Oculus Should Refund Kickstarter Money

123

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Marcbman

Better analogy: Ted wants to start a company to make a newer better boat. He asks for money, and in exchange, he'll give you one of his prototype boats. Ted sells a bunch of prototype boats. Angel investors see his prototype and invest $72 million. Ted uses the money to acquire talented boat builders and better materials which are all used to make better designs. Then a large company comes along and buys Ted's company for $2 Billion. Ted can now afford to make better boats for a cheaper price.

And seriously people, Oculus is developing the display, not the games. If ads start showing up in your games, that's the developer's fault. And what company in their right mind would plaster a product you paid for with advertisements? Facebook makes money with ads, that is their revenue stream. Oculus makes money by selling rifts. That's their revenue stream. It's all hype.

avatar

Insurgence

Actually companies have tried shoveling ads down our throats even though we paid full price for a game. Many companies sell ad locations in games, some even tried streaming ads that would update based on your habits. The streaming one was not very successful, but it will be tried again.

The reality is, ads are profitable, and most companies will see no reason to pass the savings onto us if they are placing them into paid for products. But to me is that its not the ads that worry me but the data collection. That is an even bigger money bucket. While we will not get away from data collectors completely, and have the products we want, we can sit back and see who the worst is.

Personally though I do think it is a betrayal of the original backers, but I also think that if any other company, especially the likes of Sony or MS, decides to go full force into VR headsets, then most likely Occulus would not have survived. I also like the fact that it was not someone such as MS or Sony who made the purchase. MS and Sony are to focused on console, and my preferred platform is the PC. While Facebooks platform is the internet, the best place for the Internet and VR is the PC, and I also fully expect Facebook market it on any other platform it deems worthy.

What they should do, is find some way to assuage anyone who has backed them prior to the facebook deal. This could be done through many methods not just through a refund. It could be through early access, special deals, special designs (maybe custom covers or something). It could be done in many ways. This would be a great way to show appreciation for early support, the support that allowed them to make it this far.

avatar

aaronj2906

If Kickstarter had not enabled LUCKEY to build build the product, then RIFT would not exist and FB would not have bought it.

The original Kickstarter video was targeted toward the masses to create the next killer app for display viewing.

It was NOT at all sold to kickstarter as 'lets get the ball rolling on something great, by obtaining funding under the guise of R&D to change the world if the entertainment industry...' ... Then sell out at the last moment and retire.

I don't think there is a person that exists that would NOT have taken the money. But, the sequence of kickstarter to 'retire nicely' by fooling the masses on a false pretense needs an answer.

The FB acquision was very sudden. Had this been a mature and distributed product, I would think the FTC would all over this. This stinks nearly as bad as the FB IPO from some time ago, where the public lost millions.

avatar

wolfing

First, you will not find anywhere any writing or contract in which this even holds anything.

Second, this would create a dangerous precedent. Any company that receives donations would then be liable to reimburse such donations if they're ever purchased by another company?

When you donate to a political party, do you expect them to refund you the money if they win the elections? after all, they probably wouldn't have won without those donations.

I understand people's anger because Facebook is hated in general, but really, just accept the fact and move on. It could actually even be beneficial if you stop to think about it after the anger period passes.

avatar

froggz

Hell no they don't deserve to get their money back. These people donated money to help this dude achieve his vision. Let's not bullshit ourselves, his vision is to become rich by selling VR gear. Well congratulations, they helped him become a billionaire. Kickstarter goal achieved.

avatar

limitbreaker

I actually agree with you frog, while I'm very disappointed that Facebook bought over oculus, I think that investing money in a Kickstarter is a bit of a bone headed move and the people donating money shouldn't be surprised that they got screwed.

avatar

Rebel_X

Sell out mofos, someone has to start a class law suit against Oculus to stop the acquisition. The $2 billion were not possible without the $2.5 million of the supporters.

This should be illegal and I think it can be a strong case if it went to the court.

avatar

Dusty Chalk

thematejka -- I disagree with #2 -- one should expect exactly the tangible outcome promised in the rewards, at the very least. If the promise is of an SDK and a developer community, and there is no discussion of the future, then there is an expectation that the SDK and developer community will remain open. I suspect everyones' fear is that it will become proprietary, and if that happens, then I think Oculus has violated the terms of their agreement and should refund their money plus interest, but the current conditions make me think that at the very least, they should fulfill the promise of their contract, and that is to provide the rewards promised.

And no, I don't think someone who gave $10 should get a free Oculus Rift. Sorry, what? Based on...?

avatar

Vano

Hold your horses. Let me get this straight:
You are bitching about that over a year ago you gave your money to a startup company, which delivered everything it's promised to you and after, a year later, it got sold and now you want a refund??? Seriously???

avatar

Eoraptor

I love all the people crowing so long and loud about how "kickstarter isn't an investment"

Actually, that is PRECISELY what it is. It not an interest bearing investment like a stock or ownership note, but it is still an investment of capital with an expectation of a future return. The return being whatever the end goal of the person running the kickstarter is. It is an investment in the same way a pledge to PBS or Jerry's Kids is an investment.

and Yes, when a privatized corporate interest sweeps in and buys up the outfit you invested in, you have every right to be concerned, angry, and to feel obliged to recompense for the time and money you've put into it. If you gave a thousand bucks to PBS with the idea they would keep running Sherlock or Downton Abbey or This Old House, and suddenly NBC Universal sweeps in, buys up your affiliate and starts running Fear Factor reruns instead... I bet you'd be writing your congressman, calling for an investigation, and demanding your money back too.

is Oculus or Facebook legally obligated to return your money? sadly no. They should be, simply because they have exceeded, by an order of magnitude, thanks largely to the groundswell of publicity generated by the kickstarter.

but then if corporations did they things they should do instead of the things they wanted to do, we probably wouldn't have pesky little problems like global warming or healthcare cost bankruptcy.

avatar

Renegade Knight

Kickstarter users promise some cheesy reward. "You get access to the limited Edition Kicktarter Edition". You get that. You got what you paid for.

It's not an investment. Even a crappy investment will normally give you some money back even if it's pennies on the dollar. Any money put into Kickstarter is just gone.

avatar

SuperSATA

But hold on Eoraptor; who says that the FB acquisition is getting in the way of the supposed end goal? You claim that Kickstarter is an investment in that you expect to see the "end goal" realized in return for your money.

The way I see it, Facebook, with its many wads of cash, is helping the "end goal," so while people might be upset over a million things that relate to this, that particular point is something they cannot get mad at.

I'm not saying that your argument is wrong, but I don't think you can use that example as a basis for your argument.

avatar

MaximumMike

Yes, because we all know its those greedy corporations that are making our winters longer and colder every year. But why stop with blaming corporations for natural changes in the weather? I recently bought a lottery ticket and someone else won. I blame the greedy corporations for screwing up the alignment of the stars, as well.

avatar

SuperSATA

You're honestly so stuck on that one part of his speech that you completely disregard the rest of it?

avatar

MaximumMike

I din't say one way or another how I felt about the rest of it. That's the great thing about a reply. I get to pick what part I want to reply to. If I'm not interested in replying to the rest, I don't have to.

avatar

Carlidan

It's just not worth it Super. I stopped replying to his posts.

avatar

MaximumMike

Right but you just had to reply to that one... just one more time right? To drive home the point that you really weren't talking to me, you had to tell me you weren't talking to me. Not only are you empty headed, but you're also a child.

avatar

limitbreaker

Maximum... Are you saying that climate change isn't real? And you're calling other people empty headed? Interesting...

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Maximum... Are you saying that climate change isn't real? And you're calling other people empty headed? Interesting...

No, are you actually reading what I wrote or are you just trying to draw some parallel that doesn't exist?

avatar

Carlidan

Only thing I going to say to you limitbreaker. Good Luck. Sooner or later when he gets frustrated with you, he'll insult you and name call you. :(

And he seems to not understand that I will not REPLY to his post. But never said I will not reply to others. Go figure his logic.

avatar

MaximumMike

Limitbreaker, will you kindly explain to Carlidan that when you respond to a first person's comments by speaking about them to a third person right in front of the first person, it's the same as speaking directly to the first person. This is why I refer to Carlidan as an empty headed child... he acts like one.

You see, he hasn't a rational thought in his head. And he just ran away from a debate where he had an opportunity to display one if it existed. But instead he has elected to come over to this thread and bad mouth me indirectly, as if that is somehow the moral high ground. I don't deny that I have insulted him, but honestly he opened the door by insulting me first, which he avidly denies. So he is either too stupid to realize he insulted me or he is a pernicious liar. Either way, I thought I was actually lightening the blow by describing him as an empty headed child.

avatar

limitbreaker

You called it natural changes in the weather, there's nothing natural about climate change (they call it climate change because global warming was too confusing for some people). It's not the corporations fault directly but they are part of the problem and they'll continue to try and meet the status quo no matter the cost to our unique climate. It's only natural for any corporation to try and make as much profit as possible but any real change can only come from government through such things like carbon tax which directly drives companies to efficiency. Not that the solution is so simple but you get the idea.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>there's nothing natural about climate change

No one has proven otherwise. However, we do know from history that the climate has changed much more drastically than it is changing now with 0 human influence. So, natural climate change is a proven fact. Man made climate change is a hypothesis at best. 20 years ago they were telling us we were causing global cooling, so we stopped using the products they were telling us to discontinue (namely aerosols), and now they are telling us that the same products they advised us to use in the stead of aerosols are causing global warming. The truth is that the climate scientists who say they know what is happening are lying. They don't know. I'm really glad they're studying our climate, but they don't know what's happening. Right now there is a lot of contradictory data regarding how climate changes and why. Weather systems are about as complex as it gets. We still cant get an accurate one week forecast, but the climate scientists think they somehow know what will happen over the next 200 years? You're lying to yourself if you think they know that.

Heck they can't even explain the long and cold winters we've been having ever since all this global warming hype started. You say they started calling it global climate change because people were confused, but you're wrong. Nobody is any more confused by "global warming" than they are by "hot chocolate". They're calling it global climate change because some scientists are starting to back off of the notion that the earth really is heating up. Nobody is denying that the climate is changing. But natural climate change is an undeniable fact. The truth scientists don't want to tell us is that they don't have all the answers. They can't say beyond the shadow of a doubt just how much man is really contributing to global climate change.

But people like the op want to pipe on about the evils of corporations and place all the blame for a hypothetical doomsday scenario that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't, on the shoulders of people who likely have nothing to do with it. This is a behavior common to man, this tendency to find some great evil in the world that he can point at and blame for all his problems. And so I took a jab at him, because its absurd to think that all the complicated problems of the world would just go away if corporations like Facebook would just play by whatever his sense of fair is. It's a pretty extreme case of narcissism in my opinion.

All those sentiments were wrapped up in the satire of four sentences, and I'm pretty sure most people got the gist of it without requiring a three paragraph explanation. And really it doesn't matter what side of the global warming debate you fall on, it is still absurd to tie it to Occulus Rift's sellout to Facebook. And that was the point. As much as TheMac like's to bring up Godwin's Law around here, I think we need a new law that says something to the effect that any perceived injustice discussed on the internet will eventually be blamed as one of the causes of global warming.

But since you seem keen on discussing global warming, as off topic as it is, I personally think it's a good idea in general to be responsible with our waste and our emissions whether or not there is any hard proof of global warming. What I'm not convinced of is that I need to pick a side and start doing what one group of people tells me is the best thing, just because they say they have my best interests at heart. For instance, when they tell me my light bulb is contributing to global warming, warning bells go off in my head when they advise me to start buying a different one that is filled with toxic chemicals that could poison our water supplies, and which cannot be disposed of by placing them in the trash (which people will inevitably do) and which they stand to make a huge profit from selling to me. At that point I think to myself, my existing light bulb's contribution to pollution is probably minuscule in comparison to the pollution that comes from these things.

Honestly, I don't buy into the fear tactics of the people peddling global warming so they can sell me light bulbs and carbon credits. I'm much more concerned with the very real pollution that is happening with the toxic chemicals we are letting get into our water supplies and the air we breathe. That's the stuff that concerns me.

Also, I do wonder from time to time how many of the liberals that would scold me on the evils of global warming buy their gasoline from BP. Although I'm in favor of offshore drilling, I'm not in favor of doing it the way BP did it. And their cleanup effort was laughable at best. Also, Japan's recent nuclear meltdown was catastrophic and the waste has started to make its way over here and is destroying some of the fishing industry in the north west. There are countless examples of real world pollution with no tie to carbon emissions that threaten to ruin our way of life right now. You want to talk about big corporations that are ruining the environment, leave Facebook alone and start looking at the bastards who are ruining our beaches, our fishing industry, our water supplies, and our air. And that's the biggest problem I have with the hypocrisy of the left. They NEVER talk about that stuff. They honestly think if they defeated global warming it would bring an end to pollution. What a load of crap.

avatar

Carlidan

We're basically screwed no matter what we do. Unless we somehow drastically cut off carbon emissions to about 1/2 as it right now in 50 years and cut the human population to around 3 to 5 billion people in the same span. Earth will still won't be able to sub stain us for the next 200 years.

avatar

limitbreaker

Well, we don't know what will happen exactly as technology changes. I am hopeful that in the future humans will discover how to turn carbon back into solid form. Maybe if they discover how to create machines that will do the work of trees times one million but that idea is just fiction right now. Population isn't the real problem as far as carbon emissions are concerned because almost all of the pollution is created by 1% of the world population.

avatar

MaximumMike

>> I am hopeful that in the future humans will discover how to turn carbon back into solid form.

This is another thing that drives me nuts about the left. You can always tell when someone is just parroting the liberal talking points with no real understanding because they say things like this. According to global warming theorists, carbon is not the problem. CO2 is the problem. Do you understand the difference? The chemical formula for carbon is C. That means that one carbon molecule is made up of one carbon atom. The formula for oxygen is O, and it means that one oxygen molecule is made up of one oxygen atom. The formula written CO2 is called carbon dioxide. A carbon dioxide molecule is made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms.

I remember a few years ago when they rebranded the whole thing and labeled carbon as a toxin. The whole thing drove me nuts. Carbon is in everything... your body is made up of carbon. It's hardly a toxin. Heck why not call oxygen a toxin? Technically, there are twice as many oxygen atoms in CO2 as the number of carbon atoms. So, isn't oxygen twice as responsible for global warming as carbon? Why isn't oxygen evil?

Furthermore, we already understand the properties of matter and know how to convert substances from gases to liquids and solids. The problem is that carbon dioxide is normally a gas and becomes a solid at −78.5 °C. I'm not sure exactly what that is in farenheit... but let me assure it's frickin cold and not plausible. What might be more plausible, but still terribly difficult would be somehow managing to split up all the CO2 in the atmosphere so that it becomes harmless oxygen and carbon atoms. But I don't think there's a safe way to do that without making things much worse. And even if there was it wouldn't fix the problem because if the global warming people are right other greenhouse gases like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are also causing global warming.

avatar

limitbreaker

"You can always tell when someone is just parroting the liberal talking points with no real understanding because they say things like this."

I thought it was obvious that I meant CO2 when I said carbon and didn't add dioxide... And basically you have some understanding of things but you're too biased in building your ego to see past yourself. Here's a quick copy and paste to what I'm on about

"constructing fly-swat-shaped "artificial trees" is the most promising approach to reducing CO2. Such a tree would work by letting air pass through into the structure and then catching the CO2 via a "sorbant" material, such as sodium hydroxide. The CO2 is then removed and buried underground in a similar manner to conventional carbon capture and storage"

"climate scientists who say they know what is happening are lying."

And as for climate change... Since you like to pretend you understand more than you actually do, please explain why the artic ice are melting and please explain why animals that have been around for millions of years (yes, believe it or not earth is more than 5000 years old) are suddenly endangered animals due to your "natural" climate change like the polar bear for example.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>I thought it was obvious that I meant CO2 when I said carbon and didn't add dioxide...

Why would it be? There are countless substances that contain carbon. As I've already mentioned a carbon molecule and a carbon dioxide molecule aren't the same thing. I can only get meaning from what you say, not from what you meant to say.

>> but you're too biased in building your ego to see past yourself.

That could easily be said of yourself now couldn't it.

>>"constructing fly-swat-shaped "artificial trees" is the most promising approach to reducing CO2. Such a tree would work by letting air pass through into the structure and then catching the CO2 via a "sorbant" material, such as sodium hydroxide. The CO2 is then removed and buried underground in a similar manner to conventional carbon capture and storage"

If you had said something like that in the first place, you would have garnered much less criticism. But what you actually said was something to the effect of making carbon solid, which sounds ridiculous. I don't have any comment on the hypothesis above as I have honestly just heard of it and won't formulate an opinion based on a few sentences.

>>Since you like to pretend you understand more than you actually do

Based on what do you make that generalization? I'm usually pretty honest when I don't understand something.

>>please explain why the artic ice are melting and please explain why animals that have been around for millions of years

I'll get right on that as soon as you show incontrovertible proof of how dinosaurs that lived for millions of years died with no human intervention whatsoever. You must also explain how the previous ice ages ended, and show incontrovertible proof of those. Then if you can prove that the forces that were at work in those situations are no longer at play in the earth, I'll start taking a closer look at the polar bears. Because it seems to me things are happening on the earth that are beyond human influence.

>>yes, believe it or not earth is more than 5000 years old

Even radical creationists claim that the earth is 7000 years old. I'm not sure who you think is saying it is 5000 years old, but it certainly isn't me. People like you and Carlidan constantly make these kinds of condescending remarks and then cry foul when you get insulted for them.

avatar

limitbreaker

It's just a tad bit of a coincidence that radical changes are happening now at the boon of the industrial age don't you think? And by radical change I mean 0.15 Celcius warmer every decade.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>It's just a tad bit of a coincidence that radical changes are happening now at the boon of the industrial age don't you think?

You're an atheist right? So, how many times has someone tried to prove the existence of God to you by suggesting that something that happened couldn't have possibly been a coincidence. Did it work?

>>And by radical change I mean 0.15 Celcius warmer every decade.

Yea, but we don't have really accurate numbers to go by since the dawn of the industrial age. A lot of difficult research has been done to try to fill in those gaps, and with some decent results. But a lot of the findings are highly disputed. We still don't know for certain that the temperature is changing that quickly, or even if it has that its not an aberration that will soon turn in the other direction.

In the first place, 100 years is barely a blip in time in the history of the earth (unless of course you believe the earth is only 5000 years old). Some weather cycles take longer than that to happen. In fact, I remember watching a documentary recently where they believed some ancient Native American peoples lived originally in a very lush and green land. But that a weather cycle that occurs every several hundred years (if I remember correctly) had suddenly turned their land into desert and wiped out their civilization. Scientists are no where close to understanding and accurately predicting weather cycles like this one. And if they don't have that understanding, how can they tell me that what's happening now isn't related to something similar.

Furthermore, most climate scientists don't argue that the earth cannot survive the coming global warming. That's not the context of the debate. What they believe is that human civilization will not survive it. But I have never heard anyone talk about what the optimal climate is for human life or how they think we can achieve it. Supposedly the earth is heating up to some unoptimal level, but what is that? How can you say the earth is getting too hot if you can't tell me how hot it should be? And I've never heard anyone tell us what the optimal climate we are trying to maintain is supposed to be. So, how can we say with any certainty that any effort to curb global warming is in the interest of our survival?

avatar

Carlidan

Oh, limitbreaker, found out who Mike is now. Just FYI, he will not stop replying to your post until you stop. I should of known by the posts. Now I know why he has grudge against me. His other account was removed. It was hilarious too, other people got into his case. Forget what the topic was though. Just can't believe how it took my soooo long to figure it out. Oh well. Best of luck, limit.

avatar

limitbreaker

I know who Mike is, I just couldn't help but to comment even thought I knew it was futile. I'm actually looking forward to seeing his 4 paragraph long reply that convolutes some utter bs lie in an effort to escape the truth.

avatar

Carlidan

LOL limitbreaker, now he's mad @ you. Yep, it's him. And oh, no, he's going to get me in trouble with the moderators. Let's see who's they are going to side with? Shit if only they didn't delete his posts from the previous article on his other account. You read it. You know it's the same person.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Shit if only they didn't delete his posts from the previous article on his other account. You read it. You know it's the same person.

And when was I supposed to have made these comments from this mysterious other account? Was it more than 5 years ago? If not, are you claiming that I maintain multiple accounts? I'm perfectly content with being myself from this one account. I have never had any other account on this site than this one. You're just desperate to find some way to discredit me. It's pretty sad what you're doing, but you're displaying the depth of your ignorance to the entire world by continuing to troll me and attempting to assassinate my character, and all because you lack the mental wherewithal to meet me head on intellectually. So, have fun with your hollow and desperate attempt to find some way to win. But I guess that's the Carlidan way, "If you can't beat them become a troll."

On the other hand, perhaps it is you and limitbreaker who are the same person. Perhaps you found it lonely as a mental midget, and so you found it cute to invent your own internet buddy to hold your hand and help you with your trolling. It's just as plausible.

avatar

limitbreaker

Hey I resent that, if anyone is somebody's imaginary friend, it is carlidan who is my imaginary friend and not the other way around. I'm more like a main character than a sidekick lol

avatar

Carlidan

Well my imaginary friends are God and the Devil. Tinkerbell is my girlfriend. :)

avatar

Carlidan

Meh. :)

avatar

MaximumMike

>>I'm actually looking forward to seeing his 4 paragraph long reply that convolutes some utter bs lie in an effort to escape the truth.

Who is it that resorts to insults again? Oh that's right, the lying retard liberal with no brain and no concept of reality or understanding of science. How sad for you.

Try disputing what I say. You can't. All you can do is ignore the real arguments and hurl insults. I insult people like you and Carlidan because you deserve it. But I still address the point if there ever is one. You hurl insults because it is the only language you know and you are utterly incapable of addressing the issue. If there was ever any doubt about evolution, I think you must be the proof.

avatar

limitbreaker

"Who is it that resorts to insults again? Oh that's right, the lying retard liberal with no brain and no concept of reality or understanding of science. How sad for you."

Why are you so obsessed whit what some person on the Internet thinks? You bother to write pages of reply over nothing as if you're feeding off of it.
Honestly... You need to see a psychologist...

avatar

limitbreaker

Love and peace

avatar

Carlidan

:)

avatar

Carlidan

Yeah it's the same guy. He can pretend it isn't him. It is. Anyways, good luck bro.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Yeah it's the same guy. He can pretend it isn't him. It is. Anyways, good luck bro.

If you don't stop your lies, I will complain to the moderators about you. I have never posted under a different alias, and I will not tolerate your insistence that I have. Just because you cant compete intellectually doesn't mean you have the right to spread lies about me.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Now I know why he has grudge against me. His other account was removed. It was hilarious too, other people got into his case.

Alright now that's enough. I have never posted to this site under any alias other than MaximumMike. And the moderators of this site can verify that from my IP address if they have a mind to. Furthermore, there is no one who posts on this site that has a writing style even remotely similar to mine. I won't tolerate your baseless lies. If you had even an ounce of integrity, which you don't, you would retract that lie.

Also, I don't have a grudge against you. I just simply don't like you because you're a childish mindless simpleton. And when I see something childish and mindless I have a tendency to call you out for it. I know how you hate it when someone actually challenges the ridiculous drivel you are so fond of spouting, but unfortunately for you that is a consequence of posting mindless drivel on the internet.

You got offended on a previous thread when I challenged you on something and then began insulting me and fled the thread. Then you came over to this one and have done nothing but act like a child, hiding behind inuendo and talking to me as if I weren't there. But you are stooping to a new low even for yourself to pretend that I am posting under multiple aliases or that I have some hidden agenda against you. And personally, it's not hard for me to believe that someone else didn't like you.

>>Just FYI, he will not stop replying to your post until you stop.

I actually reply on a thread as long as I feel like it. You pretend to know my mind, but I have serious doubts that you even know your own. As far as the current discussion with limitbreaker is concerned, it has remained civil for the most part, and it may continue as long as we both find it interesting. But since you obviously have nothing of value to add, you can kindly butt out.

avatar

Carlidan

There are also a plant in the sea that can do the same thing your mentioning. Just can't remember the name.

Them climate scientist are liberals. What do they know. Sarcasm. :) They just study that shit for a living. That's all.

avatar

Carlidan

Not just talking just emissions. Earth resources just can't handle that much people. They did a study, that it takes 5 earths just to handle the population we have now. I'll try to get that article.

avatar

Carlidan

Not just talking just emissions. Earth resources just can't handle that much people. They did a study, that it takes 5 earths just to handle the population we have now. I'll try to get that article.

avatar

MaximumMike

Some super intelligent entity in the universe once did a study on the sustainability of life on planets. When he got to Earth, he found it sustaining all of its current inhabitants. His findings might contradict your paper, but they're observable by everyone.

avatar

thematejka

Well written Jimmy,

While I feel inclined to agree with you, I am uncertain about whether Oculus should give the money back to their Kickstarter backers. Here is my reasoning:

1) Kickstarter is a donation-based system. It says in their guidelines that creators cannot offer equity or finanicial incentives. Donation = no expectation of return.

2) Therefore, my "backing" a Kickstarter project cannot be labelled as an "investment" in the sense of an expectation of a financial or tangible outcome.

3) However, there is a sense of "investment" - much the same as with a charity - in which you are saying "I believe in you" or "I am investing belief in your vision." In this sense, when I donate to Red Cross I am not saying "With this money, I want you to assure me you will dig a well in 'x' village," I am rather saying that "I believe you will do the right thing, whatever you do with what I know of your vision."

4) That being said, Oculus did betray the trust of its backers and I do not blame the backers, but Oculus has no obligation to return their money - at least not legally. If Red Cross or a charity I donate to went corrupt or did a bad thing I wouldn't be happy, but I know my donation means I do not expect anything back, ultimately.

In some ways I think it would be wonderful if Oculus returned the money, but Kickstarter is hardly relatable to a donation based service anyways because there are incentives for giving. Giving on Kickstarter is a participation in a very consumeristic and cheap-giving form of donation (unless, maybe, you don't care about the incentives?).

All I'm saying, is that we shouldn't expect anything better when a product gets popular. We shouldn't expect anything better when big money is involved. There are very few "shouldn't" rules in the business world, but I do agree that maybe Oculus can be a bit more ethical - perhaps moral. If a charity I gave to screwed up and made amends somehow, I would take that as a gift in return.

avatar

John Pombrio

Well said.

Kickstarter is a strange beast as the results can go either way, complete failure, which happens all the time, or strangely, amazing profits in this case. If Oculus had failed, no one would be asking for their money back. Success should be any different?