Oculus Grift: Kickstarter As Charity For Venture Capitalists

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If you are one of the people upset about Facebook buying Oculus Rift, just remember that John Carmack is a Facebook employee now...that should cheer you up. ;)

There is a standing presumption when one backs a Kickstarter project: you may lose your money. But there's a new—or at least now proven—angle to consider, in light of Facebook's acquisition of the virtual reality company Oculus: people may use your money to make a lot more money without ever properly starting a successful company in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
The problem is Kickstarter doesn't work like people want it to work. They delivered the DK1 and other rewards to the backers and that is where their obligation ended. That's the reality. What people seem to want is a share in the company and for them to forever be a small indy company that only does KS projects.
 
Seems like kickstarted can be a real screw you method of taking people's money. While some projects are cool there seems to be many more that are just bad. I think it would make more sense to have a kickstarter where you actually hold some equity in the start-up instead of it being strait-up charity, even if you're a lower level class of share.
 
KickStarter can basically be boiled down to this: "Pre-ordering a product that does not yet even exist." As such, it's hard to call it anything other than a scam for fools.

There are so many issues to deal including: will the product ever get made, will it be delivered to you on time, and will the product advertised actually be what you get. Kickstarter backers are essentially gullible guinea pigs. *IF* you want something from KickStarter, wait until someone else has backed it honestly. Less risk to you.
 
I think this is more of a risk of hardware companies (especially new ones) or funding a software utility/productivity project ... however, as long as you get what you paid for then who cares ... it is no different than going to a craft fair and seeing some interesting trinket you want and buying it in advance ... if you get your trinket then your transaction is complete (if the trinket manufacturer decides to sell out to the Mega Reciprocating Widget Corporation the next day that is their business and not yours) ... only if they fail to deliver what was promised to you would there be a cause for concern ;)
 
dagamer34 said:
KickStarter can basically be boiled down to this: "Pre-ordering a product that does not yet even exist." As such, it's hard to call it anything other than a scam for fools.

There are so many issues to deal including: will the product ever get made, will it be delivered to you on time, and will the product advertised actually be what you get. Kickstarter backers are essentially gullible guinea pigs. *IF* you want something from KickStarter, wait until someone else has backed it honestly. Less risk to you.
Click to expand...

On the hardware side I would agree but some of the software projects or game projects are pretty esoteric or niche and might not get made if you have to wait ... as with anything you should weigh the value of what you want to buy with the risk or pain of not buying it ... if you have the money to spare and the product is interesting then dive in

I have only backed three projects so far (all PC games) and am happy to date ... one is in Alpha (and I have enjoyed playing the Alpha so far) ... the other two are still in development but the second should enter Alpha later this year) ... at least one of these projects (Grim Dawn) might not have been made were it not for KS
 
If you're at the pre-order level, that's one thing (actual cost of the product). But there are those putting in thousands of dollars of absolutely free funding. Not smart, IMHO.

Maybe I should Kickstart an indy game venture capital company, where it actually invests and hopes to get paid back, rather than just throwing money at them. ;)
 
TwistedAegis said:
If you're at the pre-order level, that's one thing (actual cost of the product). But there are those putting in thousands of dollars of absolutely free funding. Not smart, IMHO.

Maybe I should Kickstart an indy game venture capital company, where it actually invests and hopes to get paid back, rather than just throwing money at them. ;)
Click to expand...

An idea like that could actually hold some promise ... microloans have revolutionized the developing world ... maybe micro-venture capital is the next frontier ... they would likely need to be much more tightly targeted than regular VC though (the PC RPG fund, the PS4 Shooter fund, PC hardware fund, etc)
 
TwistedAegis said:
If you're at the pre-order level, that's one thing (actual cost of the product). But there are those putting in thousands of dollars of absolutely free funding. Not smart, IMHO.

Maybe I should Kickstart an indy game venture capital company, where it actually invests and hopes to get paid back, rather than just throwing money at them. ;)
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. It would be like investing in penny stocks. I wonder how many people would sing-up for a situation like that. How much would the VC company own etc.. Lots of negotiation.

We have a local brewery about to open that was funded by kickstarted. They offered some nice perks, but again, it's charity. I wonder what the tax consequences are?
 
I think the purpose of Kickstarter was to provide a possible avenue for people who are willing to give their money away with no expectations of any return. Before Kickstarter, I frequently had moments where when I saw an idea that I thought was good I was very much willing to donate money to give someone who had a possible fighting chance / the tools / the power to do something but lacked the funds (as being the only thing holding them back). Ever since Kickstarter, this feeling has went away because Kickstarter provides that ability for anyone. I think it is common sense that once you give money on Kickstarter expect nothing, only hope that your contribution makes a difference and the project succeeds. If it doesn't succeed, that was already expected and is a given.
 
Personally, I think preordering is retarded, yet alone kickstarter. If there is a market for the product, there are plenty of ways to get financial backing. Its called loans or venture capitalism, and it measures the risk/reward ratio with plenty of investigation, which most kickstarter supporters don't do.

Especially retarded is when you have multi-millionaires setting up kickstarters, rather than use their own money.
 
I think Facebook purchase it's great for the product. If you got the dev kit, you got to be in the ground breaking new hardware platform. Without Kickstarter this kind of product may never be produced.

The money they have available now is staggering. They can have manufactures lining up to develop custom parts for them at this point. Something that was impossible before.
 
ol1bit said:
I think Facebook purchase it's great for the product. If you got the dev kit, you got to be in the ground breaking new hardware platform. Without Kickstarter this kind of product may never be produced.

The money they have available now is staggering. They can have manufactures lining up to develop custom parts for them at this point. Something that was impossible before.
Click to expand...

And now you can have a VR headset to chat on Facebook with and get served ads and have your info sold! Everyone wins!

Except the people who wanted the damn thing in the first place.


FB is just about the worst buyer...all these bizarre buyouts of overvalued products at ridiculous sums of money speaks of idiocy at the top. Idiocy at the top is never "great for a product"
 
The amount of outrage and pouting over this whole VR goggles sellout is totally hilarious. No one got betrayed. They got their toys from the company and now the company's owners did the whole capitalist thing and got rich off misplaced, shortsighted enthusiasm over a thing that was like doomed to fail anyhow. The founders knew their stuff was never going to sell and the company was never going to be successful so they kept the scam going for as long as it took to sell everything in exchange for a lifetime of moolahs.

To top it all off, that John Carmikle guy got like a new job at a successful company since the PC gaming thing is really coming to an end anyhow by using his past infatuation with VR as a way to appear interested in this new thingey to get into the company just before it made a hugenormous deal. He totally made the right decisions at the right time using the last bits of the PC gaming industry to launch himself into social networking that isn't as close to dying off.

Honestly, I'm just happy to not have to hear about how that company is going to release this or that thing when we all knew it was just going to totally die again like the last time VR was for sale. It's just like 3D movies and TVs that keep coming back from the grave.

Also, Kickstarter has always been scammy and iffy. Giving money to someone to get a trinket when it maybe gets made? Seriously, it doesn't take an old wise man oracle to tell you how bad of an idea that can be.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
It's just like 3D movies and TVs that keep coming back from the grave.
Click to expand...

Well, they keep coming back, or in this case staying on in the fringes, because there IS a niche market for them. Mainstream adoption maybe not, but niche markets are famous for overpaying for the gadgets, gizmos, and fads they seek to indulge in.

The case is similar with the OR, there is a substantial (though not majority) cross section of gamers who are willing to pay the price of a new console for a pair of VR goggles that address most of the issues that previous iterations have had. I happen to be one of those people. I would comfortably state that most of those people are hardware enthusiasts and/or hardcore gamers.

This Facebook acquisition appeals to neither group, and mainstream adoption of this device is unlikely, for really a myriad of reasons.

As a niche device marketed to a small specific subset of people, it had a much greater chance of success, IMHO. If mainstream adoption was a possibility, it would be these people who could make it a reality, by demoing it to friends and families on PCs powerful enough for a great experience.

The primary concern then with the acquisition by Facebook, as I read it, is that of unnecessary compromise to try to make the device appeal to a mass market which is pretty unlikely to be interested.

As for the rest, yea, capitalism happened. The fact that many feel that backing a kickstarter is synonymous with investing in a company has a been a rather common misunderstanding with the funding structure.
 
ol1bit said:
Without Kickstarter this kind of product may never be produced.
Click to expand...
Not true, VR is only a matter of time and Oculus wanted first dibs on the big prize... they have some attention now but the actual final product is still yet to be seen, and Sony or MS or some other company may still beat them to it, especially now.
 
I'd be a good show if Oculus decided to give production models to all backers (equal footing of course, $5 backer .. Not so much) when available. It's not like that would happen but it'd be nice.

This is why I can't be a publicly owned company CEO. I'm less motivated by greed and more motivated by remembering the people who helped launch the idea (backers, employees).
 
Capitalism, it's a beautiful thing. Crowdfunding is just another way to raise capital and in the history of commerce there's been more than a few investors that have either felt stiffed or that were truly conned.
 
ol1bit said:
I think Facebook purchase it's great for the product. If you got the dev kit, you got to be in the ground breaking new hardware platform. Without Kickstarter this kind of product may never be produced.

The money they have available now is staggering. They can have manufactures lining up to develop custom parts for them at this point. Something that was impossible before.
Click to expand...

I agree that this product probably wouldn't have got off the ground without Kickstarter and I don't mind them selling the product to a large company. A large company acquiring the product will greatly increase the chances of making it successful(theoretically at least, sometimes they just screw it up). It just sucks that the large company is Facebook.
 
Spidey329 said:
I'd be a good show if Oculus decided to give production models to all backers (equal footing of course, $5 backer .. Not so much) when available. It's not like that would happen but it'd be nice.

This is why I can't be a publicly owned company CEO. I'm less motivated by greed and more motivated by remembering the people who helped launch the idea (backers, employees).
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen. I think backers at the DK1 level or better may get to pre-order the CV1 and maybe get a small discount. We paid to get the DK1 made, no more. I've been really happy with my DK1, looking forward to DK2 and eventually CV1 as well. KS isn't an investment, clearly some people need some large reminders of this.
 
There's unfortunately almost no way for John Q Public to invest in a venture capital firm. Not without having a fat wallet to begin with. So while that's the vehicle that would, in theory, allow you to invest in a high risk start up, good luck actually being able to invest in one. And you'd have no control over the direction of the VCF as a small investor either.

Bottom line, any money "spent" on a KS project should be considered money you're willing to lose. While I hate that FB bought Oculus, it is how it is.
 
I don't get why people are hating on Kickstarter so much. If this is how people are reacting to putting money into something with 0 guarantee then that's your problem, not Kickstarter's. I just think it's more annoying that Facebook (out of all companies..) are going to or at least planning on buying this project/company..
 
Youn said:
Not true, VR is only a matter of time
Click to expand...
I guess I'm dating myself, but VR was a failed technology launch that was going to be the "next big thing" when I was in highschool back in the 90s. They had all these demos etc...

Turns out that people experienced severe effects from prolonged use, where on a driving test course they performed even worse than drunks behind the wheel, apparently because of the temporary hand-eye disconnect experience.

Others also felt nauseous, to the point where peeps were blowing chunks after playing for a long time, for the same reason many people can't look down and read a book in a moving car.

Because of those combined issues, and perhaps the weight and expense of the little LCDs back in the day, VR goggles were a complete and total flop.
 
Ducman69 said:
I guess I'm dating myself, but VR was a failed technology launch that was going to be the "next big thing" when I was in highschool back in the 90s. They had all these demos etc...

Turns out that people experienced severe effects from prolonged use, where on a driving test course they performed even worse than drunks behind the wheel, apparently because of the temporary hand-eye disconnect experience.

Others also felt nauseous, to the point where peeps were blowing chunks after playing for a long time, for the same reason many people can't look down and read a book in a moving car.

Because of those combined issues, and perhaps the weight and expense of the little LCDs back in the day, VR goggles were a complete and total flop.
Click to expand...

The difference is very clear though. The technology available back then made it completely unfeasible. I really wanted to buy a pair of VR goggles back when they were first being introduced but the resolution was like 640x480 or something. Now we have manufacturers squeezing 1440p displays into 5" screens.
 
So what? If higher resolution is the only thing that's changed in the like 20 years since this dumb stuff last didn't sell, it's still not going to sell now and since there's a huge backlash at the company, there's now the "sensitive entitled gamer/kickstarter boy" problem to overcome.
 
Higher resolution isn't the only thing that's changed; but that is a pretty large change in and of itself. Does anyone remember the "VR" helmet that was only in red back in the late 80's/early 90's?
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
So what? If higher resolution is the only thing that's changed in the like 20 years since this dumb stuff last didn't sell, it's still not going to sell now and since there's a huge backlash at the company, there's now the "sensitive entitled gamer/kickstarter boy" problem to overcome.
Click to expand...



TwistedAegis said:
Higher resolution isn't the only thing that's changed; but that is a pretty large change in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Everything comes leaps and bounds, the resolution is just what I consider to be the most important. Everything from motion tracking to 3D support has come a long way.
 
I think what would make this more "ok" is if backers were treated like the millionaires who backed the project after us. You think facebook just gave Oculus 2 billion? No, they own a piece (or more respectfully they own the whole piece). Yet when you back something on kickstarter you own nothing. Why is that? I think all kickstarter projects should come with a clause that the backers all own stock in the product if it goes further.
 
Ducman69 said:
I guess I'm dating myself, but VR was a failed technology launch that was going to be the "next big thing" when I was in highschool back in the 90s. They had all these demos etc...

Turns out that people experienced severe effects from prolonged use, where on a driving test course they performed even worse than drunks behind the wheel, apparently because of the temporary hand-eye disconnect experience.

Others also felt nauseous, to the point where peeps were blowing chunks after playing for a long time, for the same reason many people can't look down and read a book in a moving car.

Because of those combined issues, and perhaps the weight and expense of the little LCDs back in the day, VR goggles were a complete and total flop.
Click to expand...

I remember the same things being said about the iPad when it was first announced. "Tablets are nothing new"... "Microsoft already tried this years ago"

Bottom line: The tech just wasn't there yet in the past incarnations of "VR". And I'd probably agree with the obtuse comparisons to 3DTV fad coming and going, had I not actually experienced playing with my friends DK1 for many hours and wanting MORE of it.
 
Skripka said:
FB is just about the worst buyer...all these bizarre buyouts of overvalued products at ridiculous sums of money speaks of idiocy at the top. Idiocy at the top is never "great for a product"
Click to expand...

so start your own company and show us all how you're right and all these idiots at the top are wrong.

i'm going to hold my breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top