• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Why Is It So *&@#$% Hard To Finance Video Games?

by Chris Remo, Sep 26, 2005 3:30pm PDT

Journalist Dean Takahashi recently gave a speech at the Video Game Investor Conference. Entitled "I Don't Get It: Why Is It So *&@#$% Hard To Finance Video Games?", the full text is available here. Admittedly providing more questions than answers, Takahashi looks at the tenuous relationship between venture capitalists and the games industry. He illustrates how difficult it is for game studios to secure independent funding when the existing publisher-developer relationship is so prevalent.

But the VCs have historically stayed away because putting money into development shops left them with no exit strategy. Game developers rarely go public, and when they are successful the typical fate is to be bought by a game publisher. Here the problem is a lot like the troubles facing the independent filmmakers in Hollywood. The developers can be very creative, but the publishers are conservative gatekeepers who only bet on sure things. At the moment, it's great if you're making a gritty street crime game. But if you're going out on a creative limb, you're out of luck. Since the best developers can hope for is to sell out to publishers for a pittance, the VCs might as well keep their money in the bank. One of the key pieces of advice that VCs offer these days is to offshore production to India or China. That can be done to some degree with game art assets, but the creation of games is such an iterative process, where you test a game to see if it is balanced every day, that it's best done under one roof.
Takahashi seems to think that there are plenty of reasons the situation should be--and, possibly, could be--improving, but developers looking to secure funding for projects in the interest of remaining relatively independent are fighting an uphill battle. He makes a passing reference to Gathering of Developers, whose founding principle still seems sound even though by anyone's account it was poorly executed. The speech goes on to cite more examples of attempts to challenge the industry's status quo, but it remains to be seen which, if any, will stick.




Comments

12 Threads | 24 Comments


  • Let's not worry any more about "iterative processes" requiring games to be made here. That's only a relevant point if seen from the perspective of American devs, who are going to be less and less relevant as time goes on.

    The future of games dev is offshore, where labor is even more readily exploitable than in an EA sweatshop. Outsourcing, if you've managed to look beyond gaming web sites for your news in the past five years, is the essence today of US corporate decision-making: anything for the share price, even if it means happily sacrificing the US middle class.

    Economically this may be the height of greedy foolishness, but will it matter in terms of what games are produced? Pffft! Gamers won't be able to tell whether the same-old same-old has been made in India or Texas. Soaring production budgets have long since locked out most innovators (or forced them into the clone business, e.g., Gearbox). After two decades of wild excitement the medium has settled down into a very predictable pattern of self-cannibalism, and anyone, anywhere, can make this stuff.



  • In its simplest form, here's why:

    - Games cost huge sums of money to make, test, market and sell.

    - The industry is littered with games that were critically acclaimed but didn't sell, even in established genres (Prince of Persia, BG&E, etc).

    - Publishers are unlikely to invest huge sums of money to make games unless they have either an established and successful developer behind it, or fall into an established gameplay formula for success (even then, the former will tend to outdo the latter).

    I don't have a whole lot of patience for the "publishers don't want original IP" whining, because it's not true. Publishers *love* new IP, because they'll probably own it as a condition for making the game. It has more to do with confidence in the developer than anything else.






  • Plenty of people have had the easiest times getting financing for their video games. When Sammy Studios tried to close down their Carlsbad branch, John Rowe raised money and bought them out. Phantom had no trouble getting millions for a product that doesn't exist. And I personally know of several developers leaving a company on their own who got funding just fine, even though they will probably lose money! Some of these "sure bets" have actually been my companie's worst investments ever.

    If a developer can't get financing because he's making a product that will probably lose money, it's obvious why. Almost all developers believe they will make money. And most of them are wrong. Video game publishing is just like book publishing and just like movie publishing. Most lose money, and the few that make money make up for them.

    To the contrary, it is way too easy for incompetant developers to get financing for their substandard projects.