Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 369 posts

Re: Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version

#121

Post by avar »

noonespecial wrote: post #119
avar wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean there aren't any laws? You hand people money in exchange for their non-legally binding vague promises. This model of exchange has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. Legally speaking Kickstarter is nothing new. If I meet someone on the street that promises me to try out some new idea and I give them money the courts aren't going to give me any more credence than someone who handed a $…

In that reguard, its the same thing it's always been. A gift. Reciprocity is not required by law, only common decency. The new about kickstarter is it seems we're looking for something more than a gift, less than a regulated investment and not quite a sale. That's novel.

Maybe you're looking for something more than a gift, but are you actually entitled to more than that? Are you a shareholder in these companies than you fund through Kickstarter? I think not.

So why do you think you have any rights beyond someone who's donating money to a cause that may never pan out?

It's perfectly fine to fund something through Kickstarter, but for some reason it seems that some people doing it think they're entering into a deal that isn't really there.

Generally when you give money through Kickstarter you're giving it away without any string attached, only if the company pans out might you actually get some small gift, not a share of the profit.

What's so hard to understand about that? The model's fine. The problem is that for some reason people donating to it think of themselves as shareholders, not donors.

Re: Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version

#122

Post by cookiecaper »

elohesra wrote: post #22
enraged_camel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I doubt the issue is Facebook 'creeping [him] out' I think that's very much the issue. Seriously, "virtual reality" and "Facebook" are two things I don't want to think about in the same context. The former is an extremely promising piece of technology that can change the way people work, talk and play. The latter is a gigantic online advertising engine. Put them together and there's only one direction virtual reali…

Okay, let me play devil's advocate: Perhaps Facebook are thinking "What's the one thing that could truly set us apart from all other social media sites, and place a prohibitively high barrier to entry on this otherwise very easy to enter field?", and perhaps the conclusion they've reached is to take social media to the next level, and have it simulate life in virtual reality. Perhaps Facebook are going to aim to have…

Most likely will be firmware-level integration. Social media companies, and Facebook most of all, are about engagement, which means making it easy to use Facebook from every platform possible. Having your head inside an immersive virtual reality just put people too far from Facebook I'm guessing, so the new FB Oculus will have a stream from your newsfeed that the firmware kindly muxes into your display at all times. :)

Google does this same thing with Android and other pervasive Google platforms and services. Why is Google making a phone? So that you use Google services a lot more than you otherwise would, which gives them the opportunity not only to drive up their search and traffic numbers, but collect a lot of data that is useful in targeting advertisements.

I agree that it's hard to think of any product tie-in with FB's extant line that wouldn't be disgusting. The only safe way to think of it is as a portfolio piece -- Facebook just wants to be associated with the next revolutionary name in computer input technology. It's hard to believe that it is so innocuous, though, and Zuck seems to put that idea to bed in his announcement.

Re: Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version

#123

Post by varkson »

benched wrote: post #67

I hope that this illustrates for some that the distaste over this deal is more than a few "irrational" / cynical malcontents on Hacker News. A lot of people have a serious problem with Facebook the service, the cultural shift, and the company. On another note, I was so looking forward to Minecraft on Oculus. I sincerely hope that Valve picks up the torch here.

Notch is an irrational / cynical malcontent, exactly the same as the people on HN. I wouldn't be surprised if he frequents here.

Re: Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version

#124

Post by amirmc »

XorNot wrote: post #40
elohesra wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, let me play devil's advocate: Perhaps Facebook are thinking "What's the one thing that could truly set us apart from all other social media sites, and place a prohibitively high barrier to entry on this otherwise very easy to enter field?", and perhaps the conclusion they've reached is to take social media to the next level, and have it simulate life in virtual reality. Perhaps Facebook are going to aim to have…

It'll fail. The hard lesson over the coming decade or 2 is going to be that UI design for virtual reality tolerates much less intrusion then a desktop PC. If you're remotely computer literate and organize your desktop the way you like, it hurts when you lose that and it already feels like an invasion when a program does something you don't want it to. I suspect transposed to virtual reality, people are going to be ev…

> "... people are going to be even less tolerant of trying to force things on them because the experience is much more intimate."

Perhaps not if that's how you 'grew up with it' (so to speak). If you're clever enough and insert yourself into the system early enough then you get to shape all the 'norms' that will eventually emerge.

Re: Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version

#125

Post by burntroots »

bduerst wrote: post #81
noonespecial wrote: post #63

"And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition." I'm guessing that pretty much sums up the reaction of everyone who backed the initial kickstarter. Sounds like a serious lapse of "dance with the one who brung ya" to me.

It blows my mind how much people will throw their money at Kickstarter projects for the simple feeling of goodwill or novelty knick knacks (bumper stickers, buttons, etc). $10,000 should have bought some small amount of equity, even if it was only non-voting and non-dilutable.

I'm curious how you feel about open source, then. Specifically, node.js. Donating hours of your time working on something that eventually got sold for lots of money that you won't see a dime of. Sounds similar.

Re: Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version

#127

Post by neotek »

That's a shame, because Minecrift[1] is the most astonishing Oculus experience I've had so far. Just being inside a world I had created, surrounded by peaceful ambience, floating above the treetops (fly mod, heh) - I can't express just how beautiful that experience was.

[1] https://share.oculusvr.com/app/minecrift

Re: Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version

#128

Post by gfodor »

avar wrote: post #121
noonespecial wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that reguard, its the same thing it's always been. A gift. Reciprocity is not required by law, only common decency. The new about kickstarter is it seems we're looking for something more than a gift, less than a regulated investment and not quite a sale. That's novel.

Maybe you're looking for something more than a gift, but are you actually entitled to more than that? Are you a shareholder in these companies than you fund through Kickstarter? I think not. So why do you think you have any rights beyond someone who's donating money to a cause that may never pan out? It's perfectly fine to fund something through Kickstarter, but for some reason it seems that some people doing it thin…

You are not listening to the person you are responding to. Nobody is going to argue that kickstarter backers are entitled to equity in the company, or that they have legal rights beyond what is guaranteed in the kickstarter.

What the person is trying to get across is that in any financial transaction there are non-legal aspects involved. There are human relationships. The world runs on favors as much as it runs on contracts. No single transaction stands alone: you have a personal reputation based on your actions and ethics dictate what other people are going to think of you. If someone gives you a deal on favorable terms, it's generally understood that you will remember that and act accordingly in the future.

It's not specifically outlined and it's not a hard rule, but in general, when people donate to a kickstarter they are doing so under the assumption that the person receiving that money is going to act in a way that doesn't undermine their trust. Turning around and selling your company to Facebook leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths, since the company was built on the money they donated to make it possible. Do they have a legal right to compensation? Of course not. Do they have a right to be emotionally hurt by this? Sure, and it's not unjustified.

Re: Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version

#129

Post by mrb »

o0-0o wrote: post #116
mrb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Facebook isn't primarily a games company, and it's even less a 3D/desktop games company" So what? What were you guys thinking back when Google was purely an Internet/search engine company, and tried to foray into other ventures (Android, self-driving cars, etc)? Companies expand their markets, create new products. It is natural. Why does the Oculus acquisition seem to perplex the HN crowd?

I don't think the general consensus is perplexed at all. By the way, could you send me one of these driver-less cars you speak of? Maybe some other vaporware?

You have never heard of Google's research on self-driving cars? http://www.google.com/about/careers/lifatgoogle/self-driving...

Re: Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version

#130

Post by sillysaurus3 »

skore wrote: post #3

> "Facebook creeps me out." Whether or not you agree with his decision, having Notch pull away from talks with you creates an instant credibility "situation". It's also noteable that Notch had been meeting with the Oculus team just two weeks ago[0], was tweeting about them in rather gushing terms[1] and seemed incredibly inspired to work on VR ideas[2]. He is now the personification of the a near universal feeling of…

Heh, from Carmack's twitter 1m ago: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/448629403740692481

For the record, I am coding right now, just like I was last week. I expect the FB deal will avoid several embarrassing scaling crisis for VR.

Glad to see Carmack is still being Carmack.

EDIT: By the way, if anyone is wondering why people are having a negative reaction to this Facebook deal, I think one way to understand it is to watch this video fullscreen and try to imagine any way that Facebook could add to the experience, or at least not detract from it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DGZc0Dd9Hc#t=5s

It's hard to.

Post reply on HN