The Ouya Scam

[BoredRolePlayer]

Kotaku reported it, the Escapist reported it, Cnet reported it, a google search of "ouya backers not getting consoles" comes up with hit after hit proving your point wrong.

You base your investment choices off the opinions of gaming editors who are excited for a new piece of kit and you're going to get burned, if you think The Escapist has enough man power to fully investigate the background of a company's CEO and then offer sound investment device you're going to be disappointed.
And for what? From what I've heard the company has had issues with shipping backing up and even compensated for those who did not receive their goods, this isn't Enron it's just a small start up company running into issues.

Comparing journalism of today to journalism 50 years ago eh? About how bad the Russians were and how Vietnam was the stepping stone for Communism?s spread throughout the world? If anything it was more controlled by the government, now it just pays better to be against the government.
He?s not a free thinking individual? But I?m guessing you think you are, I hate the be the bearer of bad news but we?re all just products of the constant exchange between society and the media. The only reason you think cnn and fox channels are not for ?free thinkers? is because that?s what your clique make you think, unless you?ve actually investigated it yourself? pfft.

If you've paid attention to the news for as long as I have, it just becomes common sense. Fox plays to the extreme right, Msnbc and cnn are squarely pro-establishment, anyone who questions the establishment is unreasonable. Same with washington post (although that buyout will be interesting) and the NY Times (with a splash of liberal).

No one did any investigative journalism for years because they would get shut out of washington, and it's the worst it's ever been today. It took snowden to finally inform the US People about what the government was doing behind the scenes with all of our information. I don't understand how you could see that as treason. It's supposed to be OUR government, they should be accountable to us, we are their owners according to the constitution, but they've got politicians and journalists schmoozing around and giving people a pro--establishment tilt to the news the put out there. The Michael hasting crash is a great example of this, twisting the conversation and making it extremely dangerous to ask the wrong questions.

I listen to MSNBC and CNN, and not gonna lie they seem to side for with Snowden and Manning on the whole leaking thing. Hell when Anderson Cooper was talking to the dude who broke the story he wasn't saying "Maybe your husband deserved to be held by British police". As for Manning they just report his sentence and the gender thing, no twist on it or saying he deserved what he got. Also I'm not going to lie but I hate how reporters demanded transparency yet they never disclose their sources to check on what they say.

 

[IanDavis]

If I was running a scam console, I wouldn't bother actually shipping the thing. That's too much work. There's a reason [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Entertainment]The Phantom[/a] never shipped anything but a keyboard.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

If I was running a scam console, I wouldn't bother actually shipping the thing. That's too much work. There's a reason [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_Entertainment]The Phantom[/a] never shipped anything but a keyboard.

Really I thought nothing game out...just wow... :/.

 

[briankoontz]

Really? Being a traitor is now actual journalism and they're brave? Then as if I wasn't laughing hard enough you add integrity? Those two are the exact opposite of what integrity is!

Bradley Manning opposes the goals of the multinational corporations and banks who are the primary beneficiaries of endless war and domination. The US government is a key agent of such forces, as is demonstrated by the money they receive by them in their political campaigns.

The American people need not be, and usually are not, agents of global domination. Those that are, such as perhaps yourself, consider Manning a traitor, since these powerful forces own the military and chattel is expected to behave in a manner consistent with the wishes of their master.

When Bradley Manning showed himself to not be a slave but a resistance fighter, he was condemned by the powerful, in the same way that Django was condemned by plantation owners in the movie Django Unchained.

Part of the system of propaganda is to deny all truths that might hinder the wishes of the powerful, so Mr. Manning becomes not a whistleblower and resistance fighter but a "traitor" and "harmer of national interests", as if the desires of the multinational corporations and banks ARE the national interest. They may very well believe so, as plantation owners believed that their interests were the national interest. It's up to the decent people of the world to assert their error, and Mr. Manning struck a blow in favor of that assertion, for which he is currently being punished.

 

[Dante dynamite]

Simply kickstarter is not amazon. You are not putting money in and then getting your product out. You are investing your money with a company and hoping that investment matures. I have a feeling people's inability to grasp this concept is what will kill kickstarter eventually, pity it's a nice idea in theory. Also I have my Ouya and it's a great little distraction when I want to switch off which is all I got it for.

Kickstarter isn't an investment if it was then as an investor you should get returns on your investment in relation to the success of the product as an investor you have a stake in the business but kickstarter is more like a pre-order or a donation (at small denominations) a product is pitched and if there is enough demand for the product the money earned from the people is used to create the product and the company has to either come through with making the product or full refunds legally with an investment if the project fails your money is gone.

People constantly saying it's an investment has allowed other kickstarters get away with scams (not OUYA)

 

[Vhite]

NO! It's not scam.

Kickstarter isn't preorder service and unless you are giving money away just because you want to support them you deserve lesson like this. I'm actually glad it happened so people will MAYBE learn to use Kickstarter properly.

 

[Torque2100]

Well I feel late to the party. As a die-hard PC gamer who has pretty much given up on consoles altogether I kind of missed this whole story.

Now that I've had a chance to look at it, this whole episode has left me scratching my head. A gaming console based on Smartphone hardware? Who in their right mind would ever think this is a good idea? Yet apparently they managed to get enough backers to score 8.5 Million out of the deal. Literally the only selling point for this console is price. It is objectively worse in every way and there are no games for it.

I really don't think this is a scam. They seem to me more like well-meaning amateurs who wanted to make a statement about the cost of games and consoles, but ended up getting in wayyyyyy over their heads.

 

[gavinmcinns]

Well I feel late to the party. As a die-hard PC gamer who has pretty much given up on consoles altogether I kind of missed this whole story.

Now that I've had a chance to look at it, this whole episode has left me scratching my head. A gaming console based on Smartphone hardware? Who in their right mind would ever think this is a good idea? Yet apparently they managed to get enough backers to score 8.5 Million out of the deal. Literally the only selling point for this console is price. It is objectively worse in every way and there are no games for it.

I really don't think this is a scam. They seem to me more like well-meaning amateurs who wanted to make a statement about the cost of games and consoles, but ended up getting in wayyyyyy over their heads.

Nice avatar, they don't make games quite like that anymore.

It's a truly deep philosophical dilemma. If there's anything I've learned in my experience, it's that you can never underestimate "civilized", "educated", degree holding populations enough (non in just this trivial matter, but in everything).

It may or may not be a scam. But let's say it isn't a scam. The sheer stupidity of it all almost makes it worse. If it were out and out a scam, I could at least admire their cunning in a way. The world is a shawarma and the successful know how to shave it.

 

[Bobby Slobby]

OK I am an OUYA owner and I am deeply offended by some of the comments made on this board... just kidding. I do own an OUYA, and while I think its a neat little device, I'm starting to get a little pissed off with the company that made the thing. One thing is that the OUYA IS NOT fully hackable when they told customers it would be. I've managed to root mine and install Google Play, but am waiting for the next update to where I will have all of this stuff removed. That's wrong in my eyes. I didn't buy the OUYA so the company could force updates on me removing software I put on the console. The second thing is a lack of expandable memory. This thing has been out for two months now and still I only have 6gb or so to actually be able to download apps and games. Their business model sucks, as does their attention to detail, and getting things out on time. If they don't sort out the lack of internal memory, I will never trust a company like this again, and will say FUCK Y-OUYA.

 

[Windcaler]

DHL and OUYA are working in tandem to do a crappy job, first of all you are right about 8.5mm being a paltry amount to develop a console, that is why this has been a retarded idea from the beginning. Even with the extra 12, you could multiply that amount several times and it'd still be fantasy.

Even if you got your OUYA, you then have to put up with draconian drm that puts EA and Microsoft to shame. it needs a constant connection to the internet to play single player from my understanding, and a credit card number i might add. No google play store means having to buy your games all over again. And when it comes to the actual mechanics of gaming, have fun playing mario with a 3 second input delay.

I would like to see what kind of evidence you have to support that DHL and OUYA have purposly done a horrible job in getting backers their consoles. I'll assume you have some video or audio evidence to support these kinds of actions.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Designing and manufacturing hardware like the ps4 takes a lot of time and money, it's true. A ps4 has well over a thousand different doodads and thing a ma jiggers.

OUYA has 3. The tegra 3 chip loaded with OUYA interface, a wifi reciever, and the plastic box it comes in. As far as manufacturing challenges go, this is baby's first supply chain management project. If it weren't such a simple product, they never would have been able to ship to retailers in the time frame they did.

Once again you seem to believe that the only step in manufacturing such a device in this case consists of nothing more than pulling parts off the shelf. Sure - lots of the hard speciality work is done for you (design of the microprocessor for example), but that does not tell the whole story. Someone had to design the board that allows those separate parts to communicate - there is no reporting indicating that particular part came off the shelf. Likewise, even if the OS isn't a terribly elegant version of the Andriod OS, some set of programming talent had to be directed at the task of building the thing.

This is not, for the record, an attempt to play the Ouya as something other than a shoddy product but simply an attempt to illustrate just how the process of making an objectively junky product from conception to delivery can involve a lot more people than is readily apparant.

You keep trying to "catch me" with the whole finance angle, it's not a secret that they aren't disclosing this stuff to us. But obviously they are still in operation, like I said, they just started a developer "fund", and have released an advertisement yesterday. This points to the fact that they still have some of that money, they obviously didn't blow it all on the doorstop.

You are accusing them of impropriety by asserting they have maliciously misused the financial backing they received. You are making this claim without tangible evidence that supports your assertion and you constantly argue from a position that implies you actually have no idea whatsoever how paultry a sum 20 million USD actually is when it comes to a process like this.

The absolute worst case you can make with the evidence you have available is that the Ouya project was nothing more than a bad idea that was overseen by people who had little idea of what they were getting themselves into. It was supported by people who fundamentally misunderstand that kickstarter is not an investment but a donation where you gamble your money in exchange for a promise that may never come to light and who further more have consistently (as a group) demonstrated that they have no idea how compartively little a few million dollars actually is.

To put it in perspective, the sum you indicate is sufficient (probably) to make a single AAA game or a single movie of moderate budget. It is less than is spent on advertising Call of Duty.

You constantly look at this outcome and see how it has all gone wrong and cry foul; instead, I would entreat you to alter your perspective. This was a project undertaken by idealistic amatueures that was funded by the public which raised what seems to be a princely sum (but was, in all actuality, a pauper's wage for the task at hand) and yet in spite of all that still managed to ship a product that resembles (more or less) what was promised. It's a minor miracle the thing made it to market at all and if is to have any hope as a product, the company needs to stay open and making the things long enough for a sufficient mass of people to get them to actualy entice people to make games for the platform.

In all of this, the only impropriety I can see a basis for is hubris - assuming that a tiny team with zero (relative to the other the consoles) resources and no experience could somehow rush into a already bloated market and carve out a slice for themselves. So, until you (or some intrepid Journalist (enthusiast press or otherwise)) can present something resembling proof of impropriety, your argument simply has no basis. Sure the Ouya is a dumb product that will almost certainly fail as a game console - that doesn't mean the people who made it did so with malice.

Because, if the aim was to take the money and run, they could have done that from the start and not wasted a bunch actually shipping the product.

 

[gavinmcinns]

Designing and manufacturing hardware like the ps4 takes a lot of time and money, it's true. A ps4 has well over a thousand different doodads and thing a ma jiggers.

OUYA has 3. The tegra 3 chip loaded with OUYA interface, a wifi reciever, and the plastic box it comes in. As far as manufacturing challenges go, this is baby's first supply chain management project. If it weren't such a simple product, they never would have been able to ship to retailers in the time frame they did.

Once again you seem to believe that the only step in manufacturing such a device in this case consists of nothing more than pulling parts off the shelf. Sure - lots of the hard speciality work is done for you (design of the microprocessor for example), but that does not tell the whole story. Someone had to design the board that allows those separate parts to communicate - there is no reporting indicating that particular part came off the shelf. Likewise, even if the OS isn't a terribly elegant version of the Andriod OS, some set of programming talent had to be directed at the task of building the thing.

This is not, for the record, an attempt to play the Ouya as something other than a shoddy product but simply an attempt to illustrate just how the process of making an objectively junky product from conception to delivery can involve a lot more people than is readily apparant.

You keep trying to "catch me" with the whole finance angle, it's not a secret that they aren't disclosing this stuff to us. But obviously they are still in operation, like I said, they just started a developer "fund", and have released an advertisement yesterday. This points to the fact that they still have some of that money, they obviously didn't blow it all on the doorstop.

You are accusing them of impropriety by asserting they have maliciously misused the financial backing they received. You are making this claim without tangible evidence that supports your assertion and you constantly argue from a position that implies you actually have no idea whatsoever how paultry a sum 20 million USD actually is when it comes to a process like this.

The absolute worst case you can make with the evidence you have available is that the Ouya project was nothing more than a bad idea that was overseen by people who had little idea of what they were getting themselves into. It was supported by people who fundamentally misunderstand that kickstarter is not an investment but a donation where you gamble your money in exchange for a promise that may never come to light and who further more have consistently (as a group) demonstrated that they have no idea how compartively little a few million dollars actually is.

To put it in perspective, the sum you indicate is sufficient (probably) to make a single AAA game or a single movie of moderate budget. It is less than is spent on advertising Call of Duty.

You constantly look at this outcome and see how it has all gone wrong and cry foul; instead, I would entreat you to alter your perspective. This was a project undertaken by idealistic amatueures that was funded by the public which raised what seems to be a princely sum (but was, in all actuality, a pauper's wage for the task at hand) and yet in spite of all that still managed to ship a product that resembles (more or less) what was promised. It's a minor miracle the thing made it to market at all and if is to have any hope as a product, the company needs to stay open and making the things long enough for a sufficient mass of people to get them to actualy entice people to make games for the platform.

In all of this, the only impropriety I can see a basis for is hubris - assuming that a tiny team with zero (relative to the other the consoles) resources and no experience could somehow rush into a already bloated market and carve out a slice for themselves. So, until you (or some intrepid Journalist (enthusiast press or otherwise)) can present something resembling proof of impropriety, your argument simply has no basis. Sure the Ouya is a dumb product that will almost certainly fail as a game console - that doesn't mean the people who made it did so with malice.

Because, if the aim was to take the money and run, they could have done that from the start and not wasted a bunch actually shipping the product.

I never really asserted that at all, and now I can tell you haven't been carefully reading my posts at all which is wonderful. Yes, the title of the thread was certainly inflammatory, but I never did anything but speculate throughout this entire thread about why the ouya is such a fucking failure on every level (that counts), from logistics to the manufacturing process to the p.r. to THE VERY FIRST FUCKING STEP, brainstorming during product development. If uhrman (and im presuming it was her idea here) had surrounded herself with competent people with a moral compass, the first thing they would have said in that room would've been "Julie, this is a fucking stupid idea". And that would've been that.

On the contrary, I've asserted multiple times that I know how much development would cost for something like this to be a success, and it sure as fuck aint ouya money. Try sony money.
I am saying I wouldn't "[be able to tell the difference between a 20mm piece of shit and a 10mm pos]". If the lattter were to be the case, then bang, thats 10mm left over for a slushie fund

 

[gavinmcinns]

DHL and OUYA are working in tandem to do a crappy job, first of all you are right about 8.5mm being a paltry amount to develop a console, that is why this has been a retarded idea from the beginning. Even with the extra 12, you could multiply that amount several times and it'd still be fantasy.

Even if you got your OUYA, you then have to put up with draconian drm that puts EA and Microsoft to shame. it needs a constant connection to the internet to play single player from my understanding, and a credit card number i might add. No google play store means having to buy your games all over again. And when it comes to the actual mechanics of gaming, have fun playing mario with a 3 second input delay.

I would like to see what kind of evidence you have to support that DHL and OUYA have purposly done a horrible job in getting backers their consoles. I'll assume you have some video or audio evidence to support these kinds of actions.

1st, never said that dhl was purposefully doing anything. Confusing sentence, my bad. I dont have any hard evidence and never claimed to.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I never really asserted that at all, and now I can tell you haven't been carefully reading my posts at all which is wonderful.

I'm just going to quote your opening post here:

I don't see any major gaming median outlets warning people about this obvious scam. When backers are still without product as of August 22, 2013, when the retailers received theirs in June, that is a sure sign of a scam the same way a 460 lb isosceles triangle of ice wedged between your ilium and pubis is a sure sign you will be paralyzed from the waist down.

You call the product an obvious scam. If you want to have an argument of definition about it, you are saying that the product is a fraud. From then on you have failed to actually support this argument that you made above as well as in the title of the thread itself.

If you want to declare the product is garbage, you'll get no argument from me. My issue here is that I don't see a scam - just a product who's only use is as a minor curiosity.

Yes, the title of the thread was certainly inflammatory, but I never did anything but speculate throughout this entire thread about why the ouya is such a fucking failure on every level (that counts), from logistics to the manufacturing process to the p.r. to THE VERY FIRST FUCKING STEP, brainstorming during product development. If uhrman (and im presuming it was her idea here) had surrounded herself with competent people with a moral compass, the first thing they would have said in that room would've been "Julie, this is a fucking stupid idea". And that would've been that.

Actually, morality has little to do with the outcome here. It is perfectly possible that the key group of idea people were convinced they could get the product to market for a scan few million dollars. And, if we're being honest, they actually did get the product to market with a scant few million dollars. Sure, it has problems - the controller latency for example, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they did, in fact, deliver on the deal.

That said, there is a set of systemic problems with the platform that ought to have been obvious the most notable of which are:

1) the device will enter a fiercely competitive and almost certainly saturated market
2) The platform is currently only host to games designed for a completely different device that features a completely different use case
3) The android OS is a distant second when it comes to popularity for game development in the Phone space.

On the contrary, I've asserted multiple times that I know how much development would cost for something like this to be a success, and it sure as fuck aint ouya money. Try sony money.
I am saying I wouldn't "[be able to tell the difference between a 20mm piece of shit and a 10mm pos]". If the lattter were to be the case, then bang, thats 10mm left over for a slushie fund

This is what I have the problem with - you leap from an easily defensible point (that the Ouya is a bad product and was a bad idea from the start) to one that not only has no basis - it makes no sense.

If the object of the whole ordeal was to take the money and run they wouldn't have raised private capital after kickstarter. Loans of the sort they almost certainly bought are backed with laws millenia in the making - if the product tanks, those actual investors have a wide variety of legal options designed to get something back out of the investment. By contrast, that original Kickstarter is a donation and those who donated have precisely zero legal recourse for seeking compensation. If the goal was simple fraud, taking that initial money and then pretending to make a product is not only easier - it's safer.

In this matter, I think it best to cite Cicero and simply ask who benefits. The people making the Ouya have a great deal riding on the device being a success and they intentionally set themselves in a position where there are legally binding agreements to that end. They then produced a product and shipped it. You can continue to claim malfeasance but, to put it simply, not only is there no evidence to support that claim, the pattern of available facts indicates that fraud was not the goal. Never make the mistake of attributing to malice what can be explained by incompetence. The latter is far more likely.

 

[gavinmcinns]

You call the product an obvious scam. If you want to have an argument of definition about it, you are saying that the product is a fraud. From then on you have failed to actually support this argument that you made above as well as in the title of the thread itself.

Fair enough, but I go on to back away from that statement significantly and precipitously. I('m trying to shift this to "OUYA should be more transparent".

If you want to declare the product is garbage, you'll get no argument from me. My issue here is that I don't see a scam - just a product who's only use is as a minor curiosity.

Actually, morality has little to do with the outcome here. It is perfectly possible that the key group of idea people were convinced they could get the product to market for a scan few million dollars. And, if we're being honest, they actually did get the product to market with a scant few million dollars. Sure, it has problems - the controller latency for example, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they did, in fact, deliver on the deal.

Yes as I thought we'd established, of course it is a possibility. In fact, we have no reason to believe right now otherwise, however we cannot rule out the possibility. There are scam artists out there, very good ones. Now I can hear you say "But Gavin, we can't just go assuming this shit", and youd be right. But the sheer level of stupidity, of this whole thing, its just uniquely bad. Not the worst thing to ever happen in world ever, just face palming really hard multiple times bad.

THAT said, I don't think shipping a buggy piece of shit out to people can exactly be called keeping a promise, unless that is how they described the thing during the kickstarter. And as Im writing this I'm realizing you can't really know what the product is going to be like when you have no experience and no common sense.

That said, there is a set of systemic problems with the platform that ought to have been obvious the most notable of which are:

1) the device will enter a fiercely competitive and almost certainly saturated market
2) The platform is currently only host to games designed for a completely different device that features a completely different use case
3) The android OS is a distant second when it comes to popularity for game development in the Phone space.


This is what I have the problem with - you leap from an easily defensible point (that the Ouya is a bad product and was a bad idea from the start) to one that not only has no basis - it makes no sense.

If the object of the whole ordeal was to take the money and run they wouldn't have raised private capital after kickstarter. Loans of the sort they almost certainly bought are backed with laws millenia in the making - if the product tanks, those actual investors have a wide variety of legal options designed to get something back out of the investment. By contrast, that original Kickstarter is a donation and those who donated have precisely zero legal recourse for seeking compensation. If the goal was simple fraud, taking that initial money and then pretending to make a product is not only easier - it's safer
.

edit1: would be aGood point, [strikethrough]it doesn't make sense with those numbers. [/strikethrough] Now before I start on this, I want you to think about how much money you think OUYA has in the bank, FYI I dont know.

Im now wondering who these VentCaps are (does julie have rich parents?)

VC is inherently risky. It isn't a loan, it's equity. If you pay a guy 200k a year to design the plastic box, that money is spent. Paying yourself is a hard thing to do righteously. When you have all this money and no accountability, the mob will try to make you accountable. NO COMMUNICATION for weeks for a lot of these people i remind you. If not a scam, then it sure looks like one at the shallow end.

In this matter, I think it best to cite Cicero and simply ask who benefits. The people making the Ouya have a great deal riding on the device being a success and they intentionally set themselves in a position where there are legally binding agreements to that end. They then produced a product and shipped it. You can continue to claim malfeasance but, to put it simply, not only is there no evidence to support that claim, the pattern of available facts indicates that fraud was not the goal.

If they were getting a loan then probably wells fargo, but they raised venture capital, so very possibly themselves.

Never make the mistake of attributing to malice what can be explained by incompetence. The latter is far more likely.

A stitch in time is two in the bush

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Fair enough, but I go on to back away from that statement significantly and precipitously. I('m trying to shift this to "OUYA should be more transparent".

There is a fundamental problem with transparency - not only is it perfectly acceptable for a public company to keep such things private there is also the fact that they have a vested interest in filtering information. If the publically say the product is tanking and the company is probably doomed, that's going to have a detrimental impact on the possible future of the company.

You're basically asking the company to torpedo any hope they have left if things are going badly for them.

Yes as I thought we'd established, of course it is a possibility. In fact, we have no reason to believe right now otherwise, however we cannot rule out the possibility. There are scam artists out there, very good ones. Now I can hear you say "But Gavin, we can't just go assuming this shit", and youd be right. But the sheer level of stupidity, of this whole thing, its just uniquely bad. Not the worst thing to ever happen in world ever, just face palming really hard multiple times bad.

There are lots of projects that fail for similar reasons. Hell - that is the primary failing of kickstarter - it's a resource for people to gain money to puruse some goal and who, in most cases, have no other means of rasing capital because no proper investor is willing to take on the risk. You are going to see giant failures like this precisely because the sort of person who is forced to go to kickstarter for money is the very same kind of person who is likely to underestimate the magnitude of the problem they face.

THAT said, I don't think shipping a buggy piece of shit out to people can exactly be called keeping a promise, unless that is how they described the thing during the kickstarter. And as Im writing this I'm realizing you can't really know what the product is going to be like when you have no experience and no common sense.

They shipped an android based platform that plays games on your television. That is more or less what the claimed they would do. That this android device isn't particularly good for the purpose of playing games on a television isn't particularly relevant in this case.

edit1: would be aGood point, [strikethrough]it doesn't make sense with those numbers. [/strikethrough] Now before I start on this, I want you to think about how much money you think OUYA has in the bank, FYI I dont know.

I'd say that odds are good they are in poor fiscal shape. Consider that during E3 they chose not to rent booth space (which costs tens of thousands of dollars) and instead squated in the parking lot - an event that got coverage only because of how hilariously unprofessionaly the whole event was managed by both sides. Follow that with the fact that units are shipping to stores before all the backers have gotten their unit - a move they had to know would cause negative backlash - implies they are in a desperate position and are willing to risk the long term consequences of bad press in exchange for near term cash flow (from sales to stores).

VC is inherently risky. It isn't a loan, it's equity. If you pay a guy 200k a year to design the plastic box, that money is spent.

If the venture tanks, the VC's are creditors to whom the proceeds of the liquidation of the company would go. By contrast, the money you pay via Kickstarter has no mechanism thorugh which a backer would receive any compensation.

Paying yourself is a hard thing to do righteously. When you have all this money and no accountability, the mob will try to make you accountable. NO COMMUNICATION for weeks for a lot of these people i remind you. If not a scam, then it sure looks like one at the shallow end.

They aren't beholden to the backers in the slightest - this, agian, is a problem of a fundamental misunderstanding of kickstarter. Your only power as a backer was spent the moment you backed the product - you don't get a vote on the board unless the company chooses to give you one.

You keep approaching the problem as though the Backer is an investor - they are not; you gave them a gift in exchange for a promise of a doodad or whatever. It should be noted that even that promise has no legal mechanism backing it so you're only protection is the goodwill of the recipient. This is precisely why I don't back projects in Kickstarter - it's just a form of gambling and many of the more interesting products I've seen have grim odds.

If they were getting a loan then probably wells fargo, but they raised venture capital, so very possibly themselves.

Venture Capital can come from any of a variety of sources. Banks, being highly conservative and risk adverse, generally steer clear of such things but all the major banks have programs in place that are more or less the same thing. If you cut through the 80's catch phrase, venture capital is simply a loan usually with unique stipulations such as giving the creditor partial ownership of the company (which may or may include some amount of influence over the direction of the company). Again, it seems necessary to reiterate that by seeking funding through traditional means, the people behind the ouya secured money that has a host of legal considerations behind it. By contrast, the money from Kickstarter has comparatively no legal considerations behind it beyond basic tax concerns.likely.[/quote] A stitch in time is two in the bush[/quote]

 

[Frezzato]

Over 63,000 Ouya consoles to ship to customers. Hmm.

"Amateurs study tactics...."

This [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ouya%27d] is a low blow. At least Ouya appears to be making some conciliatory efforts [http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57596993-235/ouya-apologizes-to-kickstarter-supporters-offers-$13-credit/].

 

[gavinmcinns]

There is a fundamental problem with transparency - not only is it perfectly acceptable for a public company to keep such things private there is also the fact that they have a vested interest in filtering information. If the publically say the product is tanking and the company is probably doomed, that's going to have a detrimental impact on the possible future of the company.

You're basically asking the company to torpedo any hope they have left if things are going badly for them.

Not communicating at all isn't better, if they were to go into detail about the problems they are having, then at least they might be able to muster up some goodwill.

Your points about kickstarter are totally valid and I'm not going to argue that the backers are investors. BUT, there should be something akin to releasing quarterlies like the publicly traded companies do considering that it's crowd funded. Again, i realize that this isn't the case, but it just boggles the mind that the issue of accountability wasn't forced by kickstarter or the backers beforehand.

I'm sure square didn't exactly want to disclose "extraordinary loss" last quarter, but the system is set up in such a way that they are forced to do so. I dont see why kickstarter can't have such a mechanism in place; I would think that this would boost kickstarter participation if anything, given such assurances and safeguards. Too bad the community was so busy wetting itself over "the possibilities" to make such a reasonable and necessary demand.

They shipped an android based platform that plays games on your television. That is more or less what the claimed they would do. That this android device isn't particularly good for the purpose of playing games on a television isn't particularly relevant in this case.

If I'm not mistaken, they never mentioned anything about requiring a credit card to access the store, nor did they mention the other ridiculous drm like requiring a constant connection to do anything.

I'd say that odds are good they are in poor fiscal shape. Consider that during E3 they chose not to rent booth space (which costs tens of thousands of dollars) and instead squated in the parking lot - an event that got coverage only because of how hilariously unprofessionaly the whole event was managed by both sides. Follow that with the fact that units are shipping to stores before all the backers have gotten their unit - a move they had to know would cause negative backlash - implies they are in a desperate position and are willing to risk the long term consequences of bad press in exchange for near term cash flow (from sales to stores).

That could very well be the case, however I believe that they were too embarrassed to show up to e3. If you really have faith in the product, 10 or 20k can easily be mustered to raise awareness for the product. That extra 20k is not going to have a significant impact on the quality of the console, and setting it aside could make all the difference.

The tradeoff between the blow to their reputation and shoring up some much needed cash flow is a much more plausible scenario and I'm inclined to believe that this was in fact the case here.

If the venture tanks, the VC's are creditors to whom the proceeds of the liquidation of the company would go. By contrast, the money you pay via Kickstarter has no mechanism thorugh which a backer would receive any compensation.

You can't liquidate pay for services already rendered, like I said, I don't know what they were paying themselves

They aren't beholden to the backers in the slightest - this, agian, is a problem of a fundamental misunderstanding of kickstarter. Your only power as a backer was spent the moment you backed the product - you don't get a vote on the board unless the company chooses to give you one.

You keep approaching the problem as though the Backer is an investor - they are not; you gave them a gift in exchange for a promise of a doodad or whatever. It should be noted that even that promise has no legal mechanism backing it so you're only protection is the goodwill of the recipient. This is precisely why I don't back projects in Kickstarter - it's just a form of gambling and many of the more interesting products I've seen have grim odds.

I am not, we're past this, I'm talking about the mistakes that were made by everyone involved and how they could have been avoided.

Venture Capital can come from any of a variety of sources. Banks, being highly conservative and risk adverse, generally steer clear of such things but all the major banks have programs in place that are more or less the same thing. If you cut through the 80's catch phrase, venture capital is simply a loan usually with unique stipulations such as giving the creditor partial ownership of the company (which may or may include some amount of influence over the direction of the company). Again, it seems necessary to reiterate that by seeking funding through traditional means, the people behind the ouya secured money that has a host of legal considerations behind it. By contrast, the money from Kickstarter has comparatively no legal considerations behind it beyond basic tax concerns.likely.

You clearly have a good understanding of how capital markets work, I don't like to get into the little details like that because there's nothing I can really say when it comes to tax law and contract law. When it all boils down to (for what I'm trying to say) is that there's no reason why we can't have a version of kickstarter with more accountability.