
Fig – Crowdfunding for video games - TakakiTohno
https://www.fig.co/
======
wgerard
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
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
"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
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
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

------
ultraforce
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.

~~~
danso
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))

~~~
redisman
They started off with some big sequels (Pillars, Psychonauts) but I don't
think they've had any big names since then.

~~~
WorldMaker
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
Double Fine and Obsidian?? Wow I missed that news.

~~~
WorldMaker
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.)

------
AnIdiotOnTheNet
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.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
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
What is Epic's offer?

~~~
mikepurvis
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.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
And all of that is before you mention their incentives for timed exclusive
launches, which I believe often amounts to a revenue guarantee on your
projected sales, and I think they deliver it up front.

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.

~~~
KapKap55
Interesting phrasing, as indies aren't getting onto the storefront at all
without accepting timed exclusivity. It's not an option that can be taken, it
is mandatory to be on the storefront unless you have enough clout to tell Epic
to shove it (CDProjekt Red).

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.

~~~
mikepurvis
Maybe not the exclusivity part, but it being a curated platform is very much a
win from the consumer's point of view. Being good enough to be on the EGS
actually means something in an age when anyone can ship their garbage on Steam
or itch.io or any number of smaller storefronts.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Speak for yourself, I happen to like the idea that there isn't some arbitrary
gate keeper determining what is and isn't good enough to be on their store.
I'll decide what is worth my money thank you very much.

~~~
mikepurvis
Sure, and Steam exists for that. But that's also why it's clogged with
thousands of shovelware GameMaker titles, porn games, and downright scams.
Discovery on Steam is completely broken.

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.

------
ArtWomb
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

~~~
SkyBelow
I'll be honest here. I can't tell if this is satire or not.

~~~
lubonay
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.

------
c0restraint
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.

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

~~~
ascagnel_
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
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
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.

------
miohtama
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&C...](https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-
edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001658966)

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

~~~
CrazyStat
It's standard accredited investor stuff. You can't invest unless you have
sufficient wealth/income to be an accredited investor.

------
euix
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.

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

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

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

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

------
adawg4
Product hunt for indie games? Beautiful.

