8 ms·

Fig – Crowdfunding for video games

159 points by TakakiTohno 7y ago

anonnyj 7y ago
Thanks. I was wondering why this didn't exist already. T-shirts/in game items/early access never interested me.
akhilcacharya 7y ago
The investment portion is an interesting idea. What sort of legal mechanism are they using for this?
- CrazyStat 7y ago
  It's standard accredited investor stuff. You can't invest unless you have sufficient wealth/income to be an accredited investor.
- chews 7y ago
  Fig has a CIK number, seems they're filing form Ds with the SEC. https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001658966 https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&C...
c0restraint 7y ago
The book "Blood, Sweat, and Pixels" mentions Fig. It was started by several gaming industry developers/producers saw the success that Kickstarter offered the gaming industry.
wgerard 7y ago
Huh, I was wondering if this was legal (seems like an unregistered securities offering, which has semi-strict requirements even after 2012) and then read this at the bottom: > The securities offered by the issuers on the Site (the "Securities") may be sold only to (A) investors who are (i) "Accredited Investors" as defined in Rule 501 under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), or (B) certain eligible investors who are not "U.S. persons" as defined in Rule 902 under the Securities Act, or (C) otherwise eligible to invest in Securities as discussed elsewhere on the Site I'm assuming C) covers general crowdfunding investors but I also thought that you still had to check net worth/etc. which I didn't see going through the site anywhere (though admittedly I did a very cursory glance).
- k33n 7y ago
  As long as they don't do any advertising they should be okay. But if a single non-accredited investor lands on their website as the result of clicking an ad, the law has been broken.
  - danvoell 7y ago
    "But if a single non-accredited investor lands on their website as the result of clicking an ad, the law has been broken." + invests. Right? Otherwise, AVG which is all over social media would be at fault.
    - k33n 7y ago
      Soliciting investment from non-accredited investors is illegal. I learned this from an attorney who specializes in securitization when I was exploring doing a crypto business. It was also explained to me that local angel investing groups exist pretty much for this reason. They create a semi-private network of accredited investors which can be used by the local community to solicit capital in a legal way.
      - mardifoufs 7y ago
        You don't have to "actively" seek investment from non accredited investors for it to be illegal. So a crypto currency could still absolutely be subject to action from the SEC even if they only had a "invest now" option on their website without promoting it . It's just that the SEC doesn't care as much and focuses more on the big fish. Still, passively selling illegal securities is still illegal :) Fig is legal because of a recent crowdfunding law that made it possible to buy equity while funding a project. I think the website was created right after the law passed too, but maybe my memory is fuzzy here
    - throwaway_tech 7y ago
      >+ invests. Right? Just offering an unregistered security to the public (without any exceptions applying) is a violation.
crobertsbmw 7y ago
Obviously Kickstarter doesn’t give backers an ROI, but beside that, what’s wrong with using Kickstarter as the Kickstarter for video games?
- jonlucc 7y ago
  That seems to be a big difference to me. I wonder if this is more like SeedInvest than KickStarter, but more people understand the Kickstarter model. I can't look now, because I'm getting a "site can't be reached" error.
- ascagnel_ 7y ago
  Kickstarter asks the community to shoulder the risk of development -- you put your money in, with explicitly no guarantee that you'll get a game out of it (just a guarantee of a good-faith effort to put the game out), much less a good game. As much as the big publisher model trends towards games that feel somewhat alike and tend to chase trends, it moves the burden of risk onto an entity that's designed to assume that risk.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    Unless I'm missing something, Fig's model also asks the community to shoulder the risk. The only substantial difference is that with the Fig model the community also shares in all of the potential upside, whereas Kickstarter offloads the risk, but caps the maximum upside at getting the game you backed.
    - kungtotte 7y ago
      To be clear, fig also provides the Kickstarter model alongside its investor model. So you don't have to choose one platform over the other in terms of how you want to risk your money.
- _-o-_ 7y ago
  It's nice to have several competing services (this way we might avoid situations where developers loose all access to funding if they are dropped by monopolist like Patreon). And Fig seems to be way more specialized, since it also offers to act as a publishing.
ultraforce 7y ago
I guess I am a bit curious as to why this is being posted now since Fig has existed for a while. People talked about it and the fact that the founders of it used it for funding of Psychonauts 2. It definitely has had some success stories such as What the Golf? which is available on Apple Arcade already and I found quite fun. Outer Wilds and to a lesser extent Pillars of Eternity 2 are also games that seem to have been successful that used the platform.
- ascagnel_ 7y ago
  It's also interesting, as a platform, in that it allows users to actually invest, rather than "here, take some of my money and maybe I'll get a videogame in two years". Riskier, yes, but I think ultimately healthier for both fans and developers.
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    I think one of the examples this perhaps is most intriguing is when a crowdfund is so successful the company ends up turning around and bringing in a ton of cash after. In that scenario, one could see these early backers actually getting their investment back out... and still getting the game/end product. I think it's a nice potential outcome. And in the case of failure, you still didn't get your video game and are out your investment... the same as a normal crowdfund. Of course, if I recall, actual "investment" via Fig sits an order of magnitude above what most backers would even consider, which is why Fig still does normal crowdfunding too.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > "In that scenario, one could see these early backers actually getting their investment back out... and still getting the game/end product." Doesn't strike me as an investment choice with good odds though. There aren't precise figures available but the consensus of statements from people who've worked in the games industry is broadly consistent: for the large publishers, of ten games developed, you can expect one to significantly profitable, another two to break even, with the remainder losing money. For small indies, the numbers are estimated to be one-tenth of that or worse. Makes for fascinating reading if you want to know a bit more about how the sausage is made. A couple of the more interesting anecdotes I came across were at: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-indie-game-developers-make-profits-off-their-first-game https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-indie-game-develope... https://www.quora.com/Do-game-developers-really-make-any-money https://www.quora.com/Do-game-developers-really-make-any-mon...
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
I have only ever funded one project on Fig, and I regretted it. The developers missed their release target by several years, which wouldn't be that big a deal except that they were also pretty poor communicators for a lot of that time. Then they went Epic exclusive right before release. I'm not saying this reflects badly on Fig per-se, just crowdfunding in general. I'll never do that again.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Phoenix point? Outer wilds? I'm curious which game.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Apart from Humble Monthly, I think maybe all but one game I've bought this year was Epic exclusive. Unless Valve decides to get off it's monopoly laurels, I would expect that to be the new default in PC game launches going forward. Epic's offer is just so much more compelling than Valve's. And it sounds like they should have the tools to roll out onboarding a lot more games ready this year, so they'll probably have a large wave of non-exclusives as well. I would always assume anything you crowdfund will disappoint you in some way. Plans change. When you crowdfund, expect the general direction, not the exact outcome.
  - fartcannon 7y ago
    What is Epic's offer?
    - olah_1 7y ago
      For customers: Free games all the time. For developers: A huge lump sum of cash (although this certainly won't continue forever)
    - mikepurvis 7y ago
      88/12 revenue split vs Steam's 70/30. But you also get more visibility from being on a less crowded, less junky storefront. And although it's unlikely to continue too much longer, Epic has set an interesting precedent with funding $10-off coupons during sales out of their own pocket. If you're at the classic $15-25 indie game price point, there's a nice possibility there for your customer to get $10 off and you to still get your full cut.
ArtWomb 7y ago
Per-game fractional equity stakes are something I am also considering for my own endeavors. I think it makes sense for rapid release schedules, where you plan to build the "factory" that can ramp a dedicated pipeline of hypercasual games with in-game monetization on a predictable and speedy timeframe It would be interesting to explore 100% crypto smart contract solutions to this. I know a couple of years ago a lot of people were interested in fractional ownership for real estate development. But I am not sure what if it went anywhere
- 6r6r6r6r6r6r6r 7y ago
  > where you plan to build the "factory" that can ramp a dedicated pipeline of hypercasual games with in-game monetization Please don't. The human race needs exactly zero additional buzzword moneygrab games. > But I am not sure what if it went anywhere The first market will come online this quarter, IIRC tied to the Stock Exchange of Thailand. The company getting it off the ground (they were awarded the first license) is using Tezos to distribute tokens.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  I'll be honest here. I can't tell if this is satire or not.
  - lubonay 7y ago
    I really wish the hypercasual trend would go away. It's closer to slot machines with ads than to Tetris, and I think games as a medium are worse-off for it.
  - vadansky 7y ago
    One man's satire is another man's 401k
- freeone3000 7y ago
  Fractional investment in real estate is an REIT, and is widely available.
ryuukk_ 7y ago
scamfunding
jiofih 7y ago
The lack of any mention of how big a share Fig has does not elicit trust.
NotHimself 7y ago
Do you want to relax with me today? Write here - getbadgirl.com
euix 7y ago
i was one of those who funded pillars of eternity 2 through fig. It turned into a dud, the game didnt sell well. I took a 50% haircut. the actual mechanics were all onboard. Private shares were held using computershare and proceeds paid out in dividends.
- joeldg 7y ago
  they are releasing some new improved version of it now.. what I guess is the "non-beta" release.
The_mboga_real 7y ago
By using your skills to fund coins and bonuses. Even if you can't hack it, change the damn date forward and earn that ching!
scarejunba 7y ago
Neat. I reserved to fund for $2k on Homeworld 3. This sounds cool.
miohtama 7y ago
Here are the SEC Edgar filings for Fig- no need to speculate what is being offered https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001658966 https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&C...
adawg4 7y ago
Product hunt for indie games? Beautiful.
terrycody 7y ago
This is a serious platform, I wish it can be success in the future!

159 points by TakakiTohno 7y ago

anonnyj 7y ago

Thanks. I was wondering why this didn't exist already. T-shirts/in game items/early access never interested me.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

The investment portion is an interesting idea. What sort of legal mechanism are they using for this?

CrazyStat 7y ago
It's standard accredited investor stuff. You can't invest unless you have sufficient wealth/income to be an accredited investor.
chews 7y ago
Fig has a CIK number, seems they're filing form Ds with the SEC. https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001658966 https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&C...

c0restraint 7y ago

The book "Blood, Sweat, and Pixels" mentions Fig. It was started by several gaming industry developers/producers saw the success that Kickstarter offered the gaming industry.

wgerard 7y ago

Huh, I was wondering if this was legal (seems like an unregistered securities offering, which has semi-strict requirements even after 2012) and then read this at the bottom: > The securities offered by the issuers on the Site (the "Securities") may be sold only to (A) investors who are (i) "Accredited Investors" as defined in Rule 501 under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), or (B) certain eligible investors who are not "U.S. persons" as defined in Rule 902 under the Securities Act, or (C) otherwise eligible to invest in Securities as discussed elsewhere on the Site I'm assuming C) covers general crowdfunding investors but I also thought that you still had to check net worth/etc. which I didn't see going through the site anywhere (though admittedly I did a very cursory glance).

k33n 7y ago
As long as they don't do any advertising they should be okay. But if a single non-accredited investor lands on their website as the result of clicking an ad, the law has been broken.
- danvoell 7y ago
  "But if a single non-accredited investor lands on their website as the result of clicking an ad, the law has been broken." + invests. Right? Otherwise, AVG which is all over social media would be at fault.
  - k33n 7y ago
    Soliciting investment from non-accredited investors is illegal. I learned this from an attorney who specializes in securitization when I was exploring doing a crypto business. It was also explained to me that local angel investing groups exist pretty much for this reason. They create a semi-private network of accredited investors which can be used by the local community to solicit capital in a legal way.
    - mardifoufs 7y ago
      You don't have to "actively" seek investment from non accredited investors for it to be illegal. So a crypto currency could still absolutely be subject to action from the SEC even if they only had a "invest now" option on their website without promoting it . It's just that the SEC doesn't care as much and focuses more on the big fish. Still, passively selling illegal securities is still illegal :) Fig is legal because of a recent crowdfunding law that made it possible to buy equity while funding a project. I think the website was created right after the law passed too, but maybe my memory is fuzzy here
  - throwaway_tech 7y ago
    >+ invests. Right? Just offering an unregistered security to the public (without any exceptions applying) is a violation.

crobertsbmw 7y ago

Obviously Kickstarter doesn’t give backers an ROI, but beside that, what’s wrong with using Kickstarter as the Kickstarter for video games?

jonlucc 7y ago
That seems to be a big difference to me. I wonder if this is more like SeedInvest than KickStarter, but more people understand the Kickstarter model. I can't look now, because I'm getting a "site can't be reached" error.
ascagnel_ 7y ago
Kickstarter asks the community to shoulder the risk of development -- you put your money in, with explicitly no guarantee that you'll get a game out of it (just a guarantee of a good-faith effort to put the game out), much less a good game. As much as the big publisher model trends towards games that feel somewhat alike and tend to chase trends, it moves the burden of risk onto an entity that's designed to assume that risk.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  Unless I'm missing something, Fig's model also asks the community to shoulder the risk. The only substantial difference is that with the Fig model the community also shares in all of the potential upside, whereas Kickstarter offloads the risk, but caps the maximum upside at getting the game you backed.
  - kungtotte 7y ago
    To be clear, fig also provides the Kickstarter model alongside its investor model. So you don't have to choose one platform over the other in terms of how you want to risk your money.
_-o-_ 7y ago
It's nice to have several competing services (this way we might avoid situations where developers loose all access to funding if they are dropped by monopolist like Patreon). And Fig seems to be way more specialized, since it also offers to act as a publishing.

ultraforce 7y ago

I guess I am a bit curious as to why this is being posted now since Fig has existed for a while. People talked about it and the fact that the founders of it used it for funding of Psychonauts 2. It definitely has had some success stories such as What the Golf? which is available on Apple Arcade already and I found quite fun. Outer Wilds and to a lesser extent Pillars of Eternity 2 are also games that seem to have been successful that used the platform.

ascagnel_ 7y ago
It's also interesting, as a platform, in that it allows users to actually invest, rather than "here, take some of my money and maybe I'll get a videogame in two years". Riskier, yes, but I think ultimately healthier for both fans and developers.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  I think one of the examples this perhaps is most intriguing is when a crowdfund is so successful the company ends up turning around and bringing in a ton of cash after. In that scenario, one could see these early backers actually getting their investment back out... and still getting the game/end product. I think it's a nice potential outcome. And in the case of failure, you still didn't get your video game and are out your investment... the same as a normal crowdfund. Of course, if I recall, actual "investment" via Fig sits an order of magnitude above what most backers would even consider, which is why Fig still does normal crowdfunding too.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > "In that scenario, one could see these early backers actually getting their investment back out... and still getting the game/end product." Doesn't strike me as an investment choice with good odds though. There aren't precise figures available but the consensus of statements from people who've worked in the games industry is broadly consistent: for the large publishers, of ten games developed, you can expect one to significantly profitable, another two to break even, with the remainder losing money. For small indies, the numbers are estimated to be one-tenth of that or worse. Makes for fascinating reading if you want to know a bit more about how the sausage is made. A couple of the more interesting anecdotes I came across were at: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-indie-game-developers-make-profits-off-their-first-game https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-indie-game-develope... https://www.quora.com/Do-game-developers-really-make-any-money https://www.quora.com/Do-game-developers-really-make-any-mon...

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

I have only ever funded one project on Fig, and I regretted it. The developers missed their release target by several years, which wouldn't be that big a deal except that they were also pretty poor communicators for a lot of that time. Then they went Epic exclusive right before release. I'm not saying this reflects badly on Fig per-se, just crowdfunding in general. I'll never do that again.

Pfhreak 7y ago
Phoenix point? Outer wilds? I'm curious which game.
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Apart from Humble Monthly, I think maybe all but one game I've bought this year was Epic exclusive. Unless Valve decides to get off it's monopoly laurels, I would expect that to be the new default in PC game launches going forward. Epic's offer is just so much more compelling than Valve's. And it sounds like they should have the tools to roll out onboarding a lot more games ready this year, so they'll probably have a large wave of non-exclusives as well. I would always assume anything you crowdfund will disappoint you in some way. Plans change. When you crowdfund, expect the general direction, not the exact outcome.
- fartcannon 7y ago
  What is Epic's offer?
  - olah_1 7y ago
    For customers: Free games all the time. For developers: A huge lump sum of cash (although this certainly won't continue forever)
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    88/12 revenue split vs Steam's 70/30. But you also get more visibility from being on a less crowded, less junky storefront. And although it's unlikely to continue too much longer, Epic has set an interesting precedent with funding $10-off coupons during sales out of their own pocket. If you're at the classic $15-25 indie game price point, there's a nice possibility there for your customer to get $10 off and you to still get your full cut.

ArtWomb 7y ago

Per-game fractional equity stakes are something I am also considering for my own endeavors. I think it makes sense for rapid release schedules, where you plan to build the "factory" that can ramp a dedicated pipeline of hypercasual games with in-game monetization on a predictable and speedy timeframe It would be interesting to explore 100% crypto smart contract solutions to this. I know a couple of years ago a lot of people were interested in fractional ownership for real estate development. But I am not sure what if it went anywhere

6r6r6r6r6r6r6r 7y ago
> where you plan to build the "factory" that can ramp a dedicated pipeline of hypercasual games with in-game monetization Please don't. The human race needs exactly zero additional buzzword moneygrab games. > But I am not sure what if it went anywhere The first market will come online this quarter, IIRC tied to the Stock Exchange of Thailand. The company getting it off the ground (they were awarded the first license) is using Tezos to distribute tokens.
SkyBelow 7y ago
I'll be honest here. I can't tell if this is satire or not.
- lubonay 7y ago
  I really wish the hypercasual trend would go away. It's closer to slot machines with ads than to Tetris, and I think games as a medium are worse-off for it.
- vadansky 7y ago
  One man's satire is another man's 401k
freeone3000 7y ago
Fractional investment in real estate is an REIT, and is widely available.

ryuukk_ 7y ago

scamfunding

jiofih 7y ago

The lack of any mention of how big a share Fig has does not elicit trust.

NotHimself 7y ago

Do you want to relax with me today? Write here - getbadgirl.com

euix 7y ago

i was one of those who funded pillars of eternity 2 through fig. It turned into a dud, the game didnt sell well. I took a 50% haircut. the actual mechanics were all onboard. Private shares were held using computershare and proceeds paid out in dividends.

joeldg 7y ago
they are releasing some new improved version of it now.. what I guess is the "non-beta" release.

The_mboga_real 7y ago

By using your skills to fund coins and bonuses. Even if you can't hack it, change the damn date forward and earn that ching!

scarejunba 7y ago

Neat. I reserved to fund for $2k on Homeworld 3. This sounds cool.

miohtama 7y ago

Here are the SEC Edgar filings for Fig- no need to speculate what is being offered https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001658966 https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&C...

adawg4 7y ago

Product hunt for indie games? Beautiful.

terrycody 7y ago

This is a serious platform, I wish it can be success in the future!