Oculus Should Refund Kickstarter Money

123

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

BadCommand

a fool and his money are soon parted.

so true.

avatar

mikeyfree

KickStarter may soon hear the fat lady sing.

avatar

Eliyahu ben Yisroel

A decent and ethical person would give the people who bankrolled him a refund with interest and encourage them to invest it in other up-and-coming ideas -- not because he has to, but because it's the right thing to do.

avatar

SuperSATA

THAT is a good point.

Remember a really long time ago when the Oculus company contemplated giving away Rifts for free or something? Hmmm...

What you said is absolutely right, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they actually did do something as a sort of return.

avatar

wolfing

This is all stupid. Those who put money in the kickstarter got exactly what they pledged for. Had them not delivered the goods I could see the case for a 'refund' (even though it's not legally guaranteed in kickstarters terms of usage). But pledgers got their development kit and whatever other 'swag' they paid for. Plain and simple.

I wonder if the backlash had been the same if instead of Facebook it was Valve who purchased Oculus? I'm sure it wouldn't. Double standards anyone?

avatar

Eoraptor

Would there be the same outpouring of anger if it had been valve? probably not. but then, valve and occulus have many of the same goals in common, similar mindsets, and a common goal; openource gaming and environments.

Facebook, on the other hand, has no interest in this boat aside from the wood it is made of and the public interest it will serve to drive up their stock prices.

And no, NOT all the "pledges" have been completed or fulfilled yet, which is part of the uproar.

avatar

Rogue74

This is exactly why I've never backed anything on Kickstarter. I would be shocked if they gave the money back. More likely they will laugh about it while driving their new Ferraris.

avatar

SuperSATA

So true. So unfortunately true.

avatar

Tecnoc22

Backing a Kickstarter campaign is in no way an investment, but simply donating to an interesting project or buying a product that has yet to be made. Backers have no say in what a company does as long as the promises of the Kickstarter get fulfilled.

Why was there no outcry for refunds after Oculus raised $16 million within the first year after the Kickstarter campaign, or the $75 million they raised in the 6 months after that? Everyone is upset this time simply because of their hatred of Facebook.

I don't particularly like Facebook, but the involvement of a large corporation was probably inevitable. Having an essentially unlimited supply of capital will allow Oculus to hire the people they need and allow them better access to the parts they need. This may allow them to create a higher quality product at a better price point.

While Facebook wouldn't be my first choice for the corporation to step in, I do think it will greatly benefit Oculus and the widespread adoption of VR. And if it doesn't work out with Oculus there has been enough interest demonstrated that there will surly be other companies to take their place to create a good VR headset.

avatar

Meat_Juice

Capitalist pigs.

avatar

Fabulousprizes

People fail to realize the article is saying this would be the right thing to do, because the 2 million is a drop in the bucket when compared to 2 billion. The point is that the people invested in it for rewards. Not only would it be extremely difficult to give refunds. It wouldn't help them in any way whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that without them raising 2M through kickstarter it probably would never of been bought by FB. People just see FB and don't see past that. I don't know if anyone was aware but they've been trying to sell the company or part of it all along. They went on Dragons Den and tried to sell it and basically bundled it with a treadmill. They couldn't get any interest whatsoever, they all said. To big, to expensive what wife would let that in the house? People need to realize the more funding it has the better the product will, be. Because it's not going into R and D it's more or less all going into Engineering the device itself.

avatar

Baer

No, not just give the money back, Give the Kick starter investors their percentage of the payout. Just like any investor they are due a piece of the pie.
I smell a class action here!

Also, the last thing any of us want it to see a thumbs up like me on FB showing up on your O R screen.

avatar

Peanut Fox

Kickstarter isn't an investment. No project is, and it's very clear about that.

avatar

joshy2000

Should Occulus pay back the kickstarter? Sure, if they want to. They don't have to. but which one of you on this site will say no when FB comes knocking on your door with $2B for your company... 99.99999% of you will sell without a second thought. So they sold out to FB, people will still end up buying the occulus if it becomes commercialized. Get over yourself and move on. The only way to get back at FB is not to support their products, not grumble about it on the outside, yet secretly continue to use their products.

avatar

SliceAndDice

You win some and you lose some. This reminds me of when the iPhone was released for $600 and 2 months later the price dropped to $400 (after Apple's overhead was cleared) and then people began screaming that it wasn't fair that they paid more than someone else for the same thing. I think most of us have bought something and then it goes on sale days later. Kickstarter investor should be glad that they initially believed in and funded what might possibly be a future platform of computing. Their reward for their investment is knowing that they the foresight to back a winning platform before anyone believed in it. Their money lead to this acquisition and shouldn't be refunded.

avatar

Bucket_Monster

I don't know. You could look at from the perspective that if they never got kickstarted, the project would have never seen the light of day. Kickstarter basically set the wheels in motion and yes Facebook bought it, but would it have even been there to buy without Kickstarter? Seems like Kickstarter was more of a springboard to get the project up and running. Now, whether they actually needed the money from Facebook to keep going is another story.

avatar

Ale

Is the right thing to do and you got 2B dollars and 400m of those are in cash! just give back the 2.5m that are nothing compared to what you recently got and be fair and don't start the the FB as scumbags, Ok you sold out, is 2 fucking billion dollars I would do the same but I will repay the people that allowed me to get the 2B, if no kickstarted and no people this guys would't have this 2B now.

Is like you ask a friends to lend you money to make the business of your dreams and once you get rich with that business you try to forget your debt and don't pay back. Its nothing compared to the value of the be a gentleman, easy as pie, pay you come out as a gentleman, don't pay come out as a filthy scumbag.

Just have to pay 0.125% of the 2B (is just a 1/4 of 1%) is ridiculous. its just "change" pocket money for them.

avatar

dorkish

you mean facebook should pay back the original investors? ya I see that happening, well maybe if he can make a buck off it :)

avatar

TommM

The sailboat analogy was goofy and frankly, unnecessary. We get Kickstarter and what it's all about and what the dynamics are with Facebook cutting a check for 2 billion dollars for a Kickstarter project.

I think those folks who invested in the Kickstarter fund have every right to feel "betrayed," and have no problems seeing them get a refund or some sort of special rights guarantee at this stage.

avatar

Logun

Kickstarter is not an investment tool. People who give money to projects are purchasing a tangible deliverable.

I understand from Notch's perspective that if he wanted to develop Minecraft for Facebook then he would have done so already. Since he does not want to affiliate MC with FB then he is no longer going down the road of developing it for OR either.

If people want to invest in these companies they need to contact them directly and ask what kind of stake they would be willing to give you for your $10 - $10,000. You more than likely would not receive a Dev kit as an investor. You would need to buy it when it comes out - same as everyone else. However you would be entitled to financial compensation depending upon the success of the company and your investment agreement with them.

Kickstarter allows a company to say "Hey! We're building/creating *this* - do you want to be one of the first people to get one?". In turn **CUSTOMERS** can then place an ORDER to buy whatever it is they are selling. Yes some of the tiers allow you to purchase nothing more than gratitude and thank-yous.

All said and done - I do not agree with OR's decision to sell the company before completing their Kickstarter obligations. BUT - people are making Kickstarter out to be something WAY more than it really is.

IMO

avatar

Hey.That_Dude

I don't like that Facebook has it's hand on this. Plain and simple. This is going to come down to "You just did really well on this game! Wanna share it on Facebook?"

avatar

Innomasta

Kind of agree with Cliff Blezsinski on this one. Think it will turn out alright. A big company like Facebook can give Oculus all the funds it could need. The question on everyone's mind is the amount of autonomy they will be given. It sucks for those who donated on kickstarter, but the finished product could be that much better from this acquisiton. (Hopefully)

avatar

kiaghi7

In this case, since there is no real precedent to go upon, I say let it be, as much as I vehemently despise Mark Fu(%erburg...

However, future kickstarters and the like should be "sold" on a "shareholder" basis given that the individuals buying in are literally investing in the future of the product being pitched.

That way scum like Fu(%erburg couldn't make advances on such efforts without first getting approval from a majority of the holders as well as compensating THEM not the developer being invested in by the collective investors.

It is the investors getting royally screwed over here, and while they have no legal leg to stand on in this instance, they certainly should be provided a modicum of security in at least a shared value in the venture, whether it succeeds or fails.