DoubleFine seem to have attracted a bit of a mess with Psychonauts 2 funding

Quoting: neffo(76 metacritic if that means anything)

It's not particularly good and Massiva Challice has similar reviews. They're both terrible games. If the Steam returns system had been around then, I would have returned both.

What DF relies on is a "hey, we're your buddies" kind of demeanour to attract a cult-like devotion from fans who will defend any legitimate criticism online. Putting dodgy financials to once side, I would understand this mentality if they were pumping out great games relentlessly, but it is very clear by this point that the company is a one trick pony.

I haven't seen these allegations, but I've read the investment information on fig and talked it over with some finance and investment folks and the long and short of it was crowd fund if you want but stay away from the investment opportunity. Basically, best case, you break even in 5 years maybe even make some money in a decade or so. Worst case, fig folds before Psychonauts 2 ships and you get nothing and you have no recourse. Most likely, you never break even and shareholder lawsuits against fig bleed them dry over the course of the years.

No serious investor would consider this opportunity, the return is pitiful, and the risks are very high.

Quoting: burzmaliI haven't seen these allegations, but I've read the investment information on fig and talked it over with some finance and investment folks and the long and short of it was crowd fund if you want but stay away from the investment opportunity. Basically, best case, you break even in 5 years maybe even make some money in a decade or so. Worst case, fig folds before Psychonauts 2 ships and you get nothing and you have no recourse. Most likely, you never break even and shareholder lawsuits against fig bleed them dry over the course of the years.

No serious investor would consider this opportunity, the return is pitiful, and the risks are very high.

I think there's a few people commenting here that haven't watched the video, not just yourself!

I thought the video was superb. It's a real shame it's made by a GamerGate supporter (and general misogynist judging from his twitter feed - assuming not all GamerGaters are misogynists, I suppose).

But yeah, the video makes it clear that some extremely shady practices are at foot here. You can't compare this to Kickstarter, because a) Kickstarter is up front on the risks and b) Kickstarter equates to a pre-order, whereas Fig is hyping itself as a share vehicle. Two very different things.

Quoting: scaineI thought the video was superb. It's a real shame it's made by a GamerGate supporter (and general misogynist judging from his twitter feed - assuming not all GamerGaters are misogynists, I suppose).

Yes, it's a shame. But like you say, the video was very good, and thus shouldn't be discredited by association.

Honestly, I would love to see a good piece of investigative journalism into DF. I'm most curious of all really where the $3 million (and much more than that if you consider the first $3 million was only for half a game) was spent for Broken Age considering I've seen much bigger adventure games with much higher production values made at a fraction of the cost.

My suspicions with DF is that the company are like someone who's "living paycheck to paycheck", waiting for the next influx of cash to get by since money is being leaked everywhere. I've never seen a company that has had so many kickstarter projects in development in one go and so many in such a short period of time. I would really love to look into the financials of this company, since they make less and less sense as time goes on and eventually I think a few things may come to light.

Quoting: scaineI think there's a few people commenting here that haven't watched the video, not just yourself!

I thought the video was superb. It's a real shame it's made by a GamerGate supporter (and general misogynist judging from his twitter feed - assuming not all GamerGaters are misogynists, I suppose).

But yeah, the video makes it clear that some extremely shady practices are at foot here. You can't compare this to Kickstarter, because a) Kickstarter is up front on the risks and b) Kickstarter equates to a pre-order, whereas Fig is hyping itself as a share vehicle. Two very different things.

Shady isn't quite the right word, after watching the video, it's a bit melodramatic, all the relevant documents are available via a link of the investor page, though drama aside it isn't too far off. A better word might be "unbalanced". In most crowdfunding activities on sites like Kickstarter, the site requires a series of minimal commitments from the project owners that provide some protection to the funders. For example, if you and thousands of your friends back a project on Kickstarter and the project owner fails to deliver, Kickstarter will provide enough information to allow to file a class-action lawsuit to recover your investment. How about on fig? Well, from the TOS "Contributions should be considered a gift or donation rather than a purchase..." so sucks to be you I guess. You can't go after DF, your agreement is with fig, not them, well part of them really.

Basically, at every point in the relationship were a right could be in DF's favor or you as the funder or investor, sites like KS give some to each side where as fig pushes them all in the developer's favor.

When projects are struggling to deliver, I tend to see comments complaining about how backers took all the risk and we should be getting a cut of the profits when X finally gets released. I'm pretty sure that's what inspired FIG, DFA being one of those projects that got multiple of those comments. I also suspect that mixing investments with crowdfunding is a hard concept to implement well, but I'm not interested in the investment aspect enough to look into whether FIG is on the right track yet. snowdrift.coop is the alternative funding platform that appeals most to my interests.. I might actually sign up there if it ever shows enough progress

There is nothing new here. Crowdfunding is always a risky investment. So they made Fig into another risk prone investment platform where besides the game people can actually make some dividends. They never hid the fact that such investment is risky. So I'm not sure what the author is complaining about. If you don't like the risk - don't invest. He has only one valid point - that operation of Fig itself is somewhat shaky. I guess it should be expected since it's just starting. Kickstarter is already established and is financially independent. A startup like Fig requires serious investors to go anywhere.

Quoting: scaineBut yeah, the video makes it clear that some extremely shady practices are at foot here. You can't compare this to Kickstarter, because a) Kickstarter is up front on the risks and b) Kickstarter equates to a pre-order, whereas Fig is hyping itself as a share vehicle. Two very different things.

It's both. (And Kickstarter isn't preordering.) So yes you can.

The video is trash. It's hard to take someone seriously who clearly is upset at where the industry is going. He's angry at the world. He's had to ignore so many inconvenient facts to make this hatchet job of a video. DF being shady? There's 20 hours of video documenting the development of Broken Age. (And there will be the same for this game as well.)

Quoting: neffo

Quoting: scaineBut yeah, the video makes it clear that some extremely shady practices are at foot here. You can't compare this to Kickstarter, because a) Kickstarter is up front on the risks and b) Kickstarter equates to a pre-order, whereas Fig is hyping itself as a share vehicle. Two very different things.

It's both. (And Kickstarter isn't preordering.) So yes you can.

The video is trash. It's hard to take someone seriously who clearly is upset at where the industry is going. He's angry at the world. He's had to ignore so many inconvenient facts to make this hatchet job of a video. DF being shady? There's 20 hours of video documenting the development of Broken Age. (And there will be the same for this game as well.)

A Kickstarter pledge has been viewed as a pre-order by state AG offices when higher profile projects have failed to deliver and KS has released information to backers of failed projects to assist them in recovering funds. From a legal standpoint, on Kickstarter, projects are on the hook to deliver the pledges promised in the campaign and failing to do so does and has opened them up to legal action, both civil and criminal. Fig attempts to dodge this issue by simultaneously insulating the developer from the funding campaign and disclaiming any responsibility on their own behalf. As the video does a poor job of explaining, the responsibility for delivering the Fig rewards is in the hands of the Fig publishing subsidiary which is technically not the same as fig.co, the fig parent company, or fig's parent Loose Tooth.

In short, the legal ramification of failing to deliver a Kickstarter project suck, Fig fixes this by both disclaiming up front and obfuscating responsibilities in the background.

I think Fig actually tries to make it more of an investment and less of a pre-order. Because crowdfunding is indeed more of the former. However they don't make it a classic investment either. It's something on its own.

Also, they so far listed quite respected people in their advisory board, including Brian Fargo from inXile. I doubt he'd like to be associated with a Ponzi scheme.


Last edited by Shmerl on 3 January 2016 at 4:03 am UTC