Minecraft creator says he’s canceled talks for Oculus Rift version • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by jaredmcateer » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 12:23 AM UTC

copergi wrote: post #307

Shivetya wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nah, all the angst is because far too many nerds like to think they "own" up and coming cool technology even if they are not even involved beyond having read about it. When it goes to company that the clique no longer favors, usually after incredible success or the unwashed masses show up, then they act as if the world collapses. It happens so often many of us just laugh if not smirk the whole time we watch the famil…

To be fair, these are people who funded the company in the first place, based on kickstarter's deliberately misleading marketing materials pretending that makes them investors. Generally when people fund a company which is bought by big money, they get a payout. In this case, instead they get the thing that made them fund it in the first place thrown in the garbage.

I think this move will really solidify the reality anyone thinking about kick starting something, you're not an investor, all you get for your donation is the possibility of receiving the items in the sidebar at the level you donated, the company owes you nothing else.

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

#362

Post by clarky07 » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 2:43 AM UTC

WalterSear wrote: post #202

batiudrami wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valve would have been ideal in terms of 'companies who have lots of money and not a lot of people to justify their spending to', but I imagine that $2Bn is outside their price range. Last I heard they were working on their own VR though.

It would be a big step, but I doubt they couldn't afford it. They make more money per employee than Apple does.

how does that number mean anything when comparing a few hundred to tens of thousands?

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

#363

Post by paines » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 11:43 AM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #322

XorNot wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like Notch is being given too much credibility here. At the end of the day he's a billionaire because he had a viral hit and was ready with a monetization strategy (and had amazingly cheap running costs). None of this really speaks to his business or technical acumen, and he hasn't exactly done very much lately.

> At the end of the day he's a billionaire Notch isn't even close to being a billionaire; he's a multimillionaire.

poor poor Notch. Just a millionaire.....

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

#364

Post by kelnos » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 10:47 PM UTC

onetwofiveten wrote: post #252

kelnos wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what's stupid is participating in a Kickstarter campaign and then getting bent out of shape when the company doesn't do what you want. When you contribute -- note contribute , but invest -- to a Kickstarter campaign, you're buying into the perk you get and pretty much nothing else. I can understand being upset that the company didn't do what you hoped, but considering it an investment is a bit of an overestim…

I don't think that's stupid. Kickstarter contributions are investments, they just don't have financial payoffs. The payoff should be that, if successful, a certain desirable piece of technology or art is created. If a company shifts focus away from the aims and goals they used to attract Kickstarter funding, then they have essentially acted dishonestly. There is no legal recourse, so the best thing to do is complain…

In the financial sense of the term, no, a Kickstarter contribution is not an investment. And that's the only sense of the term that matters here.

Sure, you can hope that the recipient of your contribution will use it in the way you want, and will hold the same values and plan for the company that you do, but in reality, that's an entirely unreasonable expectation to have.

The thing is, though... I don't see this particular example as the Oculus founders acting in bad faith. They made a business decision that made sense for them and their product. Sure, they get a big payday, but I bet they also believe that this is the great (maybe even best) way to make their product successful. The fact that you or I or any of the contributors might disagree is, well, irrelevant.

Personally, I think a lot of people are making a big deal over something that... isn't. There's a lot of hate for Facebook around, some of it justified, some not. The knee-jerk reaction of a FB acquisition being bad is getting quite tiring to me. Why not wait and see how it goes? FB at least seems to have a better track record of successful acquisitions that don't destroy the acquiree than Google does.

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

#365

Post by kelnos » Fri, Mar 28, 2014, 10:49 PM UTC

onetwofiveten wrote: post #353

thanatropism wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point here is -- if you want a stake, buy a stake. If you want a steak, you get to sigh if the restaurant gets turned into a Hooters. Me, I think Kickstarter is to fault for being sold as a tool for contributors. You go to kickstarter.com, it's like a shopping mall of the future. For what Kickstarter say they are, they should be a plugin that companies get to put on their website or something, not something that gets…

No, that's not the point. The point is, when a company gets funding from Kickstarter, they are selling something more than just the Kickstarter rewards. They are selling an intangible good - a vision of the future. If that company fails to try to deliver that future, then it's a rip-off. Your attitude is like I tell you "hey I bought these trainers that were advertised as hard wearing but they fell apart after a week…

Bad analogy. You're describing a case of false advertising (or at best a product defect), which should be remedied by either a product replacement or refund, or at worst a trip to small-claims court.

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

#366

Post by onetwofiveten » Mon, Mar 31, 2014, 5:14 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #365

onetwofiveten wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not the point. The point is, when a company gets funding from Kickstarter, they are selling something more than just the Kickstarter rewards. They are selling an intangible good - a vision of the future. If that company fails to try to deliver that future, then it's a rip-off. Your attitude is like I tell you "hey I bought these trainers that were advertised as hard wearing but they fell apart after a week…

Bad analogy. You're describing a case of false advertising (or at best a product defect), which should be remedied by either a product replacement or refund, or at worst a trip to small-claims court.

You haven't really given me a reason as to why false advertising is a bad analogy. I think this is quite similar to a case of false advertising or a product defect. Here the product is the service of Oculus developing VR technology for gaming applications. Contributors feel they were mislead and I am sure many of them would want a refund if it was offered.

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

#367

Post by onetwofiveten » Mon, Mar 31, 2014, 5:42 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #364

onetwofiveten wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's stupid. Kickstarter contributions are investments, they just don't have financial payoffs. The payoff should be that, if successful, a certain desirable piece of technology or art is created. If a company shifts focus away from the aims and goals they used to attract Kickstarter funding, then they have essentially acted dishonestly. There is no legal recourse, so the best thing to do is complain…

In the financial sense of the term, no, a Kickstarter contribution is not an investment. And that's the only sense of the term that matters here. Sure, you can hope that the recipient of your contribution will use it in the way you want, and will hold the same values and plan for the company that you do, but in reality, that's an entirely unreasonable expectation to have. The thing is, though... I don't see this part…

No, the financial sense of the word "investment" isn't the only meaning that matters here, because here we're discussing the behaviour and attitudes of contributors. Its unreasonable for anyone to expect them to ignore their emotional investment and only think of things financially. If they did that, they wouldn't have contributed in the first place, and Oculus would not have gone anywhere.

Oculus benefited greatly from selling itself as the future of VR gaming. That was the image they cultivated, that is why their Kickstarter was so successful. That is why people contributed. The Facebook deal most likely means a big shift of focus to social VR. There's a big difference between hoping a company will share your personal values when it gets successful, and being sold a particular plan which is then abandoned in favour of a big payoff.

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

#368

Post by thanatropism » Tue, Apr 01, 2014, 2:10 AM UTC

onetwofiveten wrote: post #353

thanatropism wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point here is -- if you want a stake, buy a stake. If you want a steak, you get to sigh if the restaurant gets turned into a Hooters. Me, I think Kickstarter is to fault for being sold as a tool for contributors. You go to kickstarter.com, it's like a shopping mall of the future. For what Kickstarter say they are, they should be a plugin that companies get to put on their website or something, not something that gets…

No, that's not the point. The point is, when a company gets funding from Kickstarter, they are selling something more than just the Kickstarter rewards. They are selling an intangible good - a vision of the future. If that company fails to try to deliver that future, then it's a rip-off. Your attitude is like I tell you "hey I bought these trainers that were advertised as hard wearing but they fell apart after a week…

Kickstarter is not a store. Kickstarter is very weird, actually.

Kickstarter is not investment. I've never invested money in a company, but I've invested labor in exchange for shares; I was, thus, a stakeholder, and had a say in a number of decisions the company made.

If I buy a product off a store, a pair of sneakers, and they turn out to be shitty and fall to pieces in a week, I'm entitled to my money back or a working pair of sneakers. However, when you fund through Kickstarter something that says "Oh Hai Future Shoes", you're not buying sneakers.

If I invest in a company and they turn out to be using child labor, I can try and wield whatever powers I have in my shares to stop that practice. I can also divest and shame. However, when you fund "Oh Hai Future Shoes" through Kickstarter, you're not investing. You're not buying a vision of the future of shoes. At best, you can expect your rewards (usually a prototype of said sneakers) to be delivered.

But if they sell out to Nike shortly thereafter? And you thought you had an emotional connection?

This is why I kind of fault Kickstarter. It's just too weird a model; it allows fine, smart people like yourself to make unwarranted leaps of logic so that money flows that otherwise might not happen are made common and large.

At its core, understood as FAQs explain -- but not as the website in general is structured -- Kickstarter is a tool for business. Why does it have a shopping mall-like website? Why isn't it just an extension of tip jar tools for webmasters?

(I'm reminded of the Alec Baldwin movie with Jack Lemmon where he's screaming through a pep talk -- "TO GET THEM TO SIGN ON THE LINE WHICH IS DOTTED!!". This is what Kickstarter does.)

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

#369

Post by mercutio2 » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 1:13 AM UTC

cwyers wrote: post #277

mercutio2 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple does not have business units. Apple would also never spend that much money on an acquisition, so your general point stands, but your specific statement is false.

How don't they? They have people who are in charge of people and people who are responsible to others, yes? I just checked to make sure I wasn't going crazy here: "A logical element or segment of a company (such as accounting, production, marketing) representing a specific business function, and a definite place on the organizational chart, under the domain of a manager. Also called department, division, or a functio…

The definition you link to is unusual in my experience of the term in that it equates functional unit with business unit. By your definition I agree.

I have generally seen definitions of functional units being responsible for a function, without reference to profit or loss. Business units generally refer to a notionally divisible unit from which income, expenses, and thus profits can be measured. By this definition, Apple has only one business unit, the entire enterprise.

Again, this doesn't detract from your point, it amplifies it! Apple really would never preserve a purchased business and leave it independent. It doesn't even have business units, the structure that might, if you're naive, allow for such a thing!

An interesting discussion of Apple's functional structure:

http://stratechery.com/2013/the-uncanny-valley-of-a-function...