Kickstarter page flooded with negative comments following VR company's $2 billion sale to social networking behemoth.
Greatest picture ever
Yes I try hard on all my pics . Bubble for funny please .lol lol :-)
lol no more bubbles
Morpheus will be the future of VR and best for gaming
@ Hatsune-Miku Morpheus its the future and the future its morpheus!? :p
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.
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.
From now on, the Rift formerly known as Oculus, shall be known as the Ouya Rift.
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.
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/...
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.
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.
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.
It would be cool if you could buy and trade shares of kickstarted funds, would make it like a mini stock market!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
@copen ethically sure but in terms of legally oculous doesnt have to give them shit. it sucks but that is the nature of kickstarter
I can't blame the supports for being upset about a concept they supported being sold out to a social experience/advertisement company
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.
Why would they need to drop games when games are already dropping them? http://notch.net/2014/03/vi...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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" AND TWO BILLION DOLLARS!!!!! 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
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...
Twitter was pretty bitter last night regarding the OR sale. No, I would not say too many people are happy.
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.
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?
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 ?"
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.
It was supposed to be used for PC games, not facebook.
Facebook games are technically PC games.
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.
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.
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.
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 WHAT DIRECTION DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GO!?!?!? 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...
@Fireseed: 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.
@Godmars290 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.
@@Fireseed: 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.
I thought all backers already got their rewards? I couldn't find any source for this though.
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.
Dude how are you not mad? This dude made 2 billion off none of his own money
That's how funding works.
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.
i expect this will cause issues for future projects too
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!
KICKSTARTERS AREN'T GODDAMN INVESTEMENTS! 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!
@ 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!
@grailly: 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.
@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.
@grailly: 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.
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. http://i.imgur.com/byeh8tD....
ROFL at going to oculus facebook page to complain about companies buy out from facebook....yo dawg
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
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.
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.
I could never trust Kickstarter.
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!