8 ms·

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 use

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...
  - kungtotte 7y ago
    Yes, it's a big difference in price. I backed Pillars of Eternity 2 via fig and IIRC the backer tiers started at $10 whereas investors started at $1000/share. If memory serves the shares were also just shares (with a copy of the game included obviously). If you spent $1000 as a backer instead of as an investor you got a whole lot more rewards for your money.
- lucasverra 7y ago
  is there any other examples of successful crowd equity platform (gaming or not?)
  - larrydag 7y ago
    LendingClub, Prosper are ones that come to mind
    - astura 7y ago
      Also those eREITs like Fundrise.
  - dharma1 7y ago
    Crowdcube
skocznymroczny 7y ago
Phoenix Point too. Backed that one when it came out for $25. I'm not happy with the game, but people seem to enjoy it.
- baud147258 7y ago
  Had I backed Phoenix Point based on what was shown in the Fig pitch, I wouldn't have been happy with the result either.
  - on_and_off 7y ago
    I just skimmed the pitch and it seems pretty close to the final game. What am I missing ?
    - skocznymroczny 7y ago
      For me, I expected something more closer to the classic XCom games from the 90s. What I got feels more like a spin-off of the contemporary X-COM games, with interface, camera and general gameplay cloned 1:1.
      - KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
        As someone who's never tried the classic xcom games what's the main selling point for how that's better?
        baud147258 7y ago
        I don't think the older games are necessarily better. But they are different and the pitch gave the impression that the intended product would be closer to X-Com than XCOM.
    - baud147258 7y ago
      For a first, all the visual style that got changed between the concept art and models shown in the pitch; especially since the devs then spent close to a year on this without communicating with their backers. And especially since they most likely used their improved graphics to secure the deal with Microsoft, instead on focusing their effort on fulfilling their promises on gameplay features, many which are missing from the current game.
danso 7y ago
It's interesting that Fig.co hasn't been much of a topic at all on HN; only 6 submissions from the domain over the years, only one with more than 20 upvotes (the current thread being the second fig.co submission to reach that many upvotes) https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=fig.co https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=fig.co (Incidentally, a Docker-related tool called "Fig" got 160+ upvotes 6 years ago; didn't see any discussion threads about Fig.co when doing a search: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132044)
- ouid 7y ago
  maybe the yc community is protective of the venture capitalist approach to development for some reason
- redisman 7y ago
  They started off with some big sequels (Pillars, Psychonauts) but I don't think they've had any big names since then.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    It's also interesting that they might not have any nearly as big in the future, as interestingly Microsoft has purchased almost all of the developers (Obsidian, inXile, Double Fine) that had major Fig funded projects. (They did not purchase Fig itself though.) It's fascinating that most of the biggest dividends so far paid to Fig investors have been from Microsoft buy outs.
    - redisman 7y ago
      Double Fine and Obsidian?? Wow I missed that news.
      - WorldMaker 7y ago
        Xbox Game Studios has been on a really interesting developer growth and M&A spree the last couple of years, in response to allegations that the Xbox One did not have enough first/second party exclusive titles compared to the PS4. They've made it a big part of their E3 announcements both of the last two years. They've been honoring existing publishing agreements for the most part, so it'll be months to years before it's obvious how much Microsoft has changed the landscape. (It's why Gearbox still published Compulsion's We Happy Few and Obsidian's Outer Worlds, for two instances, and per-Fig requirements/expectations Psychonauts 2 won't be Xbox exclusive but will probably be Double Fine's last title to not launch Xbox exclusive.) (It's also partly fascinating because inXile and Obsidian have bad blood between each other and now they are both owned by Microsoft. Microsoft has said they'll keep them separated.)
bilekas 7y ago
Outer Wilds is definitely up there as one of my favourite games recently, I have no idea it was borne from Fig!
- danso 7y ago
  I finally got OW when it was on sale last month and it definitely lives up to the hype. I wonder had I seen its fundraising campaign on Fig.co (or any crowdfunding platform), if I would've smart enough to recognize its genius/creativity. (I think I saw in a Reddit post that the game's structure and most of its planets were already set when the game was pitched years ago)
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
It was also used to raise funds for Homeworld 3, which is currently in development.
- danbolt 7y ago
  Does anyone know if Randy Pitchford has is a Stakeholder for Fig? I know he's a member of the "advisory board" and company also owns the rights to the Homeworld IP. [1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-08-randy-pitchford-joins-fig-advisory-board https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-08-randy-pitc...
ehsankia 7y ago
It's easy to talk about success stories but I think for a proper analysis, we need to look at the full picture. I'm not too familiar with Fig, but ever since Kickstarter, I've been burnt about investing into unreleased games. I founded exactly 10 game projects from around when it blew up in 2011. I would say I've had roughly 1/3 success release, 1/3 still working a decade later or half-release, and 1/3 completely disappeared. And it's not like I backed random shady stuff either, one of them for example was CLANG, which literally had Gabe Newell in the intro video. So yeah, I'd like to see statistics about all the projects, not just the handful of successful ones.

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...
- kungtotte 7y ago
  Yes, it's a big difference in price. I backed Pillars of Eternity 2 via fig and IIRC the backer tiers started at $10 whereas investors started at $1000/share. If memory serves the shares were also just shares (with a copy of the game included obviously). If you spent $1000 as a backer instead of as an investor you got a whole lot more rewards for your money.
lucasverra 7y ago
is there any other examples of successful crowd equity platform (gaming or not?)
- larrydag 7y ago
  LendingClub, Prosper are ones that come to mind
  - astura 7y ago
    Also those eREITs like Fundrise.
- dharma1 7y ago
  Crowdcube

skocznymroczny 7y ago

Phoenix Point too. Backed that one when it came out for $25. I'm not happy with the game, but people seem to enjoy it.

baud147258 7y ago
Had I backed Phoenix Point based on what was shown in the Fig pitch, I wouldn't have been happy with the result either.
- on_and_off 7y ago
  I just skimmed the pitch and it seems pretty close to the final game. What am I missing ?
  - skocznymroczny 7y ago
    For me, I expected something more closer to the classic XCom games from the 90s. What I got feels more like a spin-off of the contemporary X-COM games, with interface, camera and general gameplay cloned 1:1.
    - KaoruAoiShiho 7y ago
      As someone who's never tried the classic xcom games what's the main selling point for how that's better?
      - baud147258 7y ago
        I don't think the older games are necessarily better. But they are different and the pitch gave the impression that the intended product would be closer to X-Com than XCOM.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    For a first, all the visual style that got changed between the concept art and models shown in the pitch; especially since the devs then spent close to a year on this without communicating with their backers. And especially since they most likely used their improved graphics to secure the deal with Microsoft, instead on focusing their effort on fulfilling their promises on gameplay features, many which are missing from the current game.

danso 7y ago

It's interesting that Fig.co hasn't been much of a topic at all on HN; only 6 submissions from the domain over the years, only one with more than 20 upvotes (the current thread being the second fig.co submission to reach that many upvotes) https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=fig.co https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=fig.co (Incidentally, a Docker-related tool called "Fig" got 160+ upvotes 6 years ago; didn't see any discussion threads about Fig.co when doing a search: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7132044)

ouid 7y ago
maybe the yc community is protective of the venture capitalist approach to development for some reason
redisman 7y ago
They started off with some big sequels (Pillars, Psychonauts) but I don't think they've had any big names since then.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  It's also interesting that they might not have any nearly as big in the future, as interestingly Microsoft has purchased almost all of the developers (Obsidian, inXile, Double Fine) that had major Fig funded projects. (They did not purchase Fig itself though.) It's fascinating that most of the biggest dividends so far paid to Fig investors have been from Microsoft buy outs.
  - redisman 7y ago
    Double Fine and Obsidian?? Wow I missed that news.
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      Xbox Game Studios has been on a really interesting developer growth and M&A spree the last couple of years, in response to allegations that the Xbox One did not have enough first/second party exclusive titles compared to the PS4. They've made it a big part of their E3 announcements both of the last two years. They've been honoring existing publishing agreements for the most part, so it'll be months to years before it's obvious how much Microsoft has changed the landscape. (It's why Gearbox still published Compulsion's We Happy Few and Obsidian's Outer Worlds, for two instances, and per-Fig requirements/expectations Psychonauts 2 won't be Xbox exclusive but will probably be Double Fine's last title to not launch Xbox exclusive.) (It's also partly fascinating because inXile and Obsidian have bad blood between each other and now they are both owned by Microsoft. Microsoft has said they'll keep them separated.)

bilekas 7y ago

Outer Wilds is definitely up there as one of my favourite games recently, I have no idea it was borne from Fig!

danso 7y ago
I finally got OW when it was on sale last month and it definitely lives up to the hype. I wonder had I seen its fundraising campaign on Fig.co (or any crowdfunding platform), if I would've smart enough to recognize its genius/creativity. (I think I saw in a Reddit post that the game's structure and most of its planets were already set when the game was pitched years ago)

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

It was also used to raise funds for Homeworld 3, which is currently in development.

danbolt 7y ago
Does anyone know if Randy Pitchford has is a Stakeholder for Fig? I know he's a member of the "advisory board" and company also owns the rights to the Homeworld IP. [1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-08-randy-pitchford-joins-fig-advisory-board https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-08-randy-pitc...

ehsankia 7y ago

It's easy to talk about success stories but I think for a proper analysis, we need to look at the full picture. I'm not too familiar with Fig, but ever since Kickstarter, I've been burnt about investing into unreleased games. I founded exactly 10 game projects from around when it blew up in 2011. I would say I've had roughly 1/3 success release, 1/3 still working a decade later or half-release, and 1/3 completely disappeared. And it's not like I backed random shady stuff either, one of them for example was CLANG, which literally had Gabe Newell in the intro video. So yeah, I'd like to see statistics about all the projects, not just the handful of successful ones.