I guess they're making offerings on a game by game basis. I mean at the end of the day investing in an LLC is not that much different than investing in a small temporary fund from one of the Fund of Fund's. In which your return is based on that specific fund.
Yes, they're creating one LLC to fund each game. Psychonauts 2 had Fig Grassland or whatever it was called.
Now, if you were looking to invest in video games in general, that'd be a problem. I wonder why Psychonaughts 2 is structured so differently?
Each agreement is different. For instance: the Psychonauts 2 agreement did not give Fig a cut of DLC revenue, while WL3's agreement does. Both Double Fine and InXile are heavily involved with Fig, and Fig's CEO used to be Double Fine's COO, so I don't think any agreement is better or safer than the other, only tweaked according to what Schafer and Fargo wanted, I guess.
Do you see any language in that document that allows inXile to spend money on whatever they want and not just the game?
There's a section which determines the right of the WL3 LLC to examine InXile's books periodically. If InXile spends a "majority of Fig Funds" for purposes "unrelated to development, marketing or publishing" of the game or Fig WL3 is underpaid, InXile has to pay them back with interest.
Misuse is not defined, and "majority" is a key word there. Could Fargo take part of the money, spend it on a Wasteland Gamer Shoes line and call it marketing expenses? I guess only lawyers can tell.
The speculation about money from one game being used in others comes from this part of Fig's filings IIRC:
We could be required to use assets attributed to one series of Game Shares to pay liabilities attributed to another series of Game Shares.
The assets attributed to one series of Game Shares are potentially subject to the liabilities attributed to another series of Game Shares, even if those liabilities arise from lawsuits, contracts or indebtedness that are attributed to such other series of Game Shares. No provision of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation prevents us from satisfying liabilities of one series of Game Shares with assets of another series of Game Shares, and our creditors will not in any way be limited by our capital structure from proceeding against any assets they could have proceeded against if we did not have any Game Shares. As a result, although we intend for the Game Shares to track the performance of our Pub Subs, we cannot provide any guarantee that the Game Shares will in fact track the performance of each such Pub Sub and that a particular series of Game Shares will not be subject to a disproportionate share of the burden of any non-performing Game Shares, whether or not included in the assets attributed to such series, and will not be attributed a disproportionate amount of our general liabilities, costs and expenses.
It seems they can cover losses and other expenses of Fig LLCs using assets from another. In his posts, Fig's CEO
did not deny that. He said Psychonauts 2's funds cannot be used in other projects, but he didn't say a word about
profits.
This was the weirdest part of the license agreement to me:
A bug-free RPG is an extremely tall order. I'm not sure what happens if InXile delivers a buggy game, though. I don't know if the contract can be terminated by Fig for that, and who gets paid or not if that happens.
