Kickstarter Vets Launch Video Game Crowdfunding Site With Equity Investing

Kickstarter Vets Launch Video Game Crowdfunding Site With Equity Investing

fig crowdfunding

Some of Kickstarter's most successful veterans have teamed up to launch an alternative to the crowdfunding site that will offer rewards-based crowdfunding and equity investing.

Former COO at Double Fine Justin Bailey has launched Fig, a new crowdfunding site focused exclusively on games, that allows accredited investors with net worths over $1 million to invest at least $1,000 in exchange for an equity share in the game. The site launched today with a campaign for space exploration game Outer Wilds. Bailey teamed up with former Double Fine colleague Tim Schafer, inXile's Brian Fargo, and Obsidian's Feargus Urquhart, all of whom have pledged to launch new video game campaigns on Fig.

"When Justin came and talked to us about the equity side of things, we thought that could change things so much from the standpoint of what we could get funded and how we could get funded," Urquhart said in an interview. "Instead of add-ons and stretch goals and all these things being this very ad hoc thing we have to do, it really makes it so that we can run our campaigns in a way that's the way video game campaigns have been run on the different crowdfunding sites."

Those launching projects have the option not to participate in the equity investment program, and Urquhart stated that everyone will understand what part is crowdfunding and what part is investment funding. It was important to them to offer that flexibility. It was also important for them to create a site focused on video games. Fig was designed as a way to assist game development companies during and after the campaign, ditching the one size fits all approach that many other sites use.

"Other crowdfunding sites are horizontal. They serve many industries. Anything you do has to work for taxidermy just as much as it works for video games. If you look at a lot of crowdfunding, it's about building a finished product. The campaign goal is set at the minimum amount of orders needed to make that product," Bailey said. "Games are completely different. The people involved are financing the development of that game. It's much more specific. A lot of times, with these high-profile games like Feargus and Brian and Tim make, the stakes are high. Multiple millions are coming in."

"If we want to make bigger stuff, if we want to involve people even more in what we're doing, this takes crowdfunding to a point where people can fund $50,000 games, or $2 million games, or $5 million games," Urquhart added. "Hopefully we can even get to $10 million and $15 million games. That's great for the independent game development scene, allowing that. That's what the difference is. It's about why we want to do it."

"We're curated. We're specific to games. We're a vertical approach, so our involvement doesn't just stop once the campaign is done," Bailey said. "A lot of the stuff we have is value-add stuff. Things like continued mentoring that's going on. But when the game launches we're going to help promote it to make sure it sells more."

[Source: VentureBeat]

Permalink

First off, why the 1 mil net worth requirement? Seems counterproductive to cut out that large of a money pool. Second, why the $1,000 requirement? I could see it if it was only for the investment side, but the donation side (sorry, "crowdfunding") should really be whatever you want to donate seeing as there is nothing to get in return. And lastly, if you're gonna do this you'd be a fool to not pick the investor side. You will actually have a legal pitchfork to skewer these folks with if they fail to fulfill their promises. I eagerly await the first failure and the subsequent shitstorm.

So basically an elitist improved version of Kickstarter for millionaires? Oh joy..... =/
I wonder if Tim realizes that half of what Kickstarter does is build up hype between people who fund the game. If you leave it to the ultra rich to fund I fail to see how well word of mouth will work to sell a game. If anything it would make me less likely to want to buy a product funded this way.

Sarge034:
First off, why the 1 mil net worth requirement? Seems counterproductive to cut out that large of a money pool. Second, why the $1,000 requirement? I could see it if it was only for the investment side, but the donation side (sorry, "crowdfunding") should really be whatever you want to donate seeing as there is nothing to get in return. And lastly, if you're gonna do this you'd be a fool to not pick the investor side. You will actually have a legal pitchfork to skewer these folks with if they fail to fulfill their promises. I eagerly await the first failure and the subsequent shitstorm.

Blazing Hero:
So basically an elitist improved version of Kickstarter for millionaires? Oh joy..... =/

I wonder if Tim realizes that half of what Kickstarter does is build up hype between people who fund the game. If you leave it to the ultra rich to fund I fail to see how well word of mouth will work to sell a game. If anything it would make me less likely to want to buy a product funded this way.

The 1000$ and net worth is only to get in as an investor. Otherwise from what I read it works basicly like kickstarter with every tier above 1000$ being you get a portion of the profits. They also said that it will sperate the numbers form regular donations and investor donations so its easy to tell where the intrest is coming form.

Blazing Hero:
So basically an elitist improved version of Kickstarter for millionaires? Oh joy..... =/
I wonder if Tim realizes that half of what Kickstarter does is build up hype between people who fund the game. If you leave it to the ultra rich to fund I fail to see how well word of mouth will work to sell a game. If anything it would make me less likely to want to buy a product funded this way.

It's not just for millionaires. You can still back them in the standard Kickstarter way, the investing is just another option. (As for the millionaire limit on investing; as I understand the blame lies with investment law, not the site.)

>Crowdfuding
That alone is enough to raise a red flag.
>Double Fine exec is founding it
Warning lights starting to go off...
>Tim Schafer is on the advisory board
SOUND THE ALARMS!

The fact that this is being made by members of the San Fran indie clique, will only have 2 projects running at any time, and "promotes" the games after the campaign ends makes this just seem like it's going to be the platform of all those rich hipsters in the San Fran area so they can invest in each other perpetually.

I don't understand the net worth requirement, not when there's already a minimum investment.

P.S. Thanks

ShakerSilver:
>Crowdfuding
That alone is enough to raise a red flag.
>Double Fine exec is founding it
Warning lights starting to go off...
>Tim Schafer is on the advisory board
SOUND THE ALARMS!

The fact that this is being made by members of the San Fran indie clique, will only have 2 projects running at any time, and "promotes" the games after the campaign ends makes this just seem like it's going to be the platform of all those rich hipsters in the San Fran area so they can invest in each other perpetually.

This.

Crowdfunding is already stretching it when it comes to overstaying it's welcome.
Having another site, offering nothing new in the big picture of things, run by people who have either directly mismanaged funds, or tie to the under-delivering con-artist clique, can only go wrong, or horribly wrong.

Tim Schafer? Really? I like the guy when he makes games but that man can't handle a budget to save his life. Kickstarter is a recognized brand now. Making people legal investors that share in the profits means they are going to be open to lawsuits when your product doesn't get finished. Also the million dollar thing can only be seen one way.
"Good day sir, says here you donated a thousand dollars to Chalice Age. We need you to donate another couple thousand dollars. We know you have at least a million dollars in your portfolio! Development is not going as planned and we need more money to finish our game. Yes we got a couple million and said we could do it but we wanted a brass band to do the music for a quarter of a level. So more money will be expected from you. Have a nice day."

ShakerSilver:
>Crowdfuding
That alone is enough to raise a red flag.
>Double Fine exec is founding it
Warning lights starting to go off...
>Tim Schafer is on the advisory board
SOUND THE ALARMS!

Thank you for succinctly and efficiently summing up my thoughts during this article.

Double Fine/Schafer are as useless as a chocolate teapot.

Damnit, Tim Schafer! You used to be cool. Now you're sinking to this? Eh well, I guess some people will benefit somewhere from this. Most likely the coke dealers and hookers he spent all that Broken Age cash on.

I'm curious but if someone invests in a game on there would they actually make money off of the sales of the game or no?

If there are still people out there willing to give Timmy 'sockpuppet' Schafer money, my uncle the Nigerian Prince and I would like to set up a business meeting with them.

...

It makes perfect sense.

Double Fine already shat the bed with investors, or at least publishers. They disliked working with him before it was cool.

Then they shat the bed with their player base by mishandling Kickstarters and Early Access.

All they have left is people who aren't part of the player base, but also aren't major players in AAA. In other words, people who don't know any better but heard that technology makes money.

Perfect for San Francisco, I wish them luck.

Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I just get a bad feeling about this all the way around. Giving financial players even more creep into the indie scene and putting the already dubious fulfillment of Kickstarter on a collision course with people who are going to not just expect but demand ROI?

At best, I foresee tumultuous growing pains; at worst, real damage to the indie market.

zerragonoss:
The 1000$ and net worth is only to get in as an investor. Otherwise from what I read it works basicly like kickstarter with every tier above 1000$ being you get a portion of the profits. They also said that it will sperate the numbers form regular donations and investor donations so its easy to tell where the intrest is coming form.

Source please, because it sure as hell didn't say that in the article...

Naqel:

ShakerSilver:
>Crowdfuding
That alone is enough to raise a red flag.
>Double Fine exec is founding it
Warning lights starting to go off...
>Tim Schafer is on the advisory board
SOUND THE ALARMS!

The fact that this is being made by members of the San Fran indie clique, will only have 2 projects running at any time, and "promotes" the games after the campaign ends makes this just seem like it's going to be the platform of all those rich hipsters in the San Fran area so they can invest in each other perpetually.

This.

Crowdfunding is already stretching it when it comes to overstaying it's welcome.
Having another site, offering nothing new in the big picture of things, run by people who have either directly mismanaged funds, or tie to the under-delivering con-artist clique, can only go wrong, or horribly wrong.

Both of these... I was leery enough with just Justin Bailey being involved... but this has got NOPE written all over it.

Sarge034:

zerragonoss:
The 1000$ and net worth is only to get in as an investor. Otherwise from what I read it works basicly like kickstarter with every tier above 1000$ being you get a portion of the profits. They also said that it will sperate the numbers form regular donations and investor donations so its easy to tell where the intrest is coming form.

Source please, because it sure as hell didn't say that in the article...

Source? How about you check the link to the actual site.
It took me all of about 20 seconds to infer that this was true.

That's without explicitly verifying it either.
Just from the fact that it's possible to back a game for $20.

So, you know. You could actually check the site this is about itself? Rather than relying on a third party article and then complaining about lack of 'sources'?

Still, if you really are that sceptical, and insist on getting someone else to do the legwork for you.
Here:

On Fig, game studios can use rewards-based crowdfunding, investment crowdfunding, or a combination of both to raise funds for their game. Anyone from anywhere can support a crowdfunding campaign on Fig. Currently, only accredited investors can support a game through investment crowdfunding but in the future unaccredited investors will also be able to invest in a game.

(relevant sections bolded by me.)
Direct link to the source for this: https://help.fig.co/hc/en-us/articles/207255347-How-does-Fig-work-

ShakerSilver:
>Crowdfuding
That alone is enough to raise a red flag.
>Double Fine exec is founding it
Warning lights starting to go off...
>Tim Schafer is on the advisory board
SOUND THE ALARMS!

The fact that this is being made by members of the San Fran indie clique, will only have 2 projects running at any time, and "promotes" the games after the campaign ends makes this just seem like it's going to be the platform of all those rich hipsters in the San Fran area so they can invest in each other perpetually.

Agreed, what concerns me though is that developers are the last people to be in charge of something like this, who is going to take them to task for failing to meet goals? Who is going to make sure they are honest about the money they make, this is of particular concern to potential investors. While the whole thing does sound like a good idea it should be run by experienced PUBLISHERS, someone who isn't going to take excuses, someone who is on the side of the investors and not the creators. I mean, we give EA and all that shit for being evil.... but they make money and they get games made, perhaps the most important things for an investment/crowdfunding site.

ShakerSilver:
>Crowdfuding
That alone is enough to raise a red flag.
>Double Fine exec is founding it
Warning lights starting to go off...
>Tim Schafer is on the advisory board
SOUND THE ALARMS!

Did you notice the other people involved, inXile's Brian Fargo, and Obsidian's Feargus Urquhart? To my understanding, both of their teams have released games that were generally well-received and successful.

The fact that this is being made by members of the San Fran indie clique, will only have 2 projects running at any time, and "promotes" the games after the campaign ends makes this just seem like it's going to be the platform of all those rich hipsters in the San Fran area so they can invest in each other perpetually.

This is a small group, having only 2 projects at a time seems like a great idea to me. If Fig is successful, they will probably consider expansion, but in the meantime, they should be more concerned with getting their projects right.

CrystalShadow:
Source? How about you check the link to the actual site.
It took me all of about 20 seconds to infer that this was true.

That's without explicitly verifying it either.
Just from the fact that it's possible to back a game for $20.

So, you know. You could actually check the site this is about itself? Rather than relying on a third party article and then complaining about lack of 'sources'?

Still, if you really are that sceptical, and insist on getting someone else to do the legwork for you.
Here:

On Fig, game studios can use rewards-based crowdfunding, investment crowdfunding, or a combination of both to raise funds for their game. Anyone from anywhere can support a crowdfunding campaign on Fig. Currently, only accredited investors can support a game through investment crowdfunding but in the future unaccredited investors will also be able to invest in a game.

(relevant sections bolded by me.)
Direct link to the source for this: https://help.fig.co/hc/en-us/articles/207255347-How-does-Fig-work-

Going beyond the article would imply I gave a fuck and/or shit about fig. I do not, but don't quote me saying I'm wrong and then not back it up. It's not my job to prove "your" argument.

I'm still curious to see just how many games get put on there though because investors actually have legal rights to string up devs who don't fulfill their obligations. My guess is not many while fertile feeding grounds like kickstarter are around.

Sarge034:

CrystalShadow:
Source? How about you check the link to the actual site.
It took me all of about 20 seconds to infer that this was true.

That's without explicitly verifying it either.
Just from the fact that it's possible to back a game for $20.

So, you know. You could actually check the site this is about itself? Rather than relying on a third party article and then complaining about lack of 'sources'?

Still, if you really are that sceptical, and insist on getting someone else to do the legwork for you.
Here:

On Fig, game studios can use rewards-based crowdfunding, investment crowdfunding, or a combination of both to raise funds for their game. Anyone from anywhere can support a crowdfunding campaign on Fig. Currently, only accredited investors can support a game through investment crowdfunding but in the future unaccredited investors will also be able to invest in a game.

(relevant sections bolded by me.)
Direct link to the source for this: https://help.fig.co/hc/en-us/articles/207255347-How-does-Fig-work-

Going beyond the article would imply I gave a fuck and/or shit about fig. I do not, but don't quote me saying I'm wrong and then not back it up. It's not my job to prove "your" argument.

I'm still curious to see just how many games get put on there though because investors actually have legal rights to string up devs who don't fulfill their obligations. My guess is not many while fertile feeding grounds like kickstarter are around.

I did just that, didn't I? Or is an explicit quote from firsthand sources not 'proof'?

Anyway, I guess it's true the other person didn't do what I did. So there is that.
(And before you ask, yes, I'm a completely different person from the other person that quoted you telling you the same thing, but with less explicit proof. In case that wasn't obvious.)

See, I know we're both being rather hostile, so don't take this as an accusation aimed solely at you (because I'm also guilty, for one thing.) but this kind of thing is why nothing can ever get discussed in any meaningful way online...

(again, this isn't directed at you. This is general statement. And if you're wondering why I'm saying that explicitly, it's because I know I sound somewhat hostile at the moment, and I'd rather be entirely clear about my motives, even if that means pointing out the obvious)
Everything turns into bickering and no-one is prepared to put in the effort, and expects everyone else to do it for them.
Making a token effort is easy guys. And if you do in fact have an interest in discussing something, rather than just dumping random comments online, don't just shift the blame for 'proving' things onto others. Doesn't matter who has the 'burden of proof'. Do your own research. The discussion will be better for it regardless of if the other person is also supplying some kind of proof.

But, I guess the days of anyone attempting an actual debate around here are long gone. If they ever existed at all.

Anyway, enough ranting.

Sorry. I don't know what's wrong with me at the moment... >_>

CrystalShadow:
I did just that, didn't I? Or is an explicit quote from firsthand sources not 'proof'?

You did indeed, but almost the entire first section of your post was berating me for not researching the other poster's point for myself. It's not my job.

Anyway, I guess it's true the other person didn't do what I did. So there is that.
(And before you ask, yes, I'm a completely different person from the other person that quoted you telling you the same thing, but with less explicit proof. In case that wasn't obvious.)

I am aware of that, was since the beginning. Hence the first sentence was a statement in general, don't say I'm wrong and not provide proof, and the second had "your" in quotations to denote it was not explicitly to you.

See, I know we're both being rather hostile, so don't take this as an accusation aimed solely at you (because I'm also guilty, for one thing.) but this kind of thing is why nothing can ever get discussed in any meaningful way online...

You think this is me being hostile? This is me being annoyed that someone felt they had to interject midway through a discussion to prove a point, but more so because that person had the gall to berate me for not doing my opposition's work for them. Were I being hostile I would not be taking the time to explain myself. Plenty of things get discussed in a meaningful way, but those conversations follow debate etiquette. Such as; provide clear points, calmly and rationally explain your position, provide facts/sources to back up your claims, ect.

(again, this isn't directed at you. This is general statement. And if you're wondering why I'm saying that explicitly, it's because I know I sound somewhat hostile at the moment, and I'd rather be entirely clear about my motives, even if that means pointing out the obvious)
Everything turns into bickering and no-one is prepared to put in the effort, and expects everyone else to do it for them.
Making a token effort is easy guys. And if you do in fact have an interest in discussing something, rather than just dumping random comments online, don't just shift the blame for 'proving' things onto others. Doesn't matter who has the 'burden of proof'. Do your own research. The discussion will be better for it regardless of if the other person is also supplying some kind of proof.

But, I guess the days of anyone attempting an actual debate around here are long gone. If they ever existed at all.

Anyway, enough ranting.

Sorry. I don't know what's wrong with me at the moment... >_>

Again, I'm here discussing the article. To go beyond that would mean I gave a rat's ass about fig. To that end I did all the research required of me, and when someone failed to back up THEIR claim I was wrong it was THEIR burden of proof. Were it something I cared about it would be different but as it stands, I'm just setting here waiting to watch it fail and implode spectacularly, because really, that's all it possibly can do. If you would like to find and/or suggest a part of fig worth having a discussion about I will gladly oblige.

Sarge034:

CrystalShadow:
I did just that, didn't I? Or is an explicit quote from firsthand sources not 'proof'?

You did indeed, but almost the entire first section of your post was berating me for not researching the other poster's point for myself. It's not my job.

Anyway, I guess it's true the other person didn't do what I did. So there is that.
(And before you ask, yes, I'm a completely different person from the other person that quoted you telling you the same thing, but with less explicit proof. In case that wasn't obvious.)

I am aware of that, was since the beginning. Hence the first sentence was a statement in general, don't say I'm wrong and not provide proof, and the second had "your" in quotations to denote it was not explicitly to you.

Yeah, OK. I'm oddly on edge at the moment, and not the best at picking up things. (Being autistic has that effect unfortunately. Especially when you're already stressed out.)
Eh. Sorry regardless.

See, I know we're both being rather hostile, so don't take this as an accusation aimed solely at you (because I'm also guilty, for one thing.) but this kind of thing is why nothing can ever get discussed in any meaningful way online...

You think this is me being hostile? This is me being annoyed that someone felt they had to interject midway through a discussion to prove a point, but more so because that person had the gall to berate me for not doing my opposition's work for them. Were I being hostile I would not be taking the time to explain myself. Plenty of things get discussed in a meaningful way, but those conversations follow debate etiquette. Such as; provide clear points, calmly and rationally explain your position, provide facts/sources to back up your claims, ect.

Insofar a how people on this forum behave to get around the moderators? Yes. What you said seemed hostile to me.
As did what I said in response.

If you feel differently, well, fine.

I disagree that things get discussed in a meaningful way around here, but that's fine too. Kinda massively off-topic.

(again, this isn't directed at you. This is general statement. And if you're wondering why I'm saying that explicitly, it's because I know I sound somewhat hostile at the moment, and I'd rather be entirely clear about my motives, even if that means pointing out the obvious)
Everything turns into bickering and no-one is prepared to put in the effort, and expects everyone else to do it for them.
Making a token effort is easy guys. And if you do in fact have an interest in discussing something, rather than just dumping random comments online, don't just shift the blame for 'proving' things onto others. Doesn't matter who has the 'burden of proof'. Do your own research. The discussion will be better for it regardless of if the other person is also supplying some kind of proof.

But, I guess the days of anyone attempting an actual debate around here are long gone. If they ever existed at all.

Anyway, enough ranting.

Sorry. I don't know what's wrong with me at the moment... >_>

Again, I'm here discussing the article. To go beyond that would mean I gave a rat's ass about fig. To that end I did all the research required of me, and when someone failed to back up THEIR claim I was wrong it was THEIR burden of proof. Were it something I cared about it would be different but as it stands, I'm just setting here waiting to watch it fail and implode spectacularly, because really, that's all it possibly can do. If you would like to find and/or suggest a part of fig worth having a discussion about I will gladly oblige.

I understand. Sorry. I don't even know what I'm doing these days sometimes. (Or why I seem to be interpreting everything as some kind of insult right now.)

I don't feel inclined to discuss something worth discussing, because I have a fairly good idea of the results. (see my prior statement). I've been here for years. Once upon a time I thought you could have a reasonable discussion here.
I don't think so anymore.
Not that I think anything has changed, I just didn't realise before.

But this is all massively off-topic.

So, once again, sorry.
This is me going off on some needless tangent, which I probably shouldn't have.
But anyway, enough of me bothering you about nothing... >_>

These are some great devs with a great idea with one huge flaw.

Honestly, I've always wanted to 'invest' in certain game ideas, and even just seeing announcements, it's just like, "Wow, I know that's going to be a hit, and I wish I could get in on the ground floor and back this, but how...?"

Now there's a way how. Almost.

Unfortunately, I'd think that the majority of people in this boat are not accredited investors, and cannot become one anytime soon. It's required to either have over a net worth of $1M (excluding your primary residence) or have an income of $200k the past two years (or $300k if married and including spouse)...

So, I guess "the rest of us" (read: probably 99% of their possible audience, who might even want to invest $1k, but don't have $1m behind that $1k) will just have to wait for "the future" where unaccredited investors will also be able to invest in a game.

I just hope the future arrives fast enough to save their ship from sinking.

Captcha: "Verizon Wireless" - how fitting...

CrystalShadow:
snip

I'm willing to discuss things, you're not even willing to try. That on top of everything else you said, perhaps people like me aren't the reason nothing gets discussed anymore. Or at least why you don't see it.

OT- I've come up with another question. If it's a kickstarter like program, how are they figuring to maintain "value-added stuff"? Will it be depended on profits or will that be crowdsourced too?

Sarge034:

CrystalShadow:
snip

I'm willing to discuss things, you're not even willing to try. That on top of everything else you said, perhaps people like me aren't the reason nothing gets discussed anymore. Or at least why you don't see it.

Willingness to discuss anything is beside the point.
You say you read it, but it doesn't sound like you understood it if that's your response.

I didn't say nothing gets discussed, I said discussion inevitably gets to be futile, because of how they get discussed.
Having discussions that way ends up being pretty hopeless.

You're also implying I said this is a new thing, but it was true 6 years ago and it's true now.
My own lack of interest is years of frustration with the combination of lazy and hostile responses that result.
More often than not people are either completely entrenched in their position, or so uncommitted to having a discussion anyway, that it doesn't matter what you say, nor what evidence gets used.
Couple that with frequent viscious personal attacks (less so, but not nonexistent here, than on other sites), and yes, I admit I'm tired of dealing with it.

But that was not the point I made, so your conclusion is a little off.
There's a difference between saying discussions don't happen and discussions are futile.

CrystalShadow:

Sarge034:

CrystalShadow:
snip

I'm willing to discuss things, you're not even willing to try. That on top of everything else you said, perhaps people like me aren't the reason nothing gets discussed anymore. Or at least why you don't see it.

Willingness to discuss anything is beside the point.
You say you read it, but it doesn't sound like you understood it if that's your response.

I didn't say nothing gets discussed, I said discussion inevitably gets to be futile, because of how they get discussed.
Having discussions that way ends up being pretty hopeless.

You're also implying I said this is a new thing, but it was true 6 years ago and it's true now.
My own lack of interest is years of frustration with the combination of lazy and hostile responses that result.
More often than not people are either completely entrenched in their position, or so uncommitted to having a discussion anyway, that it doesn't matter what you say, nor what evidence gets used.
Couple that with frequent viscious personal attacks (less so, but not nonexistent here, than on other sites), and yes, I admit I'm tired of dealing with it.

But that was not the point I made, so your conclusion is a little off.
There's a difference between saying discussions don't happen and discussions are futile.

Whenever someone gets hostile or starts throwing personal attacks at me during a discussion I just stop talking with them. If the site has an ignore list I add them to that. I refuse to have a discussion with anyone that can't put the modicum of effort into being civil during a discussion. I can understand people being passionate or heated about a topic but I still don't see that as an excuse for them to fly off the handle and be hostile and/or insult others.

CrystalShadow:
Willingness to discuss anything is beside the point.
You say you read it, but it doesn't sound like you understood it if that's your response.

I didn't say nothing gets discussed, I said discussion inevitably gets to be futile, because of how they get discussed.
Having discussions that way ends up being pretty hopeless.

You're also implying I said this is a new thing, but it was true 6 years ago and it's true now.
My own lack of interest is years of frustration with the combination of lazy and hostile responses that result.
More often than not people are either completely entrenched in their position, or so uncommitted to having a discussion anyway, that it doesn't matter what you say, nor what evidence gets used.
Couple that with frequent viscious personal attacks (less so, but not nonexistent here, than on other sites), and yes, I admit I'm tired of dealing with it.

But that was not the point I made, so your conclusion is a little off.
There's a difference between saying discussions don't happen and discussions are futile.

But that's fatalism at it's finest. If you believe discussions are futile, for what ever reason, you will always see futile discussions or make them that way subconsciously. There will always be people who won't budge and are simply there to bludgeon you to death with their point of view, but if you ignore those folks and debate well with intelligent points you will attract those folks who do want to have a legitimate discussion.

I read the article. I understood as much as the article explained, and it explained the portions I asked about poorly or not at all. Were I at all interested in fig I would have done my own research and dug into all of the laws governing it because were I that interested I would want to participate. I, however, have a burning hate for the current crowdsourcing... movement, idea, structure? I hate how easy it is to bastardize the system to just get free money and MAYBE produce a half working pile of shit. So the fact they did a poor job explaining it in the article and the fact so many of the founders have... mismanaged... funds in the past seemed like more than a coincidence. Perhaps I was saying something half out of curiosity and half as a critique of the article, idk.

Bat Vader:
Snip

For someone who blacklisted me you sure do show up in my business a lot. It's a little disingenuous to put me on your ignore list and then keep interjecting in my affairs. Kindda like you're making faces at me while hiding behind the teacher's back.

Sarge034:

CrystalShadow:
Willingness to discuss anything is beside the point.
You say you read it, but it doesn't sound like you understood it if that's your response.

I didn't say nothing gets discussed, I said discussion inevitably gets to be futile, because of how they get discussed.
Having discussions that way ends up being pretty hopeless.

You're also implying I said this is a new thing, but it was true 6 years ago and it's true now.
My own lack of interest is years of frustration with the combination of lazy and hostile responses that result.
More often than not people are either completely entrenched in their position, or so uncommitted to having a discussion anyway, that it doesn't matter what you say, nor what evidence gets used.
Couple that with frequent viscious personal attacks (less so, but not nonexistent here, than on other sites), and yes, I admit I'm tired of dealing with it.

But that was not the point I made, so your conclusion is a little off.
There's a difference between saying discussions don't happen and discussions are futile.

But that's fatalism at it's finest. If you believe discussions are futile, for what ever reason, you will always see futile discussions or make them that way subconsciously. There will always be people who won't budge and are simply there to bludgeon you to death with their point of view, but if you ignore those folks and debate well with intelligent points you will attract those folks who do want to have a legitimate discussion.

I read the article. I understood as much as the article explained, and it explained the portions I asked about poorly or not at all. Were I at all interested in fig I would have done my own research and dug into all of the laws governing it because were I that interested I would want to participate. I, however, have a burning hate for the current crowdsourcing... movement, idea, structure? I hate how easy it is to bastardize the system to just get free money and MAYBE produce a half working pile of shit. So the fact they did a poor job explaining it in the article and the fact so many of the founders have... mismanaged... funds in the past seemed like more than a coincidence. Perhaps I was saying something half out of curiosity and half as a critique of the article, idk.

Bat Vader:
Snip

For someone who blacklisted me you sure do show up in my business a lot. It's a little disingenuous to put me on your ignore list and then keep interjecting in my affairs. Kindda like you're making faces at me while hiding behind the teacher's back.

I was purely quoting the user above me. If I wanted to interject into your affairs I would have quoited you directly like I am now. The quote was not aimed at you nor did it have anything to do with you. If you have an issue with me how about we take it to PMs.

I never had you on my ignore list nor do I pay attention to user names on here. If I somehow wronged you in the past over something I'm sorry. Let's drop all this passive-aggressiveness and speak to each other in PMs about it.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here