, and signs the dotted line.

A few years later, OR is a success. Luckey gets invited to less and less meetings, eventually finding his desk in a broom closet. OR has become a main stream mobile social/gaming device, with the latest version of Call of CandyCrush coming out. Those who remember the promise OR originally had are dismissed as basement neckbeards who like to play as elves and knights and fear reality.

Or everythings gravy and OR is sick for those interested. I kinda like the first one better though =D
GW212  +   521d ago
That is one very rich 21-year old.
Enigma_2099  +   521d ago
21-year-old Oculus Rift creator Palmer Luckey yesterday wrote a detailed blog post about why selling Oculus VR to Facebook makes sense. He said that though he was initially skeptical about partnering with Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, he said the deal is beneficial to virtual reality supporters because it "accelerates our vision, allows us to execute on some of our most creative ideas, and take risks that were otherwise impossible."


*SNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFF* Smell that? Now that's some good bulls***. Over TWO BILLION DOLLARS worth!
Arturo84  +   521d ago
so did the Oculus Rift creators basically take the money from kickstarter develop a good enough proposal make a couple of development kits and have now sold out?
#30 (Edited 521d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Bonerboy  +   520d ago
Seems so.

At least now, with all that money he can finally experience first hand, what sex with an actual woman is really like! Hell, maybe he prefers men, or kids even...no matter, he can have it all!!!
Well played Palmer.
#30.1 (Edited 520d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Why Star Fox Zero Breaks My Heart

13m ago - Jason writes: "Star Fox is my favorite Nintendo franchise. So much of my childhood was spent with... | Wii U

Top-down retro racer Gotcha Racing launches on North American 3DS eShop

14m ago - Gotcha Racing is a retro top-down racing game where you must upgrade you car with parts that are... | 3DS

PC Games Still To Come This Month

Now - We're halfway through the hottest month of the year, but there's plenty more PC games still to come, so don't go outside just yet! Let's take a loo... | Promoted post

Why Chun Li from Street Fighter II is a Great Character

14m ago - Welcome to The A Team, where we talk about the biggest characters in gaming; the best heroes, the... | Culture

The next Apple TV remote may have Wii-like motion controls

14m ago - Apple is widely expected to introduce an overhauled version of the Apple TV next month, and one o... | Casual games

DiRT Rally devs apologise for major oversights in last update

14m ago - Codemasters recently released the second of two Rallycross updates for their PC early access rall... | PC