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

Quoting: ShmerlI 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.

It's both.

You can either reward pledge or you can invest. The money just goes into the same total funding pool.

Quoting: ShmerlI 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.

The problem is that they are still handling the pre-order type crowdfunding bit, only it's not the developer that owes the rewards but the publishing subsidiary and even then fig advises you to treat the pledges like "gifts" in their TOS, which isn't all too likely to hold up if the FTC glares at them for long.

Also, investments are investments, "classic" doesn't figure into it. If you are offering an investment opportunity, you have certain obligations, slightly modified recently, but likely to return to their original forms once a handful of "crowdinvesting" scams blow up in a major way over the next few years. I'm not suggesting that fig isn't following the regulations, there's nothing illegal about offering a crappy investment, as long as you disclose exactly how crappy it is, which Fig does, in great detail, in the investment information.

The lawsuits that will tear this apart are going to spring from the discrepancies within those documents and between those documents and the promises made in the pitch to backers (e.g. the due dates are six months apart and the contract only requires PC, Mac and Linux whereas the site promises XBone and PS4).


Last edited by burzmali on 3 January 2016 at 4:27 am UTC

Quoting: neffo

Quoting: ShmerlI 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.

It's both.

You can either reward pledge or you can invest. The money just goes into the same total funding pool.

You'd think that, but technically they go into 2 different pools of money according to emails I've exchanged with one of their folks, which is likely to be the source of a lawsuit in 3-4 years time.

Quoting: burzmaliAlso, investments are investments, "classic" doesn't figure into it.

They stretched the concept of investment here. Classic investment usually gives investors more say in the company. Fig doesn't want that - it wouldn't be any better than publishers skewing creative process. I.e. they want funding, but they want to preserve creative independence.


Last edited by Shmerl on 3 January 2016 at 4:34 am UTC

Quoting: neffoIt's both.

You can either reward pledge or you can invest. The money just goes into the same total funding pool.

I know they have both options. But even the one that is simple funding, can be looked at as simple investment (where the benefit is just the game itself). I actually always preferred to view even simple crowdfunding as an investment, and not as a pre-order.

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: burzmaliAlso, investments are investments, "classic" doesn't figure into it.

They stretched the concept of investment here. Classic investment usually gives investors more say in the company. Fig doesn't want that - it wouldn't be any better than publishers skewing creative process. I.e. they want funding, but they want to preserve creative independence.

Fig is just issuing preferred stock, that's been around for centuries. Fig isn't reinventing the wheel, they are just trying to sell slightly warped ones to a bunch of country folk that don't really know what a wheel is, but they've heard that city folk use them to get rich.

And they don't just want funding without creative interference, Kickstarter gave them that, they also wanted more of the pie and to have the relationship with their backers slanted in their favor as much as possible. Being as the former would cost KS money and latter their consumer confidence, Doublefine had to cook up Fig instead.

I can't wait for the day when poor Tim Schafer and his company can actually make a profit so they don't have to fleece their flock up-front, but instead just make their games and sell them, like normal companies do. Crowd-funding has jumped the shark quite some time ago...

I think I can pinpoint the exact moment to when Ron Gilbert raked in well over $600K for a game that looks like it could be made in a weekend with a $6 budget of Twinkies and a Commodore 64.
(I do admit that it looks much better nowadays, but still, the original art was pretty terrible).


Last edited by adolson on 3 January 2016 at 6:31 am UTC

Lots of people in here think that they can interpret the law better than Fig can.

Investments always carry a degree of risk, and you should always get advice from someone who knows what they are talking about before putting your hard earned money near anything. Some guy on youtube is not that person. This guy has an agenda, but it likely has nothing to do with preventing people from losing money.

Quoting: neffoThis guy has an agenda, but it likely has nothing to do with preventing people from losing money.

He certainly has opinions, just like the rest of us. That doesn't always implicate an agenda. Only had time to skim the video, so maybe I missed the grander scheme he's pushing.

In any case, fig is just another indication of the direction business is heading. Just stay out of crowd funding and micro-investment - or whatever the buzzword of the day might be - if you don't like it. I know you won't see me backing anything closed-source any time soon. I'd rather pay for a finished product and enjoy my rapidly eroding consumer rights while I can.


Last edited by tuubi on 3 January 2016 at 2:52 pm UTC

There are 2 schools of thoughts here: to fund via crowd sourcing (warts and all) or to not fund via crowd sourcing (warts and all). Am I doing this right?

As gamers, why do we condone this? Sure, we got some fairly "ok" games out of crowd sourced projects, but did those games need to be made? Did those games enrich your life? Did those games enrich the developer's life? If you can say "yes" to the last question, then you probably made a great choice. The first 2 questions are probably "no".

Let me make this clear, I'm not criticizing the 1-man or tiny development team. So, when I mention "developers", you can exclude those groups from all criticism I'm about to make.

Some of the developers going the "crowd sourcing" route could secure capital by traditional means. Should we be funding these folks? Those "traditional means" maybe a thorn for them but securing funds from gullible gamers shouldn't be a thing. I'll gladly fund projects on Kickstarter for a developer who is making their first or second game. To "kick start" for a company like Double Fine? Why on Earth are we condoning this? We broke the crowd sourcing process and for no good reason at all.

Stop funding these people. Stop it right now. I haven't watched the video in the article yet but I'm sure it's more of the same. Just stop it.

If Double Fine can't fund a project without going to the crowd sourcing model, then they are doing it all wrong and should close it's doors. It's wrong. Wrong. Wrong.


Last edited by Storminator16 on 4 January 2016 at 4:44 pm UTC