Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote

so far they're at 0% "that which sleeps" incidents so it's doing better than kickstarter

Quote

Fig has a total of, what, 12 funded projects?

You don't get to play with both sides of the coin.

Then neither do you.

You accuse Fig of trying to lure small hobbyists with the promise of get-rich-quick, when that's patently false. Most of the projects on Fig are by well-known developers and/or part of well-known franchises.

You seem concerned that Fig investments are a scam, when so far there's been literally 0 evidence of that ever happening and nothing in their corporate structure is unusual for a company that needs to divvy up shares in individual games that they're publishing.

Quote

You still don't "know" anything. You don't know if this structure is normal for investment vehicles (it is) or why it was done, or what it means.

I can read, I've got a brain and it's not rocket science. You can judge the terms of a deal based on the average for how most people succeed in the indie game market and judge it as shit.

Again, no.

1) Most of these aren't even "indie" games. They are games by established developers or part of established franchises that have been published before, like Pillars of Eternity 2 or Rock Band 4. Fig is not some place where you get to gamble on indie developers.

2) The "terms of the deal" has nothing to do with Fig's corporate structure.

Quote

Again, that's not how a pyramid scheme works. In a pyramid scheme you only get money relative to your own recruitment. Your pyramid income is 100% based on the bricks below you, not on somebody else's bricks, or the overall success of the enterprise.

Fig makes money no matter what. It's just a question of how much they make. But they can't make anything without developers.

That has nothing to do with pyramid schemes.

Developers get money no matter what. They get the pledge at a bare minimum. But only if they have backers.

Again, nothing to do with pyramid schemes.

Backers get fuck all unless it actually succeeds, and to recoup their investment at least the game has to be a huge success or it takes 10 years. Their take is proportional to what they're willing to put in. Fig scheme IS 100% based on the bricks below them.

Again, that is not what a pyramid scheme is. Your success in a pyramid scheme has nothing to do with the game being a huge success or taking 10 years.

We're talking about launching a discrete product, which will have a sales arc and product lifespan. You can buy shares in the launching of that product.

If you think Fig is a pyramid scheme then every stock IPO in the world is a "pyramid scheme."

Quote

And let's be real; being an accredited investor doesn't mean anything anyway. half the goddamn population of the US lives in a household with an "accredited investor." of course they take money from unaccredited investors.

1) Half of joint US households make over $300,000k each year? Try again.

My bad - I read a chart on household net worth wrong. It's more like 10-15% of the US population, not half. The point is that it's incredibly common. "Accredited investors" are not some special club of stock geniuses.

Your link isn't helpful, though, because average doesn't tell you anything about distribution. Also, income is only one way to become an accredited investor.

2) EA isn't directly asking investors to pay for the development of their next game. Because actual investors would say "Kiss my ass."

Of course they are. What business do you think EA is in? What do you think you're investing in when you buy stock in EA? Do you think they engage in any other business besides developing and publishing games?

3) Accredited investor status is there to protect both the investor and the business. But it's mostly to ensure people don't gamble their livelihood away in the stock market.

IT LITERALLY DOES NOT DO THAT

Nothing is stopping you from gambling every dollar you have or can borrow on the stock market, whether you're accredited or unaccredited. That is NOT what accredited investor status does.

You can get all that from Google by the way. Or "that youtube video which I just took as gospel and is factually correct but no one should actually listen to it."

Yes, you can get a fundamental misunderstanding of what "accredited investor" status means from googling or watching ill-informed youtube videos.

Quote

well if you keep dropping the parts where you're objectively wrong (like "reputable companies don't solicit game ideas through email") then there won't be much left, huh?

You're really gonna stand by Paradox as your example?  They've pulled some shady BS on their own time too. So no, I don't consider that me being "objectively wrong" because I don't hold up Paradox as some exemplar of professionalism or huge business. And more to the point, to Fig, developers are as much bricks in the pyramid as backers in Fig's eyes. They need developers as much as developers need backers.

all publishers needs developers, genius. all publishers need funding. publishers don't just pop up in the middle of nowhere, fully funded, ready to spend money developing games. publishers get their money from somewhere, and it's usually equity investment firms or parent media corporations (like Warner Brothers) that have exactly the same funding setups that fig have. all fig has done is replaced the source of the money with crowdfunding. Instead of Warner Brothers Entertainment Inc. being the money behind WB Games Inc. who then publishes a game on behalf of a developer.

Quote

You misunderstand. Where did you get the idea that Fig is out there telling people they'll all sell $1 million of games in two weeks?

I didn't, because you're putting words in my mouth. Fig does the usual "investing is a risky business" spiel just like Kickstarter. The difference is they pitch making money as the thing that makes their platform special, as if making a plug nickle on half a dozen indie games is likely at the rate at which they have to sell for you to actually see a return. You've shown an example that proves their model, and what I"m telling you is it's an exception, not a rule. It's the Jackpot on the slot machine.

With Kickstarter it's "Ah shit, there's goes my $60 bucks and my fun" when it fails. Or it just doesn't take off to meet the hype and that's the end of it. With Fig it's "How did you not make me money!!!!" Those are two very different realities. As if making games wasn't hard enough to please publishers, now you got a fan base that also expects your game to be a financial success not just for its health but for their wallets too.

I understand this argument to some extent. The problem is that it's not an "exception" or a "rule." It's the first game to launch from a brand new funding system. Turns out it made a shitton of money. It's one data point; all it proves is that Fig isn't going to run away with all the money (so far). It proves the model, not that all Fig games are going to make investors lots of money. Your jackpot analogy is shitty because nobody has been plugging nickles in this whole time, waiting for the jackpot.

The other problem with your concern about what's "normal" for indie games is that they're not publishing every indie game that comes along. They are clearly picking projects more likely to succeed. If anything, Kickstarter has the problem you're concerned about: they will let almost anyone create almost any project and take a cut of the funds, with little concern for if the product ever materializes. That Which Sleeps is one of a million examples of vaporware games. You will never see that on Fig.

Quote

Where is the dumbass accusation that Fig is somehow trolling for rubes coming from?

When they started trying to bring average people with average incomes into an investing scheme, using their favorite past time as bait.

It's much harder to invest in Fig, than say, buy stock in a game publisher or any other company associated with a hobby you like. Funding of these games is very limited, and it's not really going to be something the "average" person does. Who is the "average" person who is lured into dropping $1000 on a risky investment?

Quote

the thing is, how can you argue this while also arguing that Fig is somehow a pyramid scheme or a scam? either it's ruining indie kickstarting by introducing a profit motive, or it's not because it's a scam that doesn't deliver games. you can't argue both.

Control F on this thread and look for scam. Look who hasn't said it.

Jesus dude. You called it a pyramid scheme. A pyramid scheme is a kind of scam.

I do think it's a pyramid scheme though. It just happens to be a pyramid scheme that sometimes has a happy ending and produces an actual product.

Ok, so you do think it's a scam. Unless by "pyramid scheme" you really do mean "works how all investing works." You spend money with the hope to get money based on the success of the enterprise.

It's putting low dollar investment in front of average people and asking them to gamble like actual investors do with their money. And I find that pretty scummy.

I'll admit, I generally have a low opinion of investing period and that does color my bias. It's fine when it's not intruding on my world. But when someone is trying to change the way games get made and suddenly average fucking gamers are trying to make money, it's not really a hobby anymore is it? Real money trading in games, gambling on skins you can then sell for $1000, microtransactions, it's all about siphoning money away from people in little bits via their hobby. Buying the game isn't enough and hasn't been for a while. Now you need to keep giving them money. Now, even paying for it to be made isn't enough. You can' get people to foot the ENTIRE BILL for it right? Right? There aren't enough whales for that right? Unless....what if you turn average people can't afford to spend money like that in to gamblers, just telling them to pull the lever and maybe they'll be rich without having done a thing (except risk their money.)

It's not even low!! Ubisoft shares are 60 euros right now. EA shares are $120. $1000 for a share of a Fig game is going to eliminate all of these "average people" you're concerned about. What "average person" has $1000 they're ready to spend on something that, best case scenario, doesn't pay out for years? And that's assuming they ignore all the fair warnings that "this project may fail and your investment will disappear." The average person isn't about to buy $1000 worth of anything on a whim, even if they love gaming.

Quote

That is exactly what I'm saying, genius. The Castles and Kingdoms campaign finished in January 2017. The OLDEST campaign on fig finished in september 2015. no fig game has even gone through "years" of development yet.

So if they've had one project go from campaign to release and sales in 6 months....where are any of the other success stories, or stories period, of how things have fared on Fig?

so far they're at 0% "that which sleeps" incidents so it's doing better than kickstarter

So I guess we'll assume that everyone who is planning on using Fig is as educated and well informed as a tax lawyer? Because I didn't know any of this and when I did, it made my decision for me not to use Fig. Interesting to a tax lawyer. Gee I guess not. Interesting to the rest of us rubes? Yeah, I'd say so.

You still don't "know" anything. You don't know if this structure is normal for investment vehicles (it is) or why it was done, or what it means.

It's like if I told you the atomic number of cesium was 55. HOLY SHIT 55?!? Guys we need to call the DOE right now; 55 is a big number!

Quote

It's not like fig backers are encouraged to go out and recruit more backers and earn a cut of whomever they recruit.

What exactly do you call exhorting backers to spread the word, get more backers, to get the game they have a financial interest in to get more money, so it can potentially sell better and make them more money back?

Again, that's not how a pyramid scheme works. In a pyramid scheme you only get money relative to your own recruitment. Your pyramid income is 100% based on the bricks below you, not on somebody else's bricks, or the overall success of the enterprise.

Quote

The only difference is that you replace big corporate money and investors with crowdfunding.

That isn't the only difference. Another difference is in how they sell you on who they are. EA, Ubisoft, big publishers are faceless. They're monolithic. This is the good old "hey, we're people just like you who love games! We're not greedy and self-serving like the ebil publishers. We're about community! And definitely not bending you over as fast as EA or anyone else for a buck." Another difference is EA isn't courting unaccredited investors to fund their games. They damn well would if they could, and after Fig got permission I wouldn't doubt if they're exploring their own avenues of offloading development costs directly on consumers.

EA is traded on the goddamn NASDAQ. Do you have to be an accredited investor to buy stock in EA? of course they take money from unaccredited investors.

And let's be real; being an accredited investor doesn't mean anything anyway. half the goddamn population of the US lives in a household with an "accredited investor."

Exhibit #300 in "you watched a youtube video with a lot of big words but don't understand what any of it really means."

Quote

it's starting to seem like you really don't know much about any of this but watched an alarmist youtube video made by a guy who gets ad revenue exploiting your credulity

And you seem like you've got horseblinders on with a Fig logo on them. Gee isn't it fun when we both pillory each other? Or how about we just drop the snide personal attacks like anyone is winning points here.

well if you keep dropping the parts where you're objectively wrong (like "reputable companies don't solicit game ideas through email") then there won't be much left, huh?

Quote

i'm not sure where you get this idea from. i think you watch too many youtube videos.

I read industry news, from developers, who talk about their profits and what's likely versus not likely in the indie space. $1 million in two weeks is not normal, or even average. $10,000 in a couple weeks for your garden variety indie game is much closer to the mark.

You misunderstand. Where did you get the idea that Fig is out there telling people they'll all sell $1 million of games in two weeks?

Fig has a total of, what, 12 funded projects? And many of them are sequels to well-established franchises (Psychonauts 2, Wasteland 3, Pillars of Eternity 2). Where is the dumbass accusation that Fig is somehow trolling for rubes coming from?

Quote

it's just as fair to assume they're someone willing to get little or no return so that they can invest in a developer or idea they like. buying a $1000 fig share of a game instead of paying $1000 for an NPC named after you seems reasonable.

Quote

If someone wants to donate just out of the goodness of their heart or for a t-shirt, why would they seek the profit option at all? By definition you have a profit motivation if you seek the for-profit option. Ergo, your focus is not just on supporting the developer or the game, you've got an ulterior motive of personal enrichment as well.

so ok, this whole line of argumentation is fine. it's an aesthetic argument about the proper relationship between the artist and the audience, which i don't agree with, but it's not really objectively wrong (unlike literally every other argument you've made).

the thing is, how can you argue this while also arguing that Fig is somehow a pyramid scheme or a scam? either it's ruining indie kickstarting by introducing a profit motive, or it's not because it's a scam that doesn't deliver games. you can't argue both.

Quote

https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/10/16125828/fig-first-profitable-game-equity-investment-kingdoms-and-castles

So it took until literally last month before they had a Fig success story worth talking about? Well blllllllllooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww me down.

development takes years. unsurprising that a small city builder-type game was the first to release (the fundraising target was under $200k). the platform launched in 2015.

well, i didn't ask you, but since you've responded: you linked one youtube video back from the psychonauts 2 campaign, and whined that fig is not assuming any risk in publishing the game while standing to receive a cut of the sales. which of course is no different than any publisher; you use one person's money to fund a third person's game, and pay back the one person's money plus extra, keep some yourself, and hopefully there's some left over for the developer. it's not even really different than kickstarter: give a developer a platform to solicit donations/make pre-sales, and then keep a percentage for the privilege of hosting the fundraiser on kickstarter.

You forgot the fact the companies are structured so that literally overnight they could pull the plug and everyone, including developers, would be completely fucked.[/quote]

this isn't remotely true, but keep listening to your gator youtube videos.

Quote

so again, what is the unique problem that Fig has that is somehow worse than kickstarter or any other publisher?

Because Fig is a money making pyramid scheme dressing itself up as an advocate for indie developers. EA, Ubisoft, WB, they may all suck but at least you know where they stand. They're not selling you, indie game developer and minimum wage gamer, a pipe dream about becoming rich through your hobby or chosen profession. And with Kickstarter, they take a flat cut of the pledges and that's fucking it. The rest of it goes to the developer. No revenue sharing, no "minimum sales requirements on return." None. Of. That. Shit.

1) do you have any clue what a "pyramid scheme" is? they're not asking their backers to recruit other backers, who are then supposed to recruit other backers, etc. even if fig were a 100% scam, that's not what they're doing.

2) why exactly do you think they're selling pipe dreams? they're not offering anyone who isn't already a clearly established developer a chance to publish a game.

Let me put it another way though. Kickstarter asked you to gamble your money so you might get a fun game and some developer might earn a living. Fig is literally asking you to gamble your money to make money. I know these days people seem to think it's ok to pollute the entire entertainment sector with cash incentives for fucking everyone. To me, that's poisoning the well, by making it about something other than a good game.

so literally your objection is that when a normal AAA game is successful, some of the profits go to the AAA publisher (Ubisoft, WB, etc), wherewas when a fig game is successful, some of the profits go to the game's backers.

which is somehow "poisoning the well"

i guess all the kickstarter backers are so much happier to have t-shirts and their names in-game instead, huh

I'd explain and link shit but you know what? I've done that multiple times in this thread. Read if you want to know.

well, i didn't ask you, but since you've responded: you linked one youtube video back from the psychonauts 2 campaign, and whined that fig is not assuming any risk in publishing the game while standing to receive a cut of the sales. which of course is no different than any publisher; you use one person's money to fund a third person's game, and pay back the one person's money plus extra, keep some yourself, and hopefully there's some left over for the developer. it's not even really different than kickstarter: give a developer a platform to solicit donations/make pre-sales, and then keep a percentage for the privilege of hosting the fundraiser on kickstarter.

and it's not like Fig doesn't actually pay money out: https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/10/16125828/fig-first-profitable-game-equity-investment-kingdoms-and-castles

so again, what is the unique problem that Fig has that is somehow worse than kickstarter or any other publisher?

....yes, so what is exactly dumb about boycotting an unethical publisher? Same logic applies to any purchase decisions where the reputation of the company is tarnished. It is exactly the same as avoiding Nestle or Comcast or any other company with soiled reputation. That is how consumers are supposed to have an effect on the free market, duh.

how is fig unethical?

it's also not "the double fine guys". one of the three founders was from double fine. the other two aren't. their board is full of non-double fine people.

Quote from: ZeroGravitas on September 10, 2017, 01:02:51 pm

Quote from: Damiac on September 05, 2017, 03:53:45 pm

The parallel I was trying to draw is the company would be doing a nominally good thing (Raising awareness of a bad thing, raising money to make it less bad) but in doing so actually drawing money away from the charity, because people generally have only a certain amount of money to donate to good causes.

So by making themselves a middleman who takes a significant chunk, they're taking a good portion of those people's "Charity budget" directly for themselves.

The fact that they pocket 100% of the donation from non US citizens, yet still plan to allow them to make the 'donation' takes it from "Well meaning but possibly harmful" to "Shameless cash grab"

I admit, my analogy might not be perfect... or even decent... but I think it's... something.  I guess you see why I tend to stick with sarcasm.

nothing is stopping people from writing checks to the family if that's what they want to do.

even a website like gofundme that explicitly runs charity campaigns takes an 8% cut. it's not like processing payments and managing money is free.

Theres a difference between 'our cut to keep the site running' and this, though.

yes - the difference is that we know that the family will get 100% of the proceeds from sales in 44 US states. we don't know about 6 of the states or overseas sales, except that they claim they won't profit from them. there is also a youcaring page for direct donations.

...No, there is no theoretical limit to how dumb a position can be. It's turtles all the way down, so to speak.

true

Hey, if collecting money and giving 70% of it for one particular dead guy is OK, why not keep going along those same lines?

How about some 10$ ribbons you can buy in different colors? They even show up on your character! And $2 from each purchase actually goes to charity!  Who cares if WB is pocketing tons of money that was intended to help a good cause, at least those good causes are getting some of it, right?  At least other people will see those in game ribbons, maybe they'll buy some too!

And if WB wants to just keep the whole 10$ if donating a small piece of it wouldn't be completely convenient, that's understandable, right?

It's not as if people have limited amounts of money to spend or donate, and it's certainly not as if the charitable organization would have been helped more by getting all of that donation, rather than just 20% of it.

That's my sarcastic take on this whole matter.

personally i wouldn't buy such a ribbon

then again hypotheticals that have little connection to reality have never really made sense to me