Game News Wasteland 3 coming to Fig on October 5th, introducing two player co-op and cinematic conversations

[Infinitron]

I'm not sure where Bubbles got the %30-35 figure, but obviously inXile would have to pay money to reimburse their investors.

 

[Kev Inkline]

Fig takes a 30 to 35% cut of the revenue of all their games. Quality and professionalism have their price.

Wait, what? So Steam takes 30% for distributing, and another 30% to Fig for doing what exactly?

To pay hosting and their lawyers.

And arm and train the troops.

 

[Fry]

Hosting a web page, payment processing, and doing all the legal shit necessary for accredited investment.

30% still seems pretty high.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Hosting a web page, payment processing, and doing all the legal shit necessary for accredited investment, plus Fargo's and Feargus' pockets.

30% seems about right.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Details are here, worth a read (less than 30% though, unless he's including what gets repaid to "investors")

https://www.fig.co/devs

 

[Bubbles]

Fig does indeed receive 30-35% of every Figstarter's revenue, but they also have to pay back the investors with part of that share. This is an infographic from another Figstarter (that sailing thing), but they all look very similar:

Revenue Sharing Terms

1. 30% of Developer’s sales receipts until Fig receives 1.36x the development amount, which is funded by investors; thereafter
2. 10% until Fig receives 3x the development amount or 3 years after launch, whichever occurs first

 

[Fry]

Fig takes 5% of the initial funding total and 5% of future sales.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

They take a cut of the investment going in, and the revenues coming out (plus returns on their part of the investment funding)

What is Fig's co-publishing share?
Rewards crowdfunding
No fee (other than actual credit card processing costs)
Investment crowdfunding
5% of investment raised to cover lawyers, accountants, marketing and publishing costs
Fig co-publishing share
5% of potential future game receipts + returns for Fig's portion of the development advance, on the same terms as investors in Game Shares.

 

[Fairfax]

Fig's actual structure is shady as fuck:

This video does a great job explaining why it's so shady and why you shouldn't give them money:

 

[FeelTheRads]

In other words, this is less of a campaign for W3 and more of a campaign to funnel funds into Fig.

Plz help rich people be even richer, guise

 

[J_C]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy, I've just got the email and took a look at the campaign. This is looking to be soooo good. And with the discount, I can get it for 20 dollars? Sweeeet. October 5th can't come soon enough.

 

[Bubbles]

It's basically structured for minimal transparency. We haven't seen any Figstarted project actually sell a single copy yet, but once we do, I expect some fun.

 

[J_C]

It's basically structured for minimal transparency. We haven't seen any Figstarted project actually sell a single copy yet, but once we do, I expect some fun.

If these projects give me Psychonauts 2 and Wasteland 3, they can start doing child trafficing as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Zorba the Hutt]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why does Fig (the entity? the individual investors?) share from revenue and not profit?

They work like a publisher with a "co-publishing share", not an equity investor in your business. So on their site they state they won't own part of your IP, just take a cut of the revenue.

 

[Fairfax]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why does Fig (the entity? the individual investors?) share from revenue and not profit?

Because taking a cut from revenue guarantees you'll be paid even if the product isn't profitable. There are many ways one could "cook" the books to make it look like something didn't turn a profit. See Hollywood accounting.

 

[Grotesque]

Looked at Stasis screens and I find its art direction off-putting as well.

you are beyond help

In the opening sequence of the game, Fargo says, players will be stranded far from civilization and have to fend for themselves

Like the water meter in Wasteland 2 that was a mechanic with ZERO gameplay impact?

This all sounds fantastic so far, and yet Codex is being Codex.

FANTASTIC!!

Maybe Pyke can clarify?

it's called "blacklisitng by association"

 

[Mustawd]

Fig's actual structure is shady as fuck:

This video does a great job explaining why it's so shady and why you shouldn't give them money:

People need to stop posting this vid. It's made by someone who obviously has little experience with complex PE partnership structures.

 

[Fry]

This video does a great job explaining why it's so shady and why you shouldn't give them money:

Bit hyperbolic.

- "OMG, Fig is managed through a parent company!" Big deal. That isn't unusual.
- He spends 10 mins freaking out that Fig isn't making any money. Fig is backed by a venture capital firm like every other startup. They're not expected to make money in the near term.
- "If Fig goes bankrupt, shareholders won't get paid until Fig's creditors get their cut!" Er... welcome to investing. This is standard for ordinary shareholders. Creditors always get paid first.

I certainly wouldn't invest in the future sales of a niche video game, but there's nothing particularly nefarious about Fig. It's a risky investment, but not shady.

And, of course, none of this affects people who are just backing. If that's all you're doing, it's no better or worse than Kickstarter.

 

[Mustawd]

Typical PE Fund Structures: Already more complicated than most people are used to seeing

Spoiler

 

[Bubbles]

Typical PE Fund Structures: Already more complicated than most people are used to seeing

Hardly.

Spoiler

 

[Mustawd]

Fig's actual structure:

 

[Fairfax]

Fig's actual structure is shady as fuck:

This video does a great job explaining why it's so shady and why you shouldn't give them money:

People need to stop posting this vid. It's made by someone who obviously has little experience with complex PE partnership structures.

He never claims to be an expert, and everything he says is based on sources linked in the description.
Also, Fig's CEO defense was pretty weak:

I've seen many people cherry picking our SEC filing and making defamatory claims which are heavy with hyperbole. Specifically, this video is full of misinformation that people are propagating without the correct expertise and without having conducted the proper research.

First off, there are no shell companies, each entity has a purpose and reason for being. See here for more infohttps://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/40i8ej/iama_tim_schafer_creator_of_psychonauts_ask_me/cyueplu

There are several concepts at work here, we are trying not to impose too much overhead on developers, we want the investment structure to be reusable for other campaigns, and there are certain boilerplate umbrella disclosures statements that are included as a standard practice.

Lastly, there’s a contractual obligation for DF and Fig to spend the money on Psychonauts 2. See herehttps://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/40i8ej/iama_tim_schafer_creator_of_psychonauts_ask_me/cyucsji If Fig were to go bankrupt then DF still has an obligation to pay investors what they are owed.

Basically what this means is you can’t cherry pick a few statement out of 170 page doc and draw conclusions without understanding the structure and investment vehicles as a whole.

He doesn't deny everything in the video, and says some claims are "heavy with hyperbole", which means they're not entirely false, just exaggerated (in his view).
First of all, every shell company has a purpose and reason for being. That excuse doesn't mean shit. He even said it himself: all these LLCs for each game do is control the game's revenue, which is by definition a shell corporation.

That's not enough to accuse anyone of fraud, of course, as these are perfectly legal. Still, they should call a spade a spade.

 

[Mustawd]

Christ...the ignorance here.

Also, Fig's CEO defense was pretty weak:

Actually, I think the CEO's reply is very well thought out and 100% correct.

He never claims to be an expert, and everything he says is based on sources linked in the description.

A. He says he has a Master's in Accounting, which means jack shit as someone who also has a Master's in Accounting. What really matters is industry knowledge and experience from actually working with companies and reading the contracts that these partnerships are based on. Yet, he throws out his "credentials" as a way to get credibility for his ignorant statements.

B. Everything is in the source description, correct. It's also correct to say he seems to be misinterpreting a lot of it.

He doesn't deny everything in the video, and says some claims are "heavy with hyperbole", which means they're not entirely false, just exaggerated (in his view).

For one, this is probably not the only source that's misunderstanding how Private Equity works. Second, he is right that they are exaggerated. For example, there's nothing wrong with a shell company. We use the term "shell company" or "holding company" or "parent company" in accounting all the time. There's nothing wrong with that term.

Legally, it's just a way to structure different entities under one holding company. That way you can always add more entities to said holding company and a variety of other reasons to structure it that way (some legal and some tax related). However, the way it's described, "shell" company sounds like some kind of nefarious scheme that no one ever does except for the schemers! *clutches pearls*

First of all, every shell company has a purpose and reason for being. That excuse doesn't mean shit.

You.......are....an idiot.

 

[Excidium II]

Hello Fig CEO.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

For Wasteland 2 console sales amounted for 1/6 of sales!?