Mustawd
Guest
Also, the lack of transparency doesn't exactly engender a sense of confidence in this type of crowdsourcing. Still, if it gets funded then good for them; even if they are being kind of ass backwards about it.
https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/jobs-act.shtml
http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/18/91...-equity-investment-games-outer-wilds-masi-oka
This is why 'fig' exists now. People kept saying something about this being illegal, well, technically it's not anymore.
Put together an FAQ for those codexers who can't into binessess:
1. Is what Fig doing legal? I thought they had to be a public company to sell shares...
Yes. companies who sale shares to the public must register with the SEC. However, there are a number of exceptions to these rules. The exception Fig is using is the JOBS act exception for both the accredited investors portion as well as the crowdfunding portion.
The JOBS Act requires the SEC to develop new rules permitting capital raising by “crowdfunding.” Crowdfunding is a means to raise money by attracting relatively small individual contributions from a large number of people. In recent years, crowdfunding websites have proliferated to raise funds for charities, artistic endeavors and businesses. These sites did not offer securities, such as an ownership interest or share of profits in a business; rather, money was contributed in the form of donations, or in return for the product being made. The JOBS Act creates an exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act that provides for a form of securities crowdfunding.
Under JOBS Act crowdfunding, companies will be limited to raising $1 million in any 12-month period. Companies cannot crowdfund on their own, but will have to engage an intermediary that is registered with the SEC. These intermediaries will be subject to a number of requirements.
source: http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm
2. So does that mean I own shares like in the stock market?
Not really. There are a variety of ways to participate in Private Equity...direct ownership, partnership, non-voting shares, etc. However, the model Fig seems to be using is one in which money is pooled from a variety of investors by PE fund managers, put into a time limited fund, and then invested by an investment fund manager (usually the same people who put the fund together in the first place).
This fund has a ramping up period (where funds are used to acquire investments), and a winding down phase (where investments are sold off for what the fund hopes is a profit). In Fig, an investor has a return schedule where he's paid up to certain $ amounts and then a percentage of revenues thereafter. This is a bit different than owning an interest in a company, as your involvement is on a project to project basis.
Here's an example of this PE model:
3. Ok, whatever....but isn't this just like Kickstarter?
I'd probably say it's the difference between your good old hamburger (Kickstarter) and a nice cut of sirloin at a top steak house (Fig). Reason being that Fig is a platform that attracts a different kind of donor. One who is a bit more knowledgeable on business, project management, and realistic expectations. Which ultimately means the devs will be trolled a bit less than your average rabid neckbeard fanboi.
Not saying one type of donor is better than the other, but it's obvious that a dev would appreciate a more forgiving donor base.
4. So is this a good or bad thing?
It's hard to say. It actually depends on a variety of things we don't have the details about. Consider these questions:
-How can donors be assured the revenue amounts are accurate? Public companies get audited, but there's no requirement for audits of private companies, and Fig has not indicated there will be any kind of oversight to ensure payout are accurate.
-Won't having the pressure of actual returns on investment increase the risk of every project? Remember...kickstarter is essentially fire and forget. Once the dev has the funds he can experiment, add new ideas, etc. The only obligation one has is to his/her own sense of morality, as they can just screw around as much as they want.
The flipside is that devs can feel free to pitch and make any game they simply feel is cool. Which leads to a ton of failures, but also to a ton of new ideas never before tried. If becoming profitable becomes a concern, then the natural propensity is to play it safer. This goes for both devs AND investors.
-What stops the advisory council (aka Fargo & Co.) from acting like just another publisher? Absolutely nothing really. They are now in control of the type of games THEY want to make, regardless of the demand for other types. They in form, have become the publisher because they control the access to funding.
Which....is really not a bad thing IMO. Don't forget, devs are historically bad at budgeting, seeting realistic expectations, project management, etc. without some kind of external force making thm do it. It's the truth for many other creative fields.
EDIT: The main issue then becomes...who are the decision/king makers? *looks at Shafer* ....
TL;DR Fig is a stupid name.
My own question regarding legality was whether this is open to non-US residents. I know of the new rules, at least in general, but I had some small funds in a similar setup that forced me to sell my investments when I was not a US resident anymore.This is why 'fig' exists now. People kept saying something about this being illegal, well, technically it's not anymore.
My own question regarding legality was whether this is open to non-US residents. I know of the new rules, at least in general, but I had some small funds in a similar setup that forced me to sell my investments when I was not a US resident anymore.
Was there ever a doubt?Outer Wilds made its funding goal.
Yeah, there was no wayit wasthe founders were going to let it fail.
Nah, it's happened on several campaigns already. They'll just throw in more of their own money if this happens.I'm just waiting for the guy who pledged 10K to cancel his pledge 5 minutes before the funding period is up. That would be the ultimate trolling.
It's like that thing that Awor Szurkrarz was talking about. They know they failed their primary audience and now are looking for ways to finance games without Kickstarter.I'd probably say it's the difference between your good old hamburger (Kickstarter) and a nice cut of sirloin at a top steak house (Fig). Reason being that Fig is a platform that attracts a different kind of donor. One who is a bit more knowledgeable on business, project management, and realistic expectations. Which ultimately means the devs will be trolled a bit less than your average rabid neckbeard fanboi.
Not saying one type of donor is better than the other, but it's obvious that a dev would appreciate a more forgiving donor base.
Welcome to Fig! We’re a new curated platform for crowdfunding and investing in games, and we’re hard at work preparing for our next campaign. You just missed the first one, but don’t worry — there’s more good stuff to come.
Our first game campaign saw over $750,000 of investment interest. Want to pre-register to invest?
It's possibly interesting, for what it's worth, that this game funded with 866 supporters, according to an email I received after the campaign ended.
It so happens that I was the 865th supporter. 43 hours and 12 minutes before the campaign ended, I pledged $20. At the time, they were still about $5000 away from their goal.
So, in that almost two days following my pledge, they seemed to have raised another five grand from only one additional backer
However, now when I look at the page, it touts 968 supporters for the completed campaign. Maybe they added the number of 102 …Paypal backers (?)… to the total, if that was a thing here as it sometimes is on Kickstarter.
Hmmm
That sounds like... Broken Age 2?Double Fine is preparing a figstarter for an oldschool adventure game. Be patient Bubbles.