It's also interesting, as a platform, in that it allows users to actually invest, rather than "here, take some of my money and maybe I'll get a videogame in two years". Riskier, yes, but I think ultimately healthier for both fans and developers.
I think one of the examples this perhaps is most intriguing is when a crowdfund is so successful the company ends up turning around and bringing in a ton of cash after. In that scenario, one could see these early backers actually getting their investment back out... and still getting the game/end product.
I think it's a nice potential outcome. And in the case of failure, you still didn't get your video game and are out your investment... the same as a normal crowdfund.
Of course, if I recall, actual "investment" via Fig sits an order of magnitude above what most backers would even consider, which is why Fig still does normal crowdfunding too.
> "In that scenario, one could see these early backers actually getting their investment back out... and still getting the game/end product."
Doesn't strike me as an investment choice with good odds though. There aren't precise figures available but the consensus of statements from people who've worked in the games industry is broadly consistent: for the large publishers, of ten games developed, you can expect one to significantly profitable, another two to break even, with the remainder losing money. For small indies, the numbers are estimated to be one-tenth of that or worse.
Makes for fascinating reading if you want to know a bit more about how the sausage is made. A couple of the more interesting anecdotes I came across were at:
Yes, it's a big difference in price. I backed Pillars of Eternity 2 via fig and IIRC the backer tiers started at $10 whereas investors started at $1000/share.
If memory serves the shares were also just shares (with a copy of the game included obviously). If you spent $1000 as a backer instead of as an investor you got a whole lot more rewards for your money.
