Oculus Kickstarter Backers Are Demanding Refunds

[Fred Castellum]

Welp it begins! Backers are starting to demand refunds, unfortunately its not a investment so they don't have the right to demand and receive a refund.

 

Your donating when you back a kickstarter project!

 

SOURCE: http://kotaku.com/oculus-kickstarter-backers-are-demanding-refunds-1552041702?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

[beebskadoo]

It keeps getting better and better.

 

Love to watch em suffer!

[Zeke]

Isn't the whole point of Kickstarter is donation? Hell, you even don't have to get your reward!

[WiiManic]

Pretty sure that its a donation towards the idea.

 

They got the thing they paid for (DK1), and the dream is still going.

Arguably, with the injected FBook money, the dream will be realised earlier as it lets them do more.

This is all so silly.

[Jaybird]

Interesting read by I still stand by my conclusion that if you are being back by nearly 10,000 people. you kinda owe it to those people to see what they think is the best decision. while I dont think most peoples decisions are right it still can give you a firm grasp on where your community stands. and obviously this one doesnt stand with facebook. 

[Mistgrim]

Sometimes i wonder if facebook is actually a giant troll 

[DeViLzzz]

Oculus Kickstarter backers simply just don't buy future products from Faceboculus. I know I will be keeping a watchful eye on the alternatives and hopefully they can kill off Faceboculus.

[dragosudeki]

I would've preferred them selling to a different tech giant. FB doesn't really appeal to me and I'm unsure if they would even help it grow. I would've preferred them go to Google though.

[Jeroen1322]

I'm really really really sad that such a tragedy has happened... Facebook takes over WatsApp.. OK but OCULUS?! 

 

[btg0002]

Oculus Kickstarter backers simply just don't buy future products from Faceboculus. I know I will be keeping a watchful eye on the alternatives and hopefully they can kill off Faceboculus.

I like the "Faceboculus" moniker. It sounds like an STD

[Vitalius]

Sometimes i wonder if facebook is actually a giant troll 

I would've preferred them selling to a different tech giant. FB doesn't really appeal to me and I'm unsure if they would even help it grow. I would've preferred them go to Google though.

Basically, they are. Buying things so others can't have them. They want to monetize your "everything". That's why people hate them, and rightfully so.

This is interesting though.

[sand0oski]

I'll know Oculus is done when John Carmack leaves.  As of now they are still a niche and enthusiast company, and they are becoming less trusted by that demographic(myself included).  I worry that they may bail on us if they don't see many sales and become the Beats by Dre of VR wear.

[LAwLz]

They are not entitled to getting their money back, but what Palmer did is pretty unethical and I can totally understand them feeling betrayed.

It's kind of like finding out the people behind The Red Cross are having huge parties that cost a ton of money. Sure you did donate money to the organization, but you didn't think the money would go towards that.

[Lays]

[tboxy]

Good for them, they deserve their money back

[Derangel]

They are not entitled to getting their money back, but what Palmer did is pretty unethical and I can totally understand them feeling betrayed.

It's kind of like finding out the people behind The Red Cross are having huge parties that cost a ton of money. Sure you did donate money to the organization, but you didn't think the money would go towards that.

 

How is it unethical? The money they got from the Kickstarter was NOTHING compared to what they actually needed to operate. The 2-3mil they got from Kickstarter was probably spent before they even sent out the first DK1 unit. Oculus has been relying 100% on Venture Capitalists for a long time now and even with them begging for money from VCs they have only brought in $100 million. With the kind of money they actually need to get this stuff off the ground in any meaningful way they were going to be bought by someone, no matter what. VCs wouldn't last forever, especially when you consider that VR tech is a long term thing. Facebook themselves have stated that they don't expect to make a profit on the hardware and VCs are entirely about making their investment back multiple times over. Would you rather Oculus risk dying before they got to release a retail unit? VCs are notoriously fickle and will bail at the smallest sign of things going south with zero regard to what that will mean for the company they invested in or if that sign actually means anything. The list of other tech companies with the ability to spend this kind of money up front, the hundreds of millions needed for Oculus to develop their own hardware, the hundreds of millions more needed to get volume discounts on said hardware in order to release an affordable consumer device, and however much else they need to actually finish developing the thing is not very big. We're talking Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and possibly Microsoft. Not a single one of them is exactly a great option, though the first three are BY FAR better choices than Apple or MS. So tell me this: What is more "unethical" risking the company on fickle money or taking a damn good offer from a company that is investing heavily in open tech and the future? The purchase is also probably backed by an agreement dictating specific terms for how Oculus will operate.

[LAwLz]

How is it unethical? The money they got from the Kickstarter was NOTHING compared to what they actually needed to operate. The 2-3mil they got from Kickstarter was probably spent before they even sent out the first DK1 unit. Oculus has been relying 100% on Venture Capitalists for a long time now and even with them begging for money from VCs they have only brought in $100 million. With the kind of money they actually need to get this stuff off the ground in any meaningful way they were going to be bought by someone, no matter what. VCs wouldn't last forever, especially when you consider that VR tech is a long term thing. Facebook themselves have stated that they don't expect to make a profit on the hardware and VCs are entirely about making their investment back multiple times over. Would you rather Oculus risk dying before they got to release a retail unit? VCs are notoriously fickle and will bail at the smallest sign of things going south with zero regard to what that will mean for the company they invested in or if that sign actually means anything. The list of other tech companies with the ability to spend this kind of money up front, the hundreds of millions needed for Oculus to develop their own hardware, the hundreds of millions more needed to get volume discounts on said hardware in order to release an affordable consumer device, and however much else they need to actually finish developing the thing is not very big. We're talking Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and possibly Microsoft. Not a single one of them is exactly a great option, though the first three are BY FAR better choices than Apple or MS. So tell me this: What is more "unethical" risking the company on fickle money or taking a damn good offer from a company that is investing heavily in open tech and the future? The purchase is also probably backed by an agreement dictating specific terms for how Oculus will operate.

Well look at my example. Yes donations are donations. They didn't buy shares in the company or anything like that. A lot of people donated because it was an independent startup though, and these people feel betrayed that their money now went to Facebook. Can't you see why people get pissed off about this? They donated their money into something they thought would be a good cause, only to see their enemy steal the company away.

Since it seems like a lot of people here like Facebook for some reason, imagine this instead. Imagine if EA bought Star Citizen and then started talking about adding a bunch of micro transactions, ads, social features etc. Wouldn't you feel betrayed? That was not what you thought the money you donated would go towards. This is the same deal. People donated money expecting a really cool VR headset made by some young kid with a great idea, and now their money will be used to create 3D ads, backdoors, spyware and other things.

I think that is unethical.

There is no other way of putting it, Palmer sold out.

[techswede]

From the kickstarter terms of use

Kickstarter does not offer refunds. A Project Creator is not required to grant a Backer’s request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable or unwilling to fulfill the reward.

Unfortunately for the backers. Oculus/Facebook don't have any legal requirements to refund any of them...

[JohnnyGrey]

I just saw this on their Kickstarter page, and got a kick out of it:

 

 

This should be changed to "Is Facebook."

 

Here's some food for thought. At 9,522 backers, Facebook is paying the equivalent of $210,040 per backer. You spend some money hoping to contribute to the dream of bringing VR mainstream, and two years later, they turned your $300 into $200,000, and all you got for it was an obsolete development kit, and some random swag.

 

When the retail version gets released, they should send a full retail kit out to every original backer, as a token of gratitude for what they have started.

 

I understand it's a donation, and you have gotten what you paid for, but it's still hard not to feel "used."

[Derangel]

Well look at my example. Yes donations are donations. They didn't buy shares in the company or anything like that. A lot of people donated because it was an independent startup though, and these people feel betrayed that their money now went to Facebook. Can't you see why people get pissed off about this? They donated their money into something they thought would be a good cause, only to see their enemy steal the company away.

Since it seems like a lot of people here like Facebook for some reason, imagine this instead. Imagine if EA bought Star Citizen and then started talking about adding a bunch of micro transactions, ads, social features etc. Wouldn't you feel betrayed? That was not what you thought the money you donated would go towards. This is the same deal. People donated money expecting a really cool VR headset made by some young kid with a great idea, and now their money will be used to create 3D ads, backdoors, spyware and other things.

I think that is unethical.

There is no other way of putting it, Palmer sold out.

 

To put it bluntly: The Rift would be nothing more than a novelty gaming device without big pockets behind it. Oculus' dreams and the dreams of gamers would fade to dust and we would have yet another Novint Falcon. People seem to be ignoring the dangers of VCs. Oculus is in a much better and more stable financial situation now. Now they have a single overlord, Facebook, where as before EVERY SINGLE VC they took money from could make demands. VCs can be great for start ups, but for emerging tech it is a huge risk. People can feel how they want but you and everyone else also need to take a step back and realize there is no such thing as a good option here. Either they're at the whim of a big "evil" company or they're at the whim of multiple VCs that may or may not stick around. This is the best solution for the survival of their business and as the head of said business it is Palmer's duty to see that they do survive. The real world sucks sometimes, but this isn't some fantasy land where a company like Oculus can pull in a few billion dollars based on the good will of gamers.

 

I have exactly $0 invested in Star Citizen so no I would not feel at all betrayed. I would wonder how the hell EA managed to afford to buy the company considering their current financial issues and the growing value of the game however. Facebook isn't talking about adding any of that stuff though. In fact they are doing the exact opposite. Every person involved in the deal is talking about Oculus continuing to operate normally only with stable financial backing. The Facebook website itself is something we can kind of ignore for the moment when it comes to this. FB buying Oculus is clearly not about Facebook as it stands right now but what Facebook and VR tech will be in the future. This isn't a purchase for short term profit, it's a long term investment. Zuckerberg and co seem to be very interested in the future of technology and getting in on it. I highly doubt they're looking at the Rift and going "How can we make this access Facebook right now", that would be a waste of the current money and everything they are going to spend developing it. This is one of those cases where I think people just need to take off the blinders for a bit and wait and watch to see what happens. Of all the companies I listed previously Facebook is the only one I could see "getting it" and leaving Oculus alone for now, they're not going to throw $2b on them if they don't believe in what they are doing.

[Stefan Becker]

I actuallt feel a little sorry for Oculus. I understand, that people are pissed, but Facebook has an immense amount of money. Maybe we could get a consumer version sooner? All we can do is hope now - I am certainly.

[LAwLz]

To put it bluntly: The Rift would be nothing more than a novelty gaming device without big pockets behind it. Oculus' dreams and the dreams of gamers would fade to dust and we would have yet another Novint Falcon. People seem to be ignoring the dangers of VCs. Oculus is in a much better and more stable financial situation now. Now they have a single overlord, Facebook, where as before EVERY SINGLE VC they took money from could make demands. VCs can be great for start ups, but for emerging tech it is a huge risk. People can feel how they want but you and everyone else also need to take a step back and realize there is no such thing as a good option here. Either they're at the whim of a big "evil" company or they're at the whim of multiple VCs that may or may not stick around. This is the best solution for the survival of their business and as the head of said business it is Palmer's duty to see that they do survive. The real world sucks sometimes, but this isn't some fantasy land where a company like Oculus can pull in a few billion dollars based on the good will of gamers.

When did I say anything that contradicted this exactly? Something can make sense and be unethical at the same time. From a business point of view then sure, being bought by Facebook was the best option. Best business decision is rarely what's best for the customers though. He sold out and people feel betrayed, for good reasons.

 

 

I have exactly $0 invested in Star Citizen so no I would not feel at all betrayed. I would wonder how the hell EA managed to afford to buy the company considering their current financial issues and the growing value of the game however. Facebook isn't talking about adding any of that stuff though. In fact they are doing the exact opposite. Every person involved in the deal is talking about Oculus continuing to operate normally only with stable financial backing. The Facebook website itself is something we can kind of ignore for the moment when it comes to this. FB buying Oculus is clearly not about Facebook as it stands right now but what Facebook and VR tech will be in the future. This isn't a purchase for short term profit, it's a long term investment. Zuckerberg and co seem to be very interested in the future of technology and getting in on it. I highly doubt they're looking at the Rift and going "How can we make this access Facebook right now", that would be a waste of the current money and everything they are going to spend developing it. This is one of those cases where I think people just need to take off the blinders for a bit and wait and watch to see what happens. Of all the companies I listed previously Facebook is the only one I could see "getting it" and leaving Oculus alone for now, they're not going to throw $2b on them if they don't believe in what they are doing.

So you can't even imagine what something like that would feel like unless you have experienced it yourself?

Facebook (or to be more precise, Zuckerberg) have talked about adding ads, social features and shopping virtual goods (read: micro transactions) for the Oculus Rift. He said so in a meeting with the shareholders (we have access to a recording of the meeting if you're interesting). Stop trying to brush that under the rug and pretend like everything will stay the same. Sure they won't change everything overnight, but if we don't complain then they will slowly turn Oculus into shit. If nobody complained then I am sure we would have not only ads but mandatory Facebook login, a ton of backdoors, spyware etc in the Oculus Rift 10 years from now. Zuckerberg's vision for the future of Oculus (which he talked about during the conference call with shareholders) is not the future me and many other people envisioned. If buying the Oculus Rift gen 1 means helping Zuckerberg ruin gen 2 and 3, then I won't buy it. I would rather see Oculus Rift die quickly than see it die a slow and painful death (or even worse, become shit and still be popular for some reason, like a cancer tumor that just won't go away).

 

You are basically asking me to trust the person who called people who trust him "dumb fucks". Yeah... I won't do that. Zuckerberg is a slimy bastard and Oculus deserves all the shit they get for selling out if you ask me.

[miyabwah]

I knew people were mad about this? But seriously? They're acting like Facebook is stealing your cheetos.

[Misanthrope]

I knew people were mad about this? But seriously? They're acting like Facebook is stealing your cheetos.

 

Not stealing just taking a shit on them:

 

[Crion]

Now that I've calmed down over the initial shock, I'm not as ticked off over this anymore.  I still think that this has the potential to ruin the Rift, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the time being.  Facebook can definitely help the project along but it will be dead the moment they start trying to slap ads everywhere or require Facebook integration.