EDIT: Monkey Gland Sauce corrected my math on page 2, the correct total is approximately $2.25M, not $3.3M.
I received the below email from Fig today:
It got me excited not only because my investment has already paid off so well, but also because being told these results before the game is released means we can try to guesstimate how much Epic paid Snapshot for its 1-year exclusivity deal. So let's jump into the analysis!
What do we do with this information, if anything? That I'm not really sure of, but I found it to be an interesting exercise, and I think it helps give a better perspective as to the decisions facing the developers who have taken the Epic exclusivity deal. Can you say you'd reject that kind of payday as a developer, just for the sake of supporting consumer storefront convenience? Especially before your game is even done and without having to make any assurances of quality?
I received the below email from Fig today:
It got me excited not only because my investment has already paid off so well, but also because being told these results before the game is released means we can try to guesstimate how much Epic paid Snapshot for its 1-year exclusivity deal. So let's jump into the analysis!
- Here are the the Form 1-K filings Fig made with the SEC for the years ended September 30, 2017 and 2018; I'm going to reference them a couple of times in this post.
- First, some background on the mechanics of game investment through Fig. Investors don't invest in the developer itself, but rather in preferred shares of Fig. For each game, Fig enters a license agreement with the developer agreeing to a revenue split on all revenue from the game, in exchange for which Fig runs the crowdfunding/investing campaign and certain other services. Fig then agrees to provide dividends to the individual investors out of their share of the revenue at a certain percentage--85% in the case of Phoenix Point.
- How do we know that the only revenue earned for Phoenix Point so far is from Epic? What about the Microsoft Game Pass deal? Well apparently Microsoft isn't paying in advance, because the news for that deal emerged in June of 2018, but from the above table, we know that as of September 2018 no revenue was earned for the game.
- So in order to get from the investor return to the total revenue from the Epic deal, we need to know the revenue split between Snapshot and Fig. The license agreement isn't filed with the SEC but we can back into this proportion based on the below chart from the Fig page discussing investment returns on Phoenix Point. It indicates that the sales breakeven point for investors is 48,033 units at a $34.99 price point: total gross sales of $1,680,675, and net revenue to Snapshot of $1,176,473 after the 30% cut to Steam (this was before the deal with Epic).
- Phoenix Point was willing to accept up to $500,000 (1,000 shares) of investment from individual investors through Fig, of which they collected $495,500 (991 shares). For simplicity's sake we'll assume the full $500,000 was met, since the difference has a minimal effect on the results.
- For the investors to collectively break even on their $500,000, Fig would need to receive $588,235 ($500,000/.85). This means the split between Fig and Snapshot is
33.33%/66.66%50%/50% ($588,235 /$1,176,.473).
- Now instead of just $500,000, the investors are getting $955,000 (191% return). At a 85% dividend rate, that means Fig collected $1,123,529 in royalties. If Fig's share is
33%50%, then that would mean the total amount paid by Epic was a whopping$3,370,587$2,247,058(approximately).
What do we do with this information, if anything? That I'm not really sure of, but I found it to be an interesting exercise, and I think it helps give a better perspective as to the decisions facing the developers who have taken the Epic exclusivity deal. Can you say you'd reject that kind of payday as a developer, just for the sake of supporting consumer storefront convenience? Especially before your game is even done and without having to make any assurances of quality?
Last edited:
