I actually don’t have too many problems with Fig’s use as a Kickstarter-like vehicle for video games, though I think it is questionable that the board of directors put their games on there. I’ve put down money on two games on Fig, just never as an investment. I guess if you have the cash to burn and think it’s “fun” to put an investment on a game, knock yourself out. I just think people should know that as an investment, there are several other paths that are much more likely to give you a better return.
I apologize if I came off as rude, I certainly didn’t mean to. However, I do think using the argument that it isn’t a “traditional” investment as a strange reason to not view it as one. You’re kind of moving the goalposts on that one. If you want non-vague accusations, I can use things that I personally find worrying about the Phoenix Point assumptions for break-even, as an example:
-
Using the $35 full price figure is too optimistic. Most games that go on steam generally come in at 10% off during pre-orders, and we all know how quickly games tend to go on sale. Most of your initial sales are likely going to be at 10% off, unless this game specifically holds strong at its full price.
-
It assumes the 85% dividend, can they choose to award a lower dividend? I know this has been part of some other fig investments.
-
The comparison games it uses are pretty ridiculous, and the table misleading. This game is not going to sell like X-Com 2, and Wasteland 2 doesn’t seem like a similar enough game to compare it to. I think Xenonauts is a very good comparision, in their defense. Also, note that revenue estimates are not given for any of the three games, but they provide an MSRP and approximate sales figures. In their defense, there’s just no way they’re going to be able to find accurate numbers for revenue. The other side of that being that there is no way that the MSRP is an accurate representative for those sales figures. They’ve at least hedged by using the current MSRP for X-Com 2 instead of the original $59.99 figure. Still, too optimistic.
My biggest beef with the investments on the site, however, is that most of these games are going to take at least 2-3 years of development before ever coming out. That means the money you invested is tied up for at least that long without earning anything. An average return in a mutual fund is more than likely going to outperform anything that fig could offer you with much less risk in that time frame, and can be pulled out and moved into something else should the need arise. Your money in the fig investment cannot be pulled out, you are at the whim of whenever dividends are distributed, which is obviously not going to happen before the game comes out.
Obviously, they are trying to get you to invest, and so they may use certain parameters to do so, but I think the single scenario with those specific parameters throw up enough red flags for me that I’d never invest, regardless of the game. I don’t think Fig is a scam, but I dislike the risk/return profile that their system uses. I’m happy the investments get games with better budgets, but ultimately think it would be very difficult for them to make it worth your while in the long run. Unless you are getting something like a 20%+ return after three years during a good economic period, you’re probably taking a loss comparatively, and for far more risk with a lot less liquidity.
