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

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.

It's both.

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

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.

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 Jan 2016 at 4:27 am UTC

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.

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.

Also, 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 Jan 2016 at 4:34 am UTC

It'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.

Also, 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 Jan 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.

This 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 Jan 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 Jan 2016 at 4:44 pm 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.

I just want to single out this comment because this goes back to exactly why I have a problem with Fig.

Fig has always looked like a nice way to sucker gullible gamers into funding an elaborate scheme to prop up....errrr....Fig. Fig is out to sucker the gaming community, not sucker securities investors. Securities investors wouldn't be that gullible. I would say this particular Youtuber is preventing people from losing money because the so called "Fig investors" aren't going to make a cent and may or many not get a game out of this. So the essential legal speak about the "known risks" is kind of overboard and clouds the situation a bit. Why are gamers taking on risks? I thought gamers just buy (hopefully) and play (hopefully) games. I didn't realize there was a whole level of unnecessary risk we needed to take to get a game (we probably didn't ask for) to be made. Am I doing this right?

When I first looked at Fig around 3 months ago, wow, my mind was blown on why someone would bother doing this because the "you get ownership of the game" bit was complete non-sense at face value. After watching the video and partially researching some of the securities documents (I'll need to finish reading more tonight), I can safely form the opinion that this is all exactly what I thought 3 months ago: a scheme to trick gullible gamers into funding projects that weren't probably going to buy traditionally. Wow.

I don't know what else to think or say about all of this. I'm just shocked some of you are condoning this. It's the 21st century, yet we've found a way to funnel millions of dollars to a company who could secure loans and/or venture capital to possibly get their game made. A computer game. Do yourselves a favor and go buy an indie game from a small developer instead. At full price.


Last edited by Storminator16 on 4 Jan 2016 at 1:04 pm UTC

I noticed that the link to the investment documents was removed, though it seems like it is still up though...
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xp4sd5sxmwhbfed/AADzoyPR6Njt76D29uu2ek2Ua?dl=0

Yeah, I've gotten screwed over by DoubleFine before, and stopped backing them, they've since screwed over other people.
As much as I think Psychonauts was a pretty good game (thanks Humble Bundle), it won't make me consider trusting them again.

That said, there are some crowdfunding projects which are good, and it's mainly due to the integrity of the company you're dealing with. The more transparent the company, the more likely they'll make good on their promises. I've found Cloud Imperium Games (the makers of Star Citizen) to be very open, transparent, and genuinely wanting to go above and beyond to fulfill their pledge to their backers and make a great game they want to play themselves. I've also backed a few other projects which have either turned out well or are going well and I wish them all the best, including a couple of hardware projects and Guns of Icarus Online. You have to be careful when backing projects, use your discernment about the people pitching and their integrity, ability and transparency, and accept the risk that the project could deliver or bust with around 50/50 chance. (My personal backed success rate is a bit higher than 50%, though it's probably around there for games).