The moment Double Fine's Kickstarter project sailed past its $400,000 target after a few hours, many predicted the walls confining indie development would come crashing down.

Once the dust had settled, however, others pointed out that the success of Tim Schafer's studio only served to highlight the segregated nature of the indie development scene.

Without a brand or high profile designer to attract cash, the prospect of raising even a fraction of such funds remains remote for most developers.

But coming to the rescue, Gambitious pitches itself as the crowdfunding model for the everyman.

Studios can choose to hand over a slice of equity to investors; additional incentive to those reluctant to fund unproven outfits.

We caught up with MD Paul Hanraets to ask why he thinks handing over a share of IP ownership could open doors aplenty for indies without an icon at their head.

Pocket Gamer: What was your take on Double Fine's Kickstarter project?

Paul Hanraets: Great, for multiple reasons. First and foremost that it proved the crowdfunding model for game projects works. Double Fine's success has been great timing for us as well.

However, we are not just jumping on the bandwagon; we have been working really hard for the last six months to get Gambitious up and running, long before Double Fine's success.

Secondly, it's great that a new and exciting game sees the day of light. Hopefully, Gambitious will open doors for many more to come.

And lastly, I personally hope this means the revival of the point-and-click adventure genre.

Why did you decide to choose an equity stake approach?

The main reason Gambitious went with this equity model is because it gives developers a boost towards a successful funding campaign.

Numerous donation and pledge-based crowdfunding efforts fail to reach their targets by significant margins.

Most indie developers cannot rely on their big name or vast fan base to realise their target; they have to go to greater lengths to convince new donators - and that is where the Gambitious model provides a breakthrough.

To quote one of the many reactions we received on our plans: "I'd rather invest in a game idea and have the game and a piece of the pie than the game and a signed shirt!" That is our philosophy in a nutshell.

At Gambitious, the developers are in full control. Assuming that the developers have full IP ownership, they themselves choose whether they wish to share their intellectual property or not.

However, note that their proposition will be much more attractive for investors if they opt to share their IP, as this will result in higher value investments.

Contrarily, should they choose to retain full ownership over their IP, the investment value is likely to be considerably lower. Therefore, we strongly recommend they consider sharing their IP as the advantages are significant.

Do you think the equity approach will attract a different type of investor compared to KickStarter - i.e. more financially aware?

Yes and no, as it is likely that we will have a wider variety of investors.

Gambitious uses the proven - and award winning - equity-based crowdfunding model developed by crowdfunder Symbid.

Every project placed on Gambitious will automatically be placed on the other platforms within the Symbid network, thus exposing the projects to an expansive network of informal investors.

But our core investors will still remain the fans who want to see a project being realised. I strongly believe that it is the fans - the ones that actually play games - that are capable of recognising those hit potentials.

How will Gambitious generate revenue from the model?

Gambitious charges a five percent success fee. This means that once a project reaches its funding target, we charge five percent of the total raised amount as a success fee.

Gambitious also charges a small transaction fee of 2.5 percent of the amount investors transfer to their account.

After investors have transferred the amount to their accounts, they are free to allocate the money as they please. This means they can invest in projects, and switch between projects without further fees or charges.

How does Gambitious differ from the likes of appbackr?

Appbackr is another great initiative, but uses a complete different model.

Appbackr is a wholesale marketplace for mobile applications whereas we offer an equity based crowdfunding model for project funding from €20,000 to €2.5 million

What kind of developers do you imagine using Gambitious, and for what level of projects?

We have been receiving projects from all over the world, for different platforms, different genres, in different stages of development, with different funding targets, and of varying quality.

We operate in a creative industry which is home to new companies as well as wild ideas, and must therefore set a standard.

And while we prefer project proposals from seasoned development teams with an established track record, anyone within the EU-zone with a development team, an innovative project, and a strong and realistic business plan, is free to apply for submission.

But in order to maintain that high quality standard, we do reserve the right to refuse any project.

Is there a question that this model could become saturated? 

If most of the projects fail to deliver, and cannot compete effectively in the industry, then this is a plausible scenario.

But if the projects live up to the expectations and deliver the user experience as promised – as well as a good return on investment for investors – then I strongly doubt users will lose interest in the platform.

Quite on the contrary, as I imagine that the success stories will attract increasingly more investors that were previously hesitant to invest in game projects.
Thanks to Paul for his time.

You can find out more about Gambitious on the platform's website.