Kickstarter has no plans to compete with Fig using "equity" crowdfunding

Kickstarer has no plans to match Fig's equity funding option, and plans to instead focus on the developers.

Since the launch of the new crowdfunding company Fig (August 18th, 2015), many eyebrows have been raised in the direction of Kickstarter, asking them if they plan on competing with Fig on their level of equity crowdfunding.

If you're unfamiliar with what equity crowdfunding is: when a crowd of people invest money into a company, they receive shares of said company. It could be considered a more beneficial form of investment for the investors; should the company or product become popular, investors can cash out big by selling shares. 

While Fig is just a newcomer in the crowdfunding industry, they're implementation of equity funding as an option to their backers is very radical.

Reaching out to Kickstarter

Polygon already approached Kickstarter on their stance when dealing with their new competitor, Fig, and Kickstarter gave the very dominant answer that they have no plans to add equity as an option, and instead prefer to focus on the developer's options when getting funded for their projects.

Equity investment could become a major controversy since it offers the option to 'own' a piece of a game, and backers could even receive a cut of game's profits upon release. 

"Kickstarter has no plans to offer equity crowdfunding,"

"Kickstarter's mission is to help bring creative projects to life, and we welcome more options for creators."

- Kickstarter Representative

When looking at the business prospects of Kickstarter, it becomes difficult to read exactly what the future will hold for the company that has had such a strong reputation. Three successful game developers who have been heavily involved in Kickstarter's fundraising and creation process are on the advisory board for Fig, adding just a bit more drama to the pot.

This could cause a large profit and popularity loss on Kickstarter since the three companies, Obsidian Entertainment, inXile Entertainment, and Double Fine Productions accumulated over $13 million dollars in funding through Kickstarter since 2012.

Diversity Could be the Key

When thinking of Kickstarter many people associate the company with the huge diverse set of campaigns and projects that they advertise. That one association itself could uphold Kickstarter's reign on video game creation and funding. Their new competitor Fig will only host two campaigns at a time on their site, which is limiting the popularity at one front where developer's can't just submit their projects to be backed by the funders.

"We’re constantly amazed at the ingenuity and diversity of games on Kickstarter — thousands of them, from quirky side projects to ambitious blockbusters, and from creators of all stripes,"

"It’s a place where people make and support games because they love gaming. Kickstarter creators retain full ownership and creative control of their work. And our strong backer community makes Kickstarter the best place in the world for game makers to find an audience — one that extends beyond the core gaming crowd."

-Kickstarter Representative

I'll personally be paying attention to the fluctuating popularity that I expect will move from Kickstarter to Fig, and back and forth. Like with toys, when a new one shows up everyone wants to play with it; but true value will reign in the end onto which company has the best benefits. 

What do you think of the equity option that Fig is offering to backers? Will it work or flop? 

Featured Contributor

An online college student studying Business Administration and International Business at SNHU. I play a lot of different games, but I prefer management ones, including Minecraft, RollerCoaster Tycoon, Borderlands, and Assassin's Creed.

Published Aug. 19th 2015
  • GameSkinny Staff
    It's very interesting, for sure. Having more equity could end up meaning that backers (I guess investors, instead) have more skin in the game and will be more likely to promote completed games for developers. There's a chance for a greater number of brand evangelists. The crowd could become more investor-like and want to pour more money into projects in hopes of a greater return. I expect a lot of groundswell from titles backed on Fig.

    At the same time, though, it could backfire entirely. Many games might struggle because backers are more bloodsport about who they want to back. Developers might not be willing to hand over shares, either, and avoid the platform.

    Also, because people have more skin in the game, expect even more vicious internet hate than ever before if a Fig project fails.

    Regardless, Kickstarter isn't going anywhere. There are plenty of plenty of projects, non-gaming especially, that benefit purely from goodwill and charity. I've backed 28 projects on Kickstarter at this point, and most of them I picked just because I wanted to support a cool, crazy idea that wouldn't get made otherwise. I wasn't looking for a profit, and I don't think many crowdfunding 'power users' are either. I didn't want to back a nacho field guide because I thought I could gain money from it; I backed that because a guy had a crazy idea to make a FIELD GUIDE FOR NACHOS and I tossed in a few bucks just because I thought that was awesome. Stories like that are the draw for a lot of people.

New Cache - article_comments_article_26757