TR Member Perks!

Misconceptions. Fiction. Myths. All of these surround Psychonauts 2 and FIG—the latest big crowdfunding attempt. Poring through the documents, we’ve gone over and also talked with noted Game Lawyer Zachary Strebeck regarding the crowdfunding situation on Psychonauts 2, investments, and FIG itself. Zachary has previously talked about Crowdfunding on his site extensively so reading his blog could help give you another view on a lot of gaming things in that area, beyond from a business perspective.

Let’s start with a quick recap of what you probably already know. Psychonauts 2 is the sequel to the critically acclaimed and cult hit Psychonauts by Tim Schafer’s Double Fine. Double Fine was the first gaming company to really get a big cash in on Kickstarter crowdfunding raising over 3.3 million dollars for the Double Fine Adventure, which would later become known as Broken Age, presumably for the fact it was broken into two releases separated by an age.

Last year, FIG was founded along with it’s parent company and set up a team of advisors that reads like a who’s who of big Kickstarter successes company-wise. You have Double Fine, Obsidian, InXile, Harmonix, and more, and all were key players in getting this new crowdfunding portal, designed to be about games and offer investment opportunities in addition to reward crowdfunding, off the ground.

Psychonauts 2 asked for 3.3 million to get funded, the same amount Broken Age got and it recently passed that … So, now that we’ve got all that out of the way, let’s talk about specific points on FIG, investment stuff, and of course Psychonauts 2.

FIG Just Handles Crowdfunding

Status: Fiction

This isn’t how FIG is working and we’re going to simplify a bit here so that we don’t end up in a giant chart of convolution because FIG is doing something a bit different. In essence, FIG is the co-publisher for the game via its subsidiary that the money for investments is put in and handles things like promotion, store access, and other traditional publisher duties. FIG will, in future projects, do this from its share of past sales as well as its cut from the crowdfunding.

In the case of Psychonauts 2, FIG is taking nothing from the campaign itself, and instead treating it as a chance to get exposure according to the documents. Their parent, Loose Tooth, will instead cover the publishing costs for Psychonauts 2 as they are subsidizing the first big offering. Also, there are some people who have wondered if the money is all going to FIG, and no. No it’s not. It gets paid out basically immediately as we’ll address later as a lump sum to Double Fine.

But That means FIG is just another evil publisher

Status: Fiction

First of all, not all publishers are evil. Second of all, FIG is operating on a very different model than most publishers and has clearly been designed from a developer perspective—unsurprising given its founders are all developers with some dissatisfaction with the traditional publishing model as can be seen in some past crowdfunding videos by Brian Fargo and Tim Schafer. FIG importantly doesn’t impose major conditions that normally are used by publishers as sureties that developers find irritating.

First: There are no milestone payments. Instead, it’s given to the developer in a lump sum payment at the start and there is no need to meet arbitrary milestones that prove progress is being made.

Second: The Developer owns the IP. FIG does not own the IP or the rights to spinoffs, sequels, or anything else regardless of what happens with the project, and that is not held as a surety for the investors or backers.

Third: There is no “advance against royalty” set up like many publishing deals have wherein the publisher gets paid back on the money invested before the developer sees any of the money. Most publishing deals rely on this type of set up. If, for example, EA was publishing a Double Fine game and after hitting the milestones and getting published the payment was 10 million with Double Fine making 45% of adjusted royalties, that 45% would only begin going to Double Fine once EA had gotten it’s 10 million back from that 45%.

These all mean that FIG is about providing the platform and service but has minimal checks actually on the developer. Whether that is a good thing or not is up in the air as giving creators free rein can end up with anything from spectacular success to spectacular failures.

FIG’s Terms of Use Don’t Guarantee Rewards or Project

Status: Fact

This is absolutely true, although there is some nuance to the point to be discussed. Here we’re back to talking about the Reward’s funding—the Investment funding is in all the documents that FIG provided and everyone anticipates some. FIG’s terms of use specifically state in relation to Rewards Based Crowdfunding:

Rewards-based crowdfunding involves the creation of a Campaign by Fig for a game developer (the “Campaign Owner”) to raise funds for the Campaign Owner’s project through contributions from individuals or entities (“Contributors”) in exchange for rewards (“Rewards”). Contributions should be considered a gift or donation rather than a purchase, as Fig can make no assurances that the Campaign Owner will be able to produce the Rewards in a timely fashion or at all. Rewards are not refundable. Fig makes no representations about the quality, morality or legality of any Campaign, Campaign Owner or Reward.

So, FIG makes no claim that Tim Schafer is a decent person, that Psychonauts 2 will actually be finished, or that Psychonauts 2 won’t suck or is not actually propaganda in disguise. This is starkly different from Kickstarter and Indiegogo’s Terms of Use, which require a best faith effort and explanations if it’s not possible and returning any funds that remain. In particular, this brings to mind, just sticking with Double Fine here, the completely unfinished state of SpaceBase DF-9, the running out of funds part way through Broken Age and releasing it in two parts, or the fact that Broken Age still hasn’t sent out all their rewards yet almost a year past the release of Part 1.

However, Terms of Use on the Internet are rather iffy things in general, as their legality is in a state of limbo in many cases. How binding they are is unknown, and according to Zachary Strebeck, a lawyer who specializes in games that we consulted on this piece, pledging on FIG may constitute a contractual arrangement:

My opinion may be, that regardless of those terms you may have an implied contract where you still owe the copy of the game, whether or not there is realistically any legal recourse there. I don’t think there is, it’s just not worth suing in those cases.

However, one of the bigger issues is that legal action in the case of crowdfunding is difficult. Laws regarding reward based crowdfunding are lagging behind reality, and in general it will cost far, far more to take legal action than what you are due for backing a project. That leaves the only potential recourses to limited things, such as class-action or government ran cases like Washington State’s.

FIG Changing the End Date Breaks their Agreements

Status: Fiction

Alright, this is one of the more contentious things surrounding Psychonauts 2 run: the changing of the end date from January 7th, to January 12th. There are several things to look at here.

First: They have full right under the investment agreements to do this. This isn’t illegal or anything else, and under their Memorandum they can extend it again if they wish. If they decide to make it last a few more days, that is covered in their Private Offering Memorandum:

If the amount indicated onwww.fig.co (the “Fig Website”) in respect of the game(the “Running Campaign Total,” as further defined herein) does not reach or exceed $3,300,000 (the “Minimum Target”) within 180 days after execution of the Grasslands License Agreement(as defined below)(the “Minimum Target Date”), this offering will be cancelled and all funds raised will be returned to investors without deduction or interest earned.If the Minimum Target is reached or exceeded before January 7, 2016(which date may be extended in our sole discretion), at which time this offering shall close and shares will be delivered to investors. See “Plan of Distribution” and “Securities Being Offered.

Second: The fact that there was always this plan for January 12th is clearly bogus revealed there. At BEST they had a late change of heart and forgot to edit the documents. At worse, they decided when things were slower over the holiday than expected to without notice just extend the period. It’s not illegal but it isn’t good either.

Update: FIG has further elaborated on their website, so I am including it here for everyone to see and help further explain what happened. What it appears to be according to Justin Bailey, the COO of FIG, is that the original pre-planned date was the 7th, then they discussed and agreed to move to the 12th, and they had a bug hit when Double Fine published it live with the change during the VGA. It is good to have some more clarity on this situation there and here is Bailey’s post from the Double Fine boards:

Probably worth a little more transparency on this since it keeps coming up. Jan 7th was tentatively set as the end date to the campaign before it started. I actually reached out to DF prior to the campaign starting suggesting it was better to make it Jan 12th, because I didn’t want the campaign to get lost in the New Year shuffle.

It was agree by DF and us, it was changed in the tool, but we had a refresh problem that over wrote it. I caught it 30 minutes prior to the campaign starting, but because it was right before the VGAs, I decided to leave it rather than take a chance right before 100,000+ people hit our site.

DF updated the date during the campaign tool and pushed it live without Fig’s knowledge (this has since been locked down so devs can’t do this anymore). What should have happened is that DF and Fig issued a proactive statement before changing it rather than being reactive, so mistakes were made on both sides.

FIG is hiding its potential conflicts of Interest with Double Fine

Status: Fiction

Alright, so Tim Schafer could have done a better job communicating this in his main page, but there is no attempt to hide the fact that Schafer is in a position of power inside FIG (or more accurately its parent company Loose Teeth). The fact that he serves on the advisory board for FIG is not new information and is on the FIG site. I would also contend that it was pretty obvious all the advisory board members would be using FIG going forward given the fact they helped found it and are directing it down the path they want it to go.

The investment documents here are, again, very blunt on the risks and the existence of potential conflicts of interest. In fact, they outright state that Conflicts of Interest may exist and may not be resolved in the share holders favor, which is more of the cover your ass stuff that is mandatory here in these types of documents, but here’s one of the sections from there that is pretty representative of that tone:

Our officers and our Director may have a conflict of interest or appear to have a conflict since our officers are also officers of our Parent and our Director is also a director of the Parent.

Our director is also a director of our Parent and our officers are also officers of our Parent. Because our Parent holds all of our common stock, its interests are expected to conflict in certain respects with the interests of holders of our Game Shares. Furthermore, since our Parent is also required to provide services to our Company under the Master Services Agreement, as long as such agreement is in effect, certain of its interests pursuant to that agreement are directly adverse to our interests. These differing interests could create or appear to create conflicts of interest when our officers or directors are faced with decisions that could have different implications for our Parent. We have not adopted any specific procedures for consideration of matters involving a divergence of interests among holders of shares of our Game Shares and our common stock, or among holders of different series of Game Shares. Rather than develop additional specific procedures in advance, our board of directors will exercise its judgment from time to time, depending on the circumstances, as to how best to:

  • obtain information regarding the divergence (or potential divergence) of interests;
  • determine under what circumstances to seek the assistance of outside advisers;
  • determine whether a special committee of our board of directors should be appointed to address a specific matter and the appropriate members of that committee;
  • and assess what is in our best interests and the best interests of all of our shareholders

That said, Double Fine could have done a better job of addressing it out of the gate in their campaign pitch and made it so that I didn’t have to spend time addressing that point here.

Investors control a say in the way the game will work

Status: Fiction

The only investors who might are Double Fine themselves, and whoever the mysterious third party is that Double Fine refuses to elaborate on. Investors get a share of the profits but have no voting rights, and essentially nothing other than that dividend that will be paid once the game starts selling. In fact, they don’t get copies of the game, or any of the rewards unless they separately back it as a rewards backer.

Investors get Equity in Double Fine

Status: Fiction

This isn’t one I’ve heard tossed around here so much in particular but addresses something that Equity Crowdfunding was thought to deal with since when Oculus Rift was sold to Facebook, a lot of backers felt they should get a share of the 2 billion for helping the company take off. That doesn’t happen here, instead they own a very limited share. You have the right to a dividend from the publisher subscription that you decided to invest on, which your share will ideally track the performance of.

Let’s take a moment here and break down how this all works so that everyone understands it a bit better.

The Parties involved: Loose Tooth (the parent), Fig Publishing (FIG), Grasslands (The Pub Sub, which is the term for the publishing subsidiary that FIG uses for a particular project—each one will have it’s own “pub sub”), Double Fine, Rewards Backers, and Investors. Each of these are different parties involved in it.

Loose Tooth owns FIG publishing and it has on their board FIG’s lead as well as Tim Schaffer and others. Loose Tooth owns the common stock of FIG Publishing. Grasslands is a wholly owned subsidiary of FIG Publishing and enters into a license agreement with the developer, Double Fine, which sets the terms of the agreement regarding the project getting funded. That sets up the details on the offering, value of the Game Shares, terms like whether DLC is covered.

Then we launch the crowdfunding campaign. Investors are investing in preferred tracking stock of FIG. That stock doesn’t have any rights beyond that of being paid a dividend, and importantly: you are not buying equity in either Grasslands or Double Fine. Equally important to note is that there is no way to trade these Game Shares at this time, and inside the documents FIG is doing its best to stop such a market from opening for one reason or another—likely not wanting to deal with the legal and tracking issues related to it.

Rewards-Based Crowdfunders are in their own little area and their money as far as I can tell goes almost directly to Double Fine without dealing with many of the steps above, just processing through FIG’s website.

Investors will earn a share of DLC and All Platform Sales

Status: Fiction

The agreement explicitly states that DLC is NOT included in the investors profit share, nor FIG’s. Double Fine gets all that money for itself to help support the post-launch development if it does decide to do so as well as it’s own business. Much like IP investors only own a share of the profits from the sale of the game, not anything else such as spinoffs, or in this case DLC. 

Also: VR launches are not covered. It is possible this is due to the fact that much like the DLC it isn’t planned to be at launch but possible sometime down the road. There is also the fact that Double Fine is developing their first VR game with part of another team right now as an interquel and the costs and challenges for a VR launch are something they will be learning.

FIG can use money from Backers and Investors on different projects

Status: Looks Fictionish

This is a concern raised by a section taking from the risks part of the investment documents but is being misread and taken out of context. So first of all let’s talk about context: the context here before I put this section down is that this is an investment document. That means it has to cover ALL the bases, even if it’s small things there. There is a section that basically references that if key people fall dead in either FIG, Loose Teet,h or Double Fine, the project will likely fail … so yes, there is actually a section that could be used to explain what happens if a vengeful deity strikes down Tim Schafer with a sock.

There is another piece of context here that is key as well. Earlier in the document, this is a key element to look at that explains part of FIG’s plan for their business model and how they handle funds:

Our business model requires that most (or in some cases all)of the proceeds from the sale of Game Shares be used to make a substantial upfront payment to a developering exchange for publishing rights to receive future revenues from sales of the game.

We intend to pay proceeds (net of any related Publisher Expenses) from the offering of Game Shares to a developer to finance the developer’s development of the game under the license agreement. We do not intend to use any of the proceeds from this offering to fund our operations. Our operations are funded under the Master Services Agreement with our Parent. Our business model requires Pub Subs to make substantial upfront payments to developers in exchange for co-publishing rights to receive future revenues based on sales of the games. We will be at risk if for any reason our Pub Subs do not receive those future revenues, or if they are less than we would need to sustain operations and pay dividends to holders of Game Shares. We have no history to demonstrate, and we can make no assurances, that our business model will be successful, or whether any of agreements with developers or licensed platforms ultimately generate revenues from sales of the games. Consequently, it will be difficult to predict our future success, performance or viability and the viability of our business model, and any such predictions may not be accurate or reliable.

So what this means is that their business model is based on the idea of paying out the funds to the developer right away, subtracting FIG’s take for their publishing fee (which in this case is 0.1%). So that money is not there to be taken—it’s paid out under their agreement to the developer within 30 days. There is a cap set in the agreement that can require discussion—but to give an example in Psychonauts 2’s case that was set at 15 million. What that number is based on, I think, is the number of shares that are sold via investment, thus any further amounts would require separate discussions and work.

Here is the section that has raised concerns:

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.

So what this means in practice is that the performance or sales of one Pub Sub may be used to cover for another depending on the situation. The agreements, such as the flat payments that have to be done after funding, are still there. You funding the next project on FIG isn’t going to be used to fund the next DJ Phil at Double Fine that happened because Tim somehow blew through 3 million in half the expected time.

What it does mean is that the profits from Psychonauts 2 might be used to temporarily cover issues around another game’s income or if legal action of some sort happens utilizing that to cover it off. It is pretty clear they don’t want to do it, but without putting in a lot more legal work it’s not possible to get that type of security.

I just want to repeat that is just my understanding of it, and Zachary agreed there, but it is possible that we are misunderstanding it—it comes down to the fact they clearly want to avoid that type of cross pollination, but situations may force their hand.

FIG is Accepting Unaccredited Investors before the Rules are Finalized

Status: Fiction

This comes from an easy misconception around what sort of crowdfunding FIG is using for its unaccredited investors at this time. The finalized rules for unaccredited investors you are probably hearing talked about are the more famed Title 3 under the JOBS act in the CROWDFUND section. That isn’t what FIG is using or why they are only accepting reservations right now.

Instead of using the more famed Title 3 parts, they are using the higher cost and disclosure laden Regulation A funding method that had its rules finalized in July. Many of the questions around things—such as how they are curating the platform, communication areas, or other Title 3 regulation rules—don’t apply here. For accredited investors, it falls under 506 C fundraising, which is what they’ve used for their past ones. Regulation A funding also requires that they get approval on the offering, which is why they are taking reservations for unaccredited investors at this time, not taking their money—as we’ll talk about in our next point. 

So while I am wanting to avoid going too much into depth here, the lawyer we talked with, Zachary Strebeck, sent us a brief run down on the different types of investment that are relevant to the FIG and Psychonauts 2 situation to help clarify the misunderstandings:

Note: they’re not all technically “crowdfunding.” Really, only Title III is specifically meant for
crowdfunding, though they can all do some de facto crowdfunding by reaching out to a crowd
in order to fund something.

Regulation D, 506(c) securities offerings – These are offerings of securities that can be generally advertised (before the JOBS Act they couldn’t be), but the securities can only be sold to Accredited Investors. So it’s like crowdfunding, in that you can advertise the investment opportunity over the Internet, but your “crowd” is limited to Accredited Investors. Doing an
offering under this exemption allows you to avoid costly registration and ongoing regulatory
compliance. There is no limit to the amount that can be raised.

Regulation A – These are offerings that allow you to raise up to $50 million from both Accredited and Unaccredited investors, but the Unaccredited investors are limited to 10% of the greater of annual income or net worth if they are an individual (not a company). This type of offering (which Fig is using) requires that the SEC approve your offering materials before the offering begins, provide financial statements and other potentially-costly regulatory compliance.

http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/regulation-a-amendments-secg.shtml

Title III of the JOBS Act – true equity crowdfunding – this section of the JOBS Act allows for crowdfunding from anyone, up to certain dollar amounts for individuals, through designated crowdfunding platforms. The amount of regulatory compliance here is lower than with Reg A, but not completely negligible (especially for the platform holders themselves). These rules go into effect first quarter 2016, I believe. See here for more details:

http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-249.html

FIG is setting Reservations for Unaccredited Investors to screw them over

Status: Fiction

Okay we’re continuing our delve into the area of investment legal stuff here and some judgment calls. Note I’m not a trained lawyer here, I just talked with one about Crowdfunding, but if you are considering investing you should look at everything yourself as well.

In essence what’s going on here is that Regulation A offerings like FIG is doing for Psychonauts 2 have a higher overhead and are relatively new, with the rules just being finalized in July. There is less need for communication areas compared to Title 3 rules, but that means there needs to be more disclosures—look up above for more on that.

Here’s the big part, though, the SCC has to approve the offering and it’s likely that FIG wouldn’t want to do the offering if it didn’t know it would have enough. So by setting it up like this, they can count it towards the goal but also waste less money if they fail to meet it. Here’s what Zachary had to say on it:

The Regulation A Offering, there’s a lot more overhead versus the Equity Crowdfunding from Title 3. The Website talks about waiting until Quarter 1 next, but that’s because they have to submit all those offering documents to the SCC and then the SCC has to approve their offering documents and say that it’s okay.

FIG is a High Risk Investment

Status: Fact

FIG is, by their own definition and everything around it, a risky venture. They are trying something really new with this crowdfunding plus publishing set up that may or may not be able to become a sustainable company. Now, while you’re not investing directly into FIG, you are investing in their ecosystem and ability to keep things going to get your money back over time if Psychonauts 2 sells well. FIG is, as the documents attest, presently in the red having ran only 2 campaigns—one of which was unsuccessful—and they are going to need multiple successful launches and judgments on projects to get out of it over time. This year is key to FIG as they need to prove they can attract and run projects on top-tier crowdfunding and prove the viability of the platform even as they likely run further into the red requiring more money from their parent company to keep going.

The investor documents (which include the FIG Company Bylaws, License Agreement with Double Fine, Certificate of Designation, The Private Offering Memoradum, the Grasslands Subscription Agreement, and Grasslands Certificate of Incorporation)  fully go into this and the fact that it’s new territory with this odd set up they are doing here. It’s expected that in about one year, FIG and Loose Teeth (the parent) may need to seek additional funding to keep running. If they are unable to secure that, it is very possible that investments will become lost effectively as the developer does not have any responsibility to the Pub Subs if FIG goes under, although they may choose to—something that would from a PR perspective make a lot of sense. Getting that funding either from investors or financial services is going to be key on getting projects that they can expect to show money from in a couple years in addition to getting funds from their publisher service fees that other games will be paying them upon funding.

This is High Risk investments, and as Zachary Strebeck was prone to saying in our talk, you should make sure you aren’t putting up more then you can afford to easily lose.

Psychonauts 2 is a Safe Bet

Status: Fiction

This is something no one, not in FIG, Double Fine or anywhere else really knows. Psychonauts 2 and the FIG venture carry risks with them. Psychonauts 2, while a sequel to a cult hit and critically acclaimed game, is also a sequel to a game that sold very poorly at launch.

In the first 5 years of its life Psychonauts sold under 500k copies. It has sold over 1 million since, but it is important to understand where many of those copies were sold from and not get lost in the raw 1.69 million number.

Over 730k of those were in Humble Bundle Sales, and it has been bundled there 3 times—once in a general indie one, once in a Double fine one, and one is the Summer Games Done Quickly. It was always in the lowest tier—meaning that it got maximum distribution—even to people who already owned the game.

The other copies of it, on Steam, the Humble Store, and other online retailers often were discounted—many times up to 90% or included in Double Fine bundles on those stores.

Despite what many fans want to think, Psychonauts 2 is far from guaranteed to be a commercial success and it’s easy to forget how much a flop Psychonauts was for the original publisher before being digitally distributed by Double Fine at bargain basement prices.

This is, by the way, also part of the reason why I tend to shrug off some of the claims of saying that Brutal Legends 2 being dependent on success is a Phantom Riches scam. It’s more basic business; if Psychonauts 2 proves that their cult hits can be resurrected for sequels, it makes sense for them to do so again. If it ends up in the Red or barely breaking even for them, it will be an issue as beyond the potential funds they will have invested in FIG, there’s also the fact that they’ll be relying on other projects to cover their time and money investment in Psychonauts 2 making another similar risk unsustainable.

Double Fine is not putting any money into Psychonauts 2

Status: Fiction

Double fine has shown that they are putting in money of their own in their campaign, though some people are missing that. Double Fine’s plan for Psychonauts 2 has basically the FIG crowdfunding and investing making up about one third of the budget they said they’ll need for Psychonauts 2. That estimate was 10-13.5m and will be made from Double Fine, the FIG campaign, and a third backer.

We have no idea who this mysterious Third Party Is

Status: Fact

This is one of the large concerns at this point if you are an investor. We don’t know who the third party here is, nor what the terms of that agreement are. This matters because where they get their money back, what the control the third party has if any (likely little to none), and who you are partnering with.

The Console Charge is Just to Milk more Money

Status: Fiction

Consoles, unlike most of the PC distribution platforms, charge developers when they give codes beyond a small amount of codes at the start. Unlike Steam in particular, where a developer can just tell Valve they want any amount of codes and then retail them from their site or third party portals or give to backers, consoles want a cut from every sale. That is how they make their money even with the expense of creating and maintaining the consoles as well as certifying releases and updates.

I don’t know the exact charge of it, but from what I’ve heard around, $18 sounds in the neighborhood one would expect there. This is a case of actually being smart there to make sure that a significant amount of funds aren’t forced to go from funding to reward delivery and appears to be a case of Tim Schafer learning from experience.


There’s more that can be asked, but at this point we’re getting pretty long, and so I’ll close it here as I think I’ve addressed many of the most common questions about the Psychonauts 2 campaign. If you have a question here, please do ask and I’ll do my best to answer with the information or where you should look for more. I’d like to once again thank Zachary Strebeck for talking with us about the situation and his contributions on a background level as well as several quotes that were invaluable. You can visit his website at: http://strebecklaw.com


Don Parsons

News Editor

I've been a gamer for years of various types starting with the Sega Genesis and Shining Force when I was young. If I'm not playing video games, I'm often roleplaying, reading, writing, or pondering things brought up by speculative fiction.



  • Jack Omally

    After reading all of this, this all seems like a bad idea. It is amazing that places like polygon and IGn are kissing Fig’s ass and not saying a word about any of this stuff.

  • webkilla

    Indeed – you can invest in the projects, get financial info, but then you’re locked under and NDA that prevents you from warning others if you suddenly learn that a project is being financially mismanaged.

    Oh well, Schafer got paids – I guess he wont be complaining

    …now, whether we actually get a game out of this is the real question

  • coboney

    Well everyone wants FIG to be successful I think is part of it. I want to see them succeed despite some concerns – and not all of those are there (the low ROI comes to mind to some extent, as does Tim Schaffer’s history which I avoided touching on too much).

    I mean they are proposing a pretty interesting idea even if it is rather convoluted to follow in set up. In execution its easier “You make profits when the game makes profit”

    I wish them the best because I think that having a crowdfunding publisher that focuses on games and can provide some services is a neat idea. I just have a lot of concerns

  • coboney

    Well all the information I source here is available at their investment dropbox for everyone. Don’t have books but they are quite forthright in those documents because of the risks of lawsuits if they aren’t. We know FIG is in the Red and it probably will be for at least 3 years if not more and that if it can’t prove that it will have a revenue stream in 2-4 years this year it may have problems.

    As for the game part well… We probably will get something. What state or resemblance is to be seen.

  • garf02

    im still gonna bet he will just bail out on the whole project like his past KS did and cash the money to make parties

  • Sabrina Parseval

    “At worse, they decided when things were slower over the holiday than expected to without notice just extend the period.”

    Well it’s clearly not that since the edit happened 3 days into the campaign when they had already hit 50% of the funding. And they explained it in their FAQ.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    None of his past KS bailed, both Broken Age and Massive Chalice were delivered.

  • petersilk

    There are a 3 other things that make it clear that the end date of the 12th was always intended:

    1) at the time it happened, it was funding over twice as quickly as their previous most successful campaign, Broken Age, so they would have had no reason to panic-extend the date.

    2) Fig have confirmed that the incorrect date was due to a bug on the website and that the plan was always to have a longer funding period because of the holidays expected to be slower.

    3) And this is the clincher here, the social media campaign was based around videos being released on the successful completion of weekly challenges. If the campaign didn’t run until the 12, that timetable wouldn’t make any sense, and it’s pretty obvious that all the social media campaign was planned out well in advance.

    It might be true that it says the 7th on the contract, but that contract was probably signed quite some time ago, and by the rules of the contract, that date CAN be changed, and it was, clearly planned, before the project started.

  • coboney

    That asks the question – why do the investment documents say January 7th?

  • Robert Grosso

    I think they are referring to the cancelled one, the space game thing.

  • Kronos

    That was not a Kickstarter campaign. That was an Early Access game. People knew ahead of time that the game’s continued development depended on a reliable stream of funds to keep it going. There was a list of features that Double Fine said they would like to include in the future, but they also explicitly stated that there’s a chance they wouldn’t all wind up in the final game.

    There was not enough interest in the game to keep it financially sustainable, so they dropped it (are they supposed to keep losing money?), but they made the source code public so that others could tinker with it and gave everyone a free copy of Hack & Slash as compensation.

    It’s also amusing and a sterling example of gamer hivemind and spotty journalism that so many people only knew about the Spacebase game AFTER it was cancelled and it became another weapon to attack Double Fine with. If as many people had known about the game while it was still in Early Access, it might not have failed.

  • petersilk

    Because that might have been the original date at the time the documents were produced. But as you point out, the date is according to those same documents, flexible. And it’s obvious that by the time they finalised the social media campaign (which has accompanying images tied to weekly challenges, and in turn, video releases) that it was based on an extended end date.

    And anyway, I still have to point out that the updated end date happened 3 days into the campaign, when it was still funding at a rate far exceeding any other campaign they had run, so why on earth would they extend the date on a whim at -that- point?

  • coboney

    Actually it didn’t sell too badly – it was able to repay all their loans in the first month. The thing is that Early Access – as anyone looking at it can tell – only really funds a handful of games really and serves best as a supplementary funding with a focus on getting feedback.

    DF9 was also covered a lot before iirc as it was a big hit from their Amnesia Fortnight which is why they went into development on it and people had talked about it.

    As for Broken Age – while I made a joke – there were concerns on fund management there. Some of that was poor planning and just not getting what was going on – some was just things happening as can happen with development. By people who have – the funding was an issue with the second half being disappointing for many.

    Massive Challice on the other and there was no fund issues around that as far as I know. There were some people who felt disappointed but that happens with any game.

    I think there is some questions to ask on Schaffer but I think some people also react without looking at things on all sides really.

  • petersilk

    I don’t think the thing about Spacebase selling well is QUITE correct. In Double Fine’s words, at the start of Early access, it’s true it did sell well. But it was the lack of sustained interest that killed it. They were going for the sustained development of a game like Prison Architect that was also on Early Access at the time.

    Because they’ve been quite transparent we have some idea of how much it costs to employ a team member at Double Fine, and at the time of the announcement that they were ceasing development, it’s fairly clear the game must have been doing very badly. According to calculations, their estimates must have been quite modest – it only would have had to be a very small fraction as successful as Prison Architect in order to continue sustaining their small dev team. But it must have been doing even worse than their lowest projections by that point. The have said outright that the early sales were promising, but then it plummeted.

  • petersilk

    Despite some concerns about a few specific points in this piece, congratulations for at least attempting to put out a balanced analysis of this stuff. It’s miles ahead of anything else I’ve read or watched about this funding model.

  • coboney

    Prison Architect sold better than ANY double fine game has – it’s an exception in the category. It did taper off – which is normal for sales after launch and Early Access sales its all about building that trust there.

    The issue in many ways there is that in the end – they sold a product on a promise of what was to be done and then when it wasn’t doing as well sustained packed up and just abandoned it – giving the people who bought it a game they might already have had.

    I guess we just have a bit of a disagreement there – I do think yes they are forthright how much they pay employees and such. Where I feel is that in the end its not the buyers job to ensure – it is up to Double Fine to have done the research and built a plan for it. Just basically abandoning it and dumping the code. What the plan should have been, in my opinion, was to have at least a shell version of the game that was able to play even if it wasn’t able to realize everything they wanted.

    People have different feelings on it. I just feel though that if they were counting on Minecraft, Prison Architect, Dwarf Fortress, Kerbal Space Program or such level funding in Early Access it is completely unrealistic. You go look at some of the other indie games and you can’t really tell what will blow up in Early Access.

    I felt burned by that and it stuck with me there. What I would have liked to see was some sort of slow burn development or something that at least showed some respect to the people who had supported it.

  • coboney

    Thanks – might not agree with all your points but ya I tried to do my best to address points.

  • coboney

    Well my feeling is that it’s more they probably forgot to adjust it and then did.

  • coboney

    That’s worse and less likely – but it might be that they weren’t comparing to DFA and it’s also possible that given the 13.5 upper end development cost they were actually targeting a higher number.

  • petersilk

    As I said – Spacebase would have had to do a -fraction- as well as those very successful Early Access games in order to stay afloat. This was all ages ago and I can’t find the thread but we did the math based on how much it costs to employ someone at DF per month (wages plus other expenses), how many were on the Spacebase team, and it was really quite a modest amount. The initial surge of sales would have got them the initial time they did, but then they would have only needed a very small amount in comparison with those successful Early Access projects to keep it running.

    So yes, if they had been relying on Prison Architect like figures, that would have been unrealistic. But they weren’t relying on that. They were relying on a small fraction of that and it still didn’t pan out.

    Not that there aren’t things to criticise about Spacebase – there definitely are, but I think that their initial low-estimates must have been quite modest, and that the game didn’t hit the level of sustained interest required to hit it. They put their own money into the project to try to keep it going, we know that much.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    That’s way too convoluted, five measly days would hardly make a difference.

  • petersilk

    Maybe so – but if it’s as simple as that, why did it take them 3 days? 3 days is a plausible amount of time for a bug to be noticed investigated, fixed, tested and then the website updated, though. At least that feels about right from my experience with dev support cycles.

  • Dave

    Nice article. Good to see a balanced and informed approach, rather than the vilify through misinterpretation thing that has been going around.

    Did Broken Age really run out of money? I thought what happened was, during design of the game, Double Fine realised they had a bigger game on their hands than the funding would cover. So, they had a choice of paring back the design, or creating the full game they wanted by raising money through sales of Act I. They went for the latter. So all backers actually scored a bigger game then they originally backed.

    Was Spacebase DF-9 actually unfinished? Double Fine did announce the version 1.0 features, and completed the game to that level. The game was fully playable on release, and some bug fixes were even released for a few months after. Note, I don’t own the game, but I’m just relaying what I’ve read.

  • coboney

    On Broken Age – would have to do a deeper check but well it was a bigger project because that’s what they promised as they went over funding. This was the post where they talk about not having the funding to finish without an additional add of funds (its a copy of the backers only post) : https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1hivv9/broken_age_tim_schafers_kickstarter_game_needs/

    So they over promised in the kickstarter – spent funds on things like having a big party and then had to split it up.

    As for Space Base DF-9 – it went from version 0.4 to 1.0 missing huge amounts of content they were promising to people who bought in. It was basically ‘well game isn’t making enough money so we’re releasing regardless’ there and releasing the source code.

  • Dave

    Cheers. Thanks for the reply!

    Yeah, they did overdesign Broken Age based on what funding they had. That was a mistake on their part. It’s still disingenuous to say they ran out of money, which they never actually did.

    From what I understand of DF-9, they gave a list of features that they were considering, but they never actually promised it. The list even said that these features were subject to change. That’s the mistake most people seem to make … using the word “promise”. I don’t think there were any promises made.

  • petersilk

    This is correct. Here is the exact wording on the feature list of the webside which was exceedingly careful not to promise features which may have had to be cut:

    “Spacebase DF-9 is a detailed simulation game, and we’re constantly improving and adding to it. Because space contains everything, there’s an almost infinite number of things we could add to the game! Because we have limited time and resources, we have to make hard choices about what’s important. Below is a giant list of all the things we might possibly do at some point.

    Nothing on this list is carved in stone, and we can’t promise any date for when it might go into the game. We may decide something isn’t worth it, or an idea may mutate into another thing entirely. We’re sharing this with you because we want to give an idea of where the game is headed!”

  • petersilk

    Actually, if anything they under-promised in the kickstarter, which only EVER stated that they would try to make a game, document it, and release it on certain platforms.

    The budget concerns that caused them to eventually split the game were identified very early on in the project, as you can see by watching the documentary (free on YouTube now) and it was less ‘they ran out of money’ and more they had a decision to make like many other games have to make:

    a) do we cut the scope now? or
    b) do we try to get more money.

    in reality of course usually a bit of both happens, but they decided to focus on the second one, and in doing so ended up making a bigger game at no extra cost to the backer. The compromise was that the game came in two parts.

    Like any game project, they had to adjust the scope and/or the budget as it goes along. The only thing odd about this one is that they took quite an unusual approach to it by splitting the game. And it happened publicly, rather than behind the scenes, so we actually heard about it rather than all the games which have to make cuts or scramble for more money that we only hear about years later in retrospectives.

    So if by ‘ran out of money’ one means ‘identified budget concerns early on and then successfully mitigated them,’ then I guess Broken Age qualifies 🙂

  • ParasiteX

    Yeah, i followed their documentary for Broken Age. And they very much did go wqay over their planned and intended budget. The budget ended up becoming twice the amount they initially got funded on Kickstarter…

    But not surprising considering Tim Schafers wonderful math skills… Where he got 1 + 1 + 40 to equal 50…

  • Galbador

    Kickstarter is a risky thing and when you look at all the failed projects (especially in video game development), it only tells me that I, for myself, will avoid them as much as possible. For me, this is just a milking of fans to get more and more money and delivering a horrendes product. When I saw the demo of Mighty No 9, I was quite shocked how bad it looked for me. It was worse than I expected and now I fear that I will not like it once I get it. It really showed me, that game developers lost their touch in planning, money control and finishing their products, especially with Double Fine. How does a company earn so much money, even more than needed, for a game project and blasted all out without even finishing the game? It really worries me quite a lot since I loved Double Fine games (Psychonaut and Brütal Legend especially), but with Tim’s change of heart against gamers and the catastrophically use of money for their games, I lost every respect or hope for any good that comes from this company.

    Maybe it is time to let video games die out again and hope that generations after us won’t have this problem… but I doubt it.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    They didn’t “run out of money” for Broken Age, they made the decision to make an even bigger game than the money from the crowdfund would cover, instead of paring down their full ambitions to make it fit in the budget. That they found a way of doing it at no further cost to the backers is a good thing. The worst thing was that it was delayed, big deal!

  • killdeer

    Is this just an exaggeration or did he actually do that math somewhere?

  • ParasiteX

    Yeah. He very much did. And he also made a racist joke at the same time. Jump to about the 6:40 mark for his shitty “joke”..

    Watch the whole thing if you dare for maximum cringe.

    For some context. #NotYourShield is a twitter hashtag started by minorities and women. In response to them being used as a shield against their will, in social justice warrior agendas when attacking Gamegate supporters.

    And Tim basically made the “joke” that #NotYourShield are sock puppet accounts, with no minority or women supporters. And that they basically are just fake accounts made by white men from 4chan.

    I just love being told by an ass like Tim, that i don’t exist.

    I could care less what a game devs personal opinions are. As long as they keep em to themselves or their social networks. And just make good games.
    But when you abuse a hosting position at a Game Dev Conference to push your agendas.. Then that goes way over the line.

  • Kronos

    “#NotYourShield is a twitter hashtag started by minorities and women.”

    No, it was an Astroturf campaign intended to deflect accusations of misogyny and racism.

    “And that they basically are just fake accounts made by white men from 4chan”

    Except that’s true, for the most part.

  • giygas

    I see the Double Fine Defense Brigade is out in full force.
    Do I see someone criticizing DF-9!? Better remind him that it’s HIS fault for expecting a good game from that early access because Double Fine doesn’t have any obligation to make a finished product anyway. Nothing shady about that at all.

  • petersilk

    Hi again. We’ve been talking about this on the Double Fine forums and Justin from fig has stepped in with a more complete explanation:

    “Probably worth a little more transparency on this since it keeps coming up. Jan 7th was tentatively set as the end date to the campaign before it started. I actually reached out to DF prior to the campaign starting suggesting it was better to make it Jan 12th, because I didn’t want the campaign to get lost in the New Year shuffle.

    It was agree by DF and us, it was changed in the tool, but we had a refresh problem that over wrote it. I caught it 30 minutes prior to the campaign starting, but because it was right before the VGAs, I decided to leave it rather than take a chance right before 100,000+ people hit our site.

    DF updated the date during the campaign tool and pushed it live without Fig’s knowledge (this has since been locked down so devs can’t do this anymore). What should have happened is that DF and Fig issued a proactive statement before changing it rather than being reactive, so mistakes were made on both sides.”

    So it sounds like it was basically like I suggested here – the date was the 7th, and before the start of the campaign it was changed to the 12th, but a bug stopped the change from going through.

  • ParasiteX

    Lol. right.. Anyone can check out the hashtag here. https://twitter.com/hashtag/notyourshield And there are quite a lot of minorities and women posting under that hashtag.. Such fakeness indeed..
    I guess i’m fake as well then.

    If you want to see what actual fake accounts looks like, then you can check out Feminist Frequency followers. Where about half the accounts following it are fake.
    https://www.twitteraudit.com/femfreq

    I guess next you are gonna claim Gamergate are all a bunch of misogynists and racists then?

    Oh my! Look at all these “fake” people.

    Such fakeness, indeed.

  • Joseph Fanning

    Hey, Tim Schafer, how many millions does it take to make a 300,000 dollar game?
    Tim: 3.3: 2 to pay your voice actors, 4 to hire Phil Fish as DJ Fez2izcanzeled, and 6.3 to flush down the toilet!

  • Joseph Fanning

    And that they ended up shipping only half a game to the crowdfunders and never send them the rewards they’d paid for and made them buy a rushed hack-job of a part 2.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    His joke was that some (50?) gamergaters created sockpuppet accounts to tweet #notyourshield to deflect criticisms of gamergate being bigoted. Which is factually true: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-09/10/gamergate-chat-logs

    True to form, gamergaters continue to deny any wrongdoing, and overreact viciously.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    Nope, all the backers have the full game, in fact were able to play it before it was released to everyone else last year, and all the rewards have been made and sent out except for those that contain the documentary blu-ray, the progress of which is linked to in the Psychonauts 2 FAQ, and the art book that is coming in a few months, for which backers have been sent proofs.

  • Joseph Fanning

    In other words, just all the physical rewards. That doesn’t make it any better, and I’ve seen enough complaints about broken age 2 to say that you’re probably not being totally honest about them having a “full game”.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    You’ve read a lot of misinformed bullshit about Broken Age 2 from people who’ve never played it, your comment being an example.
    Broken Age is out, jeez. Act 2 was at least twice the size of Act 1. It made my point-and-click adventure heart very happy. It’s awesome.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    I notice you’ve edited your comment to include yet another lie: No one had to pay for Act 2. Act 2 wasn’t released separately, but as an update to the game. Those who bought Act 1 before Act 2 came out were actually buying the Season Pass, and the game was updated in full at no further cost when Act 2 came out. Backers certainly didn’t have to pay anything else after the campaign for the full game and documentary.

  • Joseph Fanning

    That’s weird. I’d heard that they couldn’t even afford to get the same voice actors back for it, that the puzzles were largely based on uninspired backtracking, and the response in general has been vastly negative towards it. But even assuming that all that’s lies that I’ve been fed from various gaming sites and personal testimonies, , Tim’s history is still pointing to him not likely to be able to finish Psychonauts 2 with his current budget. He’s been drummed out of the AAA industry because his overspending on the original Psychonauts downgraded Majesco from an AAA company to one that primarily does ports and his chance to redeem himself with Brutal Legend bombed. As much as you like Broken Age Part 2, the entire game was originally supposed to be out with the first part and he decided that 3.3 million wasn’t enough after he had originally asked for less than a tenth of that.

  • Joseph Fanning

    I didn’t edit it. It was there in the comment from the start and if that’s not true as you say, I apologize, I wasn’t one of the backers and only knew that they had been asking for more money for part 2 and assumed that would also be from the kickstarters.

  • Joseph Fanning

    Heya! I’m actually transgendered and I’m pro-gamergate. Why don’t you explain to me why I don’t count? I wasn’t in that IRC and neither were the vast majority of people taking place in the hashtag.

    Oh, here: I’m going to suggest a conspiracy involving you replying to comments! That means that now if you comment I can dismiss you as a conspiracy that I cooked up, correct?

  • Joseph Fanning

    Actual transgender person here. Nice to know that you’re all open about your bigoted erasure of my identity.

  • Joseph Fanning

    It looks like someone must’ve linked the post on gamerghazi or something, I’ve not seen this much brigading on techraptor before.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    No, it had the same voice actors. The puzzles were harder, they often required more steps and were of a greater variety. Harder doesn’t equal better for a lot of people, but it’s fair to say that’s what backers wanted. It was funnier and had even better animation.
    I don’t think the figure they originally asked for is relevant once they received 8x that, because that’s an entirely different game. 300k would not have produced anything like Broken Age.
    It was something else that sank Majesco before releasing Psychonauts, that’s why they did pretty much no publicity for it. Both Psychonauts and Brutal Legend are among the ~20 games Double Fine have shipped successfully, so I’d say their commitment to making good games is very high, and they did well with the crowdfunded games Broken Age and Massive Chalice, so Psychonauts 2 is looking good too. A high-risk investment as an investor, sure, but as a backer? I’d trust Double Fine to deliver more than anyone else, tbh.

  • Joseph Fanning

    Psychonauts bombed by any metric that a reasonable person could use. It sold less than 200K copies in its first year and had an over 12 million dollar budget. Most of what doublefine wants you to think are 60 dollar game sales are sub-1-dollar humble bundle sales.

  • Joseph Fanning

    http://www.gamespot.com/articles/majesco-mash-up-stock-sinks-on-declining-revs/1100-6142618/ There you go, news from the past before anyone had any reason to be biased against Tim.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    Hmm, missed that that the first time I read it, otherwise I would have addressed it earlier. It’s super irritating to see this misinformation spread around, and it’s hard not to see it as done with malicious intent. Thanks for admitting your mistake, just remember not to repeat stuff you read on the Internet without fact-checking!

    And, no, they DIDN’T ask for more money. They financed Act 2 themselves. Releasing Act 1 in advance was part of that.

  • ParasiteX

    You do know thousands of people tweeted under the hashtag right? A few actual fakes are to be expected… But that doesn’t dismiss the fact that many minorities and women use it.

    And the way Tim phrased it, made it out to be that all #NotYourShield where sock puppets..

    Oh and liking your own comment is pretty pathetic btw 😉

  • Joseph Fanning

    Yeah, I often have to remind others of that, and I’m sorry I made the mistake. But keep in mind that when he went on stage and told his stupid jokes, he was very directly saying that I don’t exist or that what I have to say in the matter shouldn’t count because I’m not the right “kind” of trans person. If you want to assume that I’m a sock puppet, I can’t stop you, but I assure you that I’m as genuine as transgender gets. I’m one of the more popular TG writers on DA, with a crapload of stories and writings that will mirror my statements here.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    Double Fine has been very open about the breakdown of sales of Psychonauts, including an exact number of Humble Bundle sales (shown in the infographic in the campaign pitch video and in the investor area of Fig), and the fact that it bombed, they get into it in the documentary they released about the making-of of Psychonauts (I think Part 3 deals with that stuff here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3zFPss3-9I) Like I said, expecting Psychonauts 2 to profit massively is a giant leap of faith that I’m sure some will be willing to make, but it won’t be because they’ve been deceived about the past performance of Psychonauts. The entire point of crowdfunding is being able to produce a game publishers won’t touch because they don’t think it will sell, which has been the case with Psychonauts 2, Double Fine had been trying to sell it to publishers for years with no success.

  • Joseph Fanning

    I am willing to buy and enjoy a completed and reviewed psychonauts 2, but I looked into Fig’s terms myself and when it outright says that they aren’t required to deliver, I decided not to take my chances. I also have concerns believing that he’s honest about funding to the game when Notch offered some time ago to fund Psychonauts 2 and Tim mostly just hemmed and hawed at it. Guy’s a great game designer, but terrible with managing money.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    The joke he made wasn’t that everyone that used that hashtag is a sockpuppet, but that some gamergaters made sockpuppets to use that hashtag, which is unfortunately true:
    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-09/10/gamergate-chat-logs

  • Joseph Fanning

    There’s sockpuppets in every side of every internet argument. Their presence should not be used as an excuse to say that the argument itself should be dismissed. When one side says that there’s obvious corruption in an industry and the other side says “all those people that are saying that aren’t REALLY women or minorities!”, that’s not a real argument. That’s an attempt at deflection, and gamergate has spent the better part of two years now just trying to be allowed to state their point.

  • ParasiteX

    Yeah. And apparently i’m not half-Filipino and brown skinned either. I marvel sometimes at SJWs amazing ability to erase my racial identity.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    Notch said that it didn’t work out because the amount needed was higher than he thought it would be (they’re making Psychonauts 2 for $10-$13 million, possibly the figure would have been higher back then when they would have had to create their own engine instead of using Unreal 4). The reason Notch first voiced the idea is because Tim Schafer had talked about how publishers were rejecting Psychonauts 2. Anyway, now Notch is a backer, at top tier. I hope he has fun on his camping trip XD

  • Joseph Fanning

    Again, I’ll wait to see the finished project. I DO want to see Schafer turn around and do well with the money he’s got, but I’m not putting my own money down on it. Now, if it were Day of the Tentacle HD he was offering, I would find it incredibly hard to resist.

  • Sabrina Parseval

    Oh, that’s totally fair. I’m super excited for Day of the Tentacle Remastered, which I think is coming in March. I haven’t played the original, and I’ve been playing Maniac Mansion in preparation. I’m glad they’re doing Full Throttle Remastered too, then I be able to say I’ve played all of Tim Schafer’s games.

  • Joseph Fanning

    I was lucky to find Full Throttle in a thrift store for 50 cents.

    I think that we have more in common than we may realize. I’m not eager to see Tim fail, especially when he has so many properties that I really enjoy to take with him. I’m just on edge because he was really hostile to me and I feel like he’s courting an audience that’s even more hostile to me(for example, Randi Harper personally tweeted that my girlfriend couldn’t be legitimately female because she drew my large-chested avatar) and I don’t think he’s a good financial manager.

  • coboney

    Hey Peter, could you link me to that? Will take a look here in a bit if nto. Just back at the computer and will update there

  • petersilk

    Sure here it is. He also gives a longer post about fig in general earlier in the thread http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewreply/400902/

  • coboney

    Article has been updated with the section there.

    A lot of the SEC stuff he mentions in the FIG area is things I was attempting to clarify as well because people are misunderstanding that as ‘will happen’ instead of ‘worse case cover our asses just in case as is legally required’

  • HeavyScout

    You really ought to edit the comment about the date you have in place also: “At worse, they decided when things were slower over the holiday than expected to without notice just extend the period.”

    Since we know that they changed the date much earlier, three days in, we know that the speculation you make there is incorrect.

    Other than that, it’s a really good article, useful for anyone with an interest in the topic. Really great work with it.

  • coboney

    I didn’t want to edit the base text there so that people who come across can see and don’t feel the article was getting changed. I hope the update and the updated take there on what happened clears it up there.

  • Galbador

    It still shows that they have no idea how to handle this problem.

  • Kronos

    Just trying to counteract the Gamergate Gestapo. I suppose you guys are from KotakuInAction, huh?

  • Joseph Fanning

    I actually use techraptor as a news site.

  • Kronos

    I’m a minority too. I don’t care about your race or gender. Supporters of Gamergate and those who parrot its propaganda at this late date are either a) dishonest b) dumb c) trolling or some combination thereof. Race and gender have nothing to do with it, and they doesn’t shield you from being called out for supporting a stupid and mendacious cause.

  • Joseph Fanning

    That doesn’t address my point at all except to reinforce it, and no one on your side has ever once been able to provide any evidence to substantiate your ridiculous claims. Even now you’re saying that merely disagreeing with you is one of these things. It’s so pathetic and desperate and the public is starting to catch on to how idiotic your “intersectional” beliefs make you act.

  • Joseph Fanning

    My favorite part is that you have to tell me what my beliefs are because that’s the only way you can even attempt to argue against them. That’s incredibly telling.

  • Kronos

    What claims? That Gamergate was a stupid and mendacious cause and that people who supported it should feel embarrassment? I stand by that.

    There was evidence from an early date that the “ethics in game journalism” crap was merely PR propaganda:

    https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate

    And it’s corroborated by looking at Gamergate’s list of targets and the paucity of their “accomplishments.”

  • Joseph Fanning

    Hoo, break out the tinfoil.

    Hey, here’s a great idea! Why don’t you reply to me and say something stupid!

    Uh-oh, now if you respond to me anything you say can be dismissed because I planned it in advance as a conspiracy.

  • Kronos

    It’s hilarious how you choose to completely ignore those chat logs I linked above exposing Gamergate for what it really is. It demonstrates how dishonest you were all along.

  • Joseph Fanning

    In case you didn’t notice, I’m not participating in any of those chats. You’re trying to attempt a guilt by association fallacy, and believe me, with the people on your side you really do not want to go down that road. You’ve also yet to explain how some 4-chan idiots trolling some something awful goon idiots means that the argument that games don’t make you sexist is invalid.

  • Kronos

    “I-i-i-it’s a plot by 4chan trolls to make us look bad!! Honest!!! Never mind the fact that we’re just as obsessed with attacking some SJW bogeyman as they are and use much of the same same rhetoric. Never mind that Gamergate has accomplished practically nothing when it comes to journalism reform. Never mind that many of its public spokespeople are right-wing opportunists, many of whom held little interest in games before they realized they could turn gullible kids from /v/ into their useful idiots.”

    And who the hell claimed that video games make you sexist? I didn’t. Tim Schafer didn’t. And plenty of people who called out Gamergate for the reactionary propaganda that it was don’t believe that games make you sexist. So you’re arguing against a straw man there.

    Anyway, I’m done here. The trilemma of a) dishonest b) dumb c) trolling or some combination thereof definitely applies to you. I’m not going to waste more time arguing with someone who’s too stupid to see through Gamergate propaganda and dismisses all the damning evidence against it as slander or conspiracy.

  • Joseph Fanning

    You’re the one claiming it’s a conspiracy theory, dumbass. Unless the people leading the charge are the same ones who were in that chat, you’re making connections that you’d have to be completely retarded to make. You wouldn’t be this desperate to try and discredit the movement if you weren’t already aware of the new FTC guidelines put in place thanks to the movements as well as the numerous ethical codes that games journalism sites have since adopted.

    This is one of the dumber Ghazi posts I’ve yet seen. “Calling my conspiracy theory baseless is a conspiracy theory so therefore I’m right and I don’t need to address any of the points the other side makes to declare myself the winner! Go me!”

  • calbeck

    I’d offer only one correction here: while the Prospectus DOES say that investors have a “right” to dividends, it ALSO says the Board has the right to deny any payouts which affect the company’s cash flow or capital. Meaning, in practical terms, anytime the Board feels like not paying out a dividend.

    So while you have a “right to dividend”, you don’t actually have a right to a dividend. In short, the only way an investor can get paid anything at all is if FIG/DoubleFine/etc want to pay.