Oculus Rift bought by Facebook....

[azrael-]

Very saddened by this news. I was following the development with interest, but that interest had waned now. Anything that Facebook has its hook into immediately lands on my personal blacklist.

[GeorgeStorm]

I think overall it's a good thing, more money, more visibility, publicity etc.

Even if Oculus doesn't quite go the way people want it to, having a big party behind them will probably encourage other companies to increase their VR budget so the overall result will be good for the customer.

[jim]

I think overall it's a good thing, more money, more visibility, publicity etc.

Even if Oculus doesn't quite go the way people want it to, having a big party behind them will probably encourage other companies to increase their VR budget so the overall result will be good for the customer.

The downside for people like us will be if the gaming aspect gets dropped. I mean, I can't see Facebook being particularly interested in the high-end PC gaming market.

I dread to think what they do see in it, but I doubt it's gaming.

[george1979]

But that's exactly what KS is - it's effectively the community acting as a business angel in terms of providing up front capital. It is not an investment in the slightest - when the projectCars game was being funded along a similar model they did make it look like an investment, and promptly got their knuckled rapped by the (then) FSA and had to make it look less like an investment.

And I think that's all KS should be - by providing the capital the community is saying 'yes, we believe this product should exist'. That's all - they're not saying they have to make a return on it, or that there are any restrictions on the product once it's developed etc - or if there are, that should be part of the thing that you are kickstarting (ie an ideal as well as a product).

Kickstarter has never been presented as an investment, only as a way to get a product you want. It still achieves that objective.

Years ago, there might have been huge consumer interest in VR, but it's very hard to gauge how real that demand is, so venture capitalists might have been reluctant to fund the product, and it never would've been made.

Now, you put it on Kickstarter, everyone has to put their money where their mouth is, and the venture capitalists can see that it is something worth investing in. The funders win because they get the product they wanted, which is why they invested in the first place.

If people are going into it expecting a return, or for the company to take some indie stance to everything, then they're inevitably going to get burned.

EDIT: Argh, Kal!

Yeah I get that and I did say that I understood the nature of Kickstarter in my original posts. That's not the point I was making. Now that we're seeing already rich investors buying into kickstarters only to make gargantuan profits I think its only fair to ask questions about Kickstarter. I mean ordinary punters are basically unable to invest in this type of project but it's fine to ask them to donate thereby ensuring that, if the project does take off, they did everything to help but get almost nothing in return.

It appears I'm not the only one to voice frustrations about this process either:

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...on-dollar-exit

[kalniel]

Yeah I get that and I did say that I understood the nature of Kickstarter in my original posts. That's not the point I was making. Now that we're seeing already rich investors buying into kickstarters only to make gargantuan profits I think its only fair to ask questions about Kickstarter.

Not sure what you mean - which investors are buying into kickstarters to make profits?

[george1979]

But that's exactly what KS is - it's effectively the community acting as a business angel in terms of providing up front capital. It is not an investment in the slightest - when the projectCars game was being funded along a similar model they did make it look like an investment, and promptly got their knuckled rapped by the (then) FSA and had to make it look less like an investment.

And I think that's all KS should be - by providing the capital the community is saying 'yes, we believe this product should exist'. That's all - they're not saying they have to make a return on it, or that there are any restrictions on the product once it's developed etc - or if there are, that should be part of the thing that you are kickstarting (ie an ideal as well as a product).

Kickstarter has never been presented as an investment, only as a way to get a product you want. It still achieves that objective.

Years ago, there might have been huge consumer interest in VR, but it's very hard to gauge how real that demand is, so venture capitalists might have been reluctant to fund the product, and it never would've been made.

Now, you put it on Kickstarter, everyone has to put their money where their mouth is, and the venture capitalists can see that it is something worth investing in. The funders win because they get the product they wanted, which is why they invested in the first place.

If people are going into it expecting a return, or for the company to take some indie stance to everything, then they're inevitably going to get burned.

EDIT: Argh, Kal!

Not sure what you mean - which investors are buying into kickstarters to make profits?

Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear with that - I'm referring to the Series A and B investors of the type mentioned in the article I linked to in the OP.

I see even more are asking similar questions about the future of crowdsourcing:

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/what-doe...r-kickstarter/

Again, to be clear, I'm well aware of the fact that KS is not an investment. My point is that, when they paint themselves as a curious indie project that really needs the community to get them going (which was nonsense really - the people they had there could have sourced the investment) then sell out for a huge profit it begs the question why the hell should ordinary working folks sink even as little as $15 in when they get nothing in return.

I just think crowdinvestment should be the way a lot of projects should go, rather than crowdfunding. There are a lot of projects that have good reason to crowdsource - i.e. to avoid publisher interference, niche film project that wouldn't get funding elsewhere etc - but Occulus Rift was not one of them.

[kalniel]

Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear with that - I'm referring to the Series A and B investors of the type mentioned in the article I linked to in the OP.

Don't you think it's win-win? If there's genuine need for a product then the inventor gets a leg up, and the market gets access to a product they wouldn't otherwise. That the inventor has an exit/development of investment strategy is a sign of good planning. Basic business plan question is how do you grow your business or exit it.

Again, to be clear, I'm well aware of the fact that KS is not an investment. My point is that, when they paint themselves as a curious indie project that really needs the community to get them going (which was nonsense really - the people they had there could have sourced the investment) then sell out for a huge profit it begs the question why the hell should ordinary working folks sink even as little as $15 in when they get nothing in return.

Because they got a product on the market that perhaps wouldn't have been there otherwise. In the process, they've re-ignited interest in VR and competitors are likely to get involved too.

I just think crowdinvestment should be the way a lot of projects should go, rather than crowdfunding. There are a lot of projects that have good reason to crowdsource - i.e. to avoid publisher interference, niche film project that wouldn't get funding elsewhere etc - but Occulus Rift was not one of them.

In my opinion it's the duty of someone who believes in their invention to seek funding from all sources they consider ethical.

[george1979]

Don't you think it's win-win? If there's genuine need for a product then the inventor gets a leg up, and the market gets access to a product they wouldn't otherwise. That the inventor has an exit/development of investment strategy is a sign of good planning. Basic business plan question is how do you grow your business or exit it.

Because they got a product on the market that perhaps wouldn't have been there otherwise. In the process, they've re-ignited interest in VR and competitors are likely to get involved too.

In my opinion it's the duty of someone who believes in their invention to seek funding from all sources they consider ethical.

It's a win-win for the inventors and the investors but who's to say the backers on KS will get the same product they were sold/promised/whatever you want to call it?

Again, my point is that Occulus Rift didn't really need KS backers whereas some projects do. It was a good source of free money with no strings attached and free publicity.

Also I don't really blame the Occulus Rift guys for doing it - it was there and they took advantage, that's life. What does irk me is that there is no widely publicised way of 'crowd-investing'. There's plenty of people in good jobs, earning good money and asking for handouts on KS when they don't offer anything in return (again thats the KS model).
I'm just saying that I'd like to see a form of crowd-investing for certain projects, rather than handouts, then perhaps we might see some wealth spread around the other 99%. It's a pipe dream, I know but a guy can dream :/

[kalniel]

It's a win-win for the inventors and the investors but who's to say the backers on KS will get the same product they were sold?

Backers on KS are not being sold products.

Again, my point is that Occulus Rift didn't really need KS backers whereas some projects do. It was a good source of free money with no strings attached and free publicity.

Good for them. They fit the requirements of using KS so it was sensible business to use them. I doubt by doing so they in any way preventing someone else from using KS, if anything successful KS projects are going to be of benefit to other KS users.

Also I don't really blame the Occulus Rift guys for doing it - it was there and they took advantage, that's life. What does irk me is that there is no widely publicised way of 'crowd-investing'. There's plenty of people in good jobs, earning good money and asking for handouts on KS when they don't offer anything in return (again thats the KS model).

It's not just the KS model - that business model has been around for ages, because, surprise surprise, there really do exist lots of people who will put money towards things that they like, regardless of any guarantee of a return.

I'm just saying that I'd like to see a form of crowd-investing for certain projects, rather than handouts, then perhaps we might see some wealth spread around the other 99%. It's a pipe dream, I know but a guy can dream :/

It's not a pipe dream - there are plenty of other routes to get conventional or group investments. But why should you prevent the business angel approach?

[george1979]

Backers on KS are not being sold products.

Good for them. They fit the requirements of using KS so it was sensible business to use them. I doubt by doing so they in any way preventing someone else from using KS, if anything successful KS projects are going to be of benefit to other KS users.

It's not just the KS model - that business model has been around for ages, because, surprise surprise, there really do exist lots of people who will put money towards things that they like, regardless of any guarantee of a return.

It's not a pipe dream - there are plenty of other routes to get conventional or group investments. But why should you prevent the business angel approach?

I'd already changed the 1st line by the time you'd replied.

I'm not suggesting it took away from other projects - just that this project could have quite easily done without the KS funding.

Yes many people will put money towards things they like - and there is never any guarantee of a return with any company investment. The point I'm making is why not give them the chance to have one? If they wanna take a $100 punt on a company or product they like why shouldn't they have the chance to share in its success, however small?

It is really not very easy for any regular working person to invest small sums in projects they like. It's very easy for them to give it away though... Funny that. I also didn't say I would prevent the Business Angel model? I'm merely suggesting that there should be an approach available which allows ordinary people to invest their money as easily as they are encouraged to give it away.

For example - https://wefunder.com/faq

As far as I can see after a quick search there's nothing that really allows this. Even the above (which I appreciate is US based) says that, until this summer, only already wealthy accredited investors were permitted to invest? So there really aren't plenty of other routes to the type of investing that I'm talking about are there? I.e you can't pick a start up you like and stick £100 on it?

Hopefully that will come soon though.

[kalniel]

I'm not suggesting it took away from other projects - just that this project could have quite easily done without the KS funding.

Yet it'd be silly of them not to look at it - and their decision has been proved to be very correct

Yes many people will put money towards things they like - and there is never any guarantee of a return with any company investment. The point I'm making is why not give them the chance to have one? If they wanna take a $100 punt on a company or product they like why shouldn't they have the chance to share in its success, however small?

You mean like buying shares/equity?

I'm merely suggesting that there should be an approach available which allows ordinary people to invest their money as easily as they are encouraged to give it away.
..

So there really aren't plenty of other routes to the type of investing that I'm talking about are there? I.e you can't pick a start up you like and stick £100 on it?

Doesn't conventional investment offer that? If the start up opens their company up for investment then you can invest in it. Plenty of start up investment type events and indeed govt. support for exactly this kind of thing.

eg:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/seedeis/
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/eis/

[george1979]

Yet it'd be silly of them not to look at it - and their decision has been proved to be very correct

You mean like buying shares/equity?

Doesn't conventional investment offer that? If the start up opens their company up for investment then you can invest in it. Plenty of start up investment type events and indeed govt. support for exactly this kind of thing.

eg:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/seedeis/
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/eis/

Haha yeah like buying shares or equity but the point is at the stage where they are going for KS funding they aren't opening up to investment. When they do open up to investment its generally to large private investors which then make a killing when they open it up to a public listing.

It'd just be nice for ordinary folks to be able to get in on that at the early stages

Basically what I mean is 'I WANT SOME - GIMME SOME!' Haha

[AitchP]

I'm also waiting for my virtuix omni to turn up, I'm not sure which I'm more angry at... That or this!!

[AmiRbs]

I don't think they exactly "sold out" yes they used the KS but it would be hard to turn down a company as big as Facebook

[edoubleu]

This sums up the general heebie jeebies feeling i get.

[unifex]

I hope everyone who invested money supporting in a dream of a crowd funded gets a major facebook shaped payoff