Fig – Crowdfunding for video games
fig.co
fig.co
> 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).
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
Just offering an unregistered security to the public (without any exceptions applying) is a violation.
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.
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-develope...
https://www.quora.com/Do-game-developers-really-make-any-mon...
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.
Features often need to be cut, e.g. because they sound good on paper but just don't work in practice.
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)
(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.)
(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)
[1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-03-08-randy-pitc...
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.
I'm not saying this reflects badly on Fig per-se, just crowdfunding in general. I'll never do that again.
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.
For developers: A huge lump sum of cash (although this certainly won't continue forever)
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.
So a cash-strapped game developer can go into the final stages of their game launch pre-paid and knowing they're already fiscally on track before it's even out. For indies that's a no-brainer.
That's assuming of course that Epic chooses to accept your game in the first place. My major issue with discussions regarding the EGS is that everyone discussing it talks as if every developer has access to what it's offering, which is not the case even in the slightest.
The EGS is much more akin to a console ecosystem. You don't have to use it, except perhaps for the occasional exclusive. But lots of people feel that there is value there.
My understanding is that right now Epic's submission pipeline is very manual, there's not a lot of self-servicing. So they are focused on submissions which move the needle the most for Epic: Exclusives, free titles (also available to indies), and then AAA games. I believe they've suggested the wider release of EGS for more developers should be sometime this year.
But then I hear that devs are getting cash up front and a bigger cut (I think it's like 85% compared to Steam's 70%) of profits. I'm happy that a developer may not need to crunch, or at least possibly not worry that if the game doesn't sell they'll be bankrupted.
I'd really like GOG to get a little better about this considering how great Galaxy 2.0 is and their general "No DRM" policy. It would become my default but Steam is still king for now
Prior to Proton, gaming on Linux was hit or miss. Many games never worked, some worked like crap, some required convoluted incantations of Wine settings and specific game versions and then only on every second Sunday.
Now? I install games via Steam's normal interface and 90% of the time it just works. And most of those that don't work use some non-Steam DRM that won't run under Proton.
A bonus point is that it reports your usage as running under Linux so publishers and devs get accurate numbers for how big their potential market is on Linux which is good in the long run for getting native Linux games.
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
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.
And Fig seems to be way more specialized, since it also offers to act as a publishing.
By and large, it's pretty easy on KS to see when a campaign is created by known developers/publishers. But there's still plenty of noise and anomalies, like this "Day of Dragons" which seemed to raise half a mil based on coincidental timing: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-10-11-harry-potter-a...
the actual mechanics were all onboard. Private shares were held using computershare and proceeds paid out in dividends.