Oculus Rift bought by Facebook....

[george1979]

http://www.businessinsider.com/oculu...starter-2014-3

Not sure it this is the best place for this thread so feel free to move it if necessary

So after raising millions in a kickstarter campaign they've now sold out to FB?

I realise Kickstarter donations do not give donors a share in the company but am I the only one who feels a little uneasy about this? Asking the community to donate to your big idea then flog it off to the first sugar daddy that wiggles his wallet at you?

I know there's technically nothing wrong with this but still....

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Things got slightly more creepier.

[Marc_92]

C'mon man. Saying they sold out seems abit harsh. Yes, they gained alot of funds from the kickstarter. Their progress (from what I have seen) has been very promising but when a huge company comes along which pretty much unlimited contacts I can see why they accepted. $2billion is a huge sum of money which I'm sure will go to great use in making the oculus rift become the prime candidate for vr gaming etc.

[george1979]

C'mon man. Saying they sold out seems abit harsh. Yes, they gained alot of funds from the kickstarter. Their progress (from what I have seen) has been very promising but when a huge company comes along which pretty much unlimited contacts I can see why they accepted. $2billion is a huge sum of money which I'm sure will go to great use in making the oculus rift become the prime candidate for vr gaming etc.

When I say sold out I mean that in the strictly technical sense.

I think what bothers me is that they raised a substantial sum of money from a lot of people donating (and i appreciate they know its a donation) who basically got nothing back. I think I just feel like a few already very rich people made a lot of money by going cap in hand to the community for development costs then selling it on.
Just makes me uneasy - I think a better model than KS is required. One where its an investment rather than a handout.
Why should subsequent investors get all the return? A different type of KS where, say, 1000 people invested $100 each giving $1m. This in turn means that block of investors get a stake in the company. In this case lets say that stake would have bought 5%. That 5% would net $100m dollars on this sale, giving each person $10,000 back.

This is obviously a simplistic calculation for illustrative purposes, as taxes and fees would come into it, but hopefully my point is clear. Why should these people get to come cap in hand to ordinary folks who then get nothing when they sell up? It would be a good way to spread a little of this money around rather than adding to the vast wealth already held by the vastly wealthy.

I know I'll never contribute to a kickstarter that doesn't offer something more substantial than a thank you in return.

[Jellyfish]

That's killed any interest in that then... Not a fan of the google glasses thing, but this with facebook aswell

[badsyntax]

If you haven't heard, Occulus VR announced that Facebook will be acquiring them. I'm not sure about posting links to other news sites so Google it if you want more information.

The question is - will anyone here be cancelling or reconsidering a future purchase based on this news?

Edit - awesome thread title typo, I win today.

[Splash]

Yeah, saw this a few minutes ago. Bit gutted really, but it means I'll not be buying one now.

[peterb]

Threads merged - George1979 wins 'cos he was first off the mark, but I've left it in gaming where it is probably more appropriate.

(Although it was close, with badsyntax's excellent thread title typo!)

[kalniel]

I think what bothers me is that they raised a substantial sum of money from a lot of people donating (and i appreciate they know its a donation) who basically got nothing back. I think I just feel like a few already very rich people made a lot of money by going cap in hand to the community for development costs then selling it on.
Just makes me uneasy - I think a better model than KS is required. One where its an investment rather than a handout.

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).

[jim]

I know I'll never contribute to a kickstarter that doesn't offer something more substantial than a thank you in return.

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!

[The Hand]

Sad news.. It really seemed like things were getting very interesting with Carmack coming on board too.

Edit - found this on Eurogamer.net:

[badsyntax]

Nice one, thanks. I'll just pretend that the title was always OK

[SNYPER E]

What don't Facebook buy?!

[badsyntax]

What don't Facebook buy?!

Twitter & Snapchat

[SNYPER E]

Twitter & Snapchat

I'm sure Facebook already tried buying Snapchat for $3bill

[badsyntax]

Oh they did try but didn't get the nod, at least not so far. Same for the Google $4B offer.