Our Properties: Gamasutra GameCareerGuide IndieGames Indie Royale GDC IGF Game Developer Magazine GAO
My Message close
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
DICE 2012: How social and mobile are creating the 'new arcade'
 
Road to the IGF: Alexander Bruce's Antichamber
 
What Nintendo's 2011 sales mean for Wii U, third parties [9]
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
arrow Principles of an Indie Game Bottom Feeder [9]
 
arrow Postmortem: CyberConnect 2's Solatorobo: Red the Hunter [1]
 
arrow Jerked Around by the Magic Circle - Clearing the Air Ten Years Later [34]
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
Airtight Games
Senior Environment Artist
 
Airtight Games
Software Engineeer
 
Tencent Boston
Senior Server Programmer
 
Zindagi Games
Associate Producer
 
Spooky Cool Labs
Software Developer - Games - Front End (Unity 3D)
 
Spooky Cool Labs
Marketing Director
spacer
Blogs

  Four Reasons Why VCs Won't Fund Game Companies
by Nicholas Lovell on 03/24/10 03:09:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs
14 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
  Posted 03/24/10 03:09:00 pm
 

Alice Taylor (of @wonderlandblog / Channel 4 fame) tweeted last week to ask why games companies couldn’t get VC funding in this country.

I promised an answer in the blog, and here it is.

The basic answer is that they can. However, most games companies (and, in fact, most wannabe entrepreneurs) completely fail to understand what investors want.

Almost all the time. I am continually amazed about little effort games companies put into understanding financiers. And then even more amazed that they get upset when they don’t receive investment.

Point 1: VCs don’t invest in projects

This is the biggest misconception of them all. Games developers are good at pitching projects. For three decades, the most successful developers have honed their skills at pitching to green-light committees at publishers. They are the only customers who really matter, financially, for an independent studio.

So developers polish prototypes. They hone game design. They convince the publishers that *this game* will be the GTA/Modern Warfare/Dragon Age* beater.

Investors don’t care.

Really, they don’t. And what’s more, they shouldn’t. Can an investor seriously claim to know more about what makes a good game than publishers? About what will sell and generate a good risk-weighted return?

An investor is dependent on the developer’s opinion, and frankly, developers have a habit of getting more excited about their concept than the market potential or financial return. (Which is fine, BTW, if you’re happy to outsource all of that stuff to the publisher, and let them take the lion’s share of the profit too).

Investors care about businesses; developers show them projects.

Point 2: Investors want to see a running business, not an idea

Many entrepreneurs (and pretty well anyone who is foolish enough to choose to appear on Dragon’s Den) think ideas are valuable.

Seasoned entrepreneurs know that they are not.

Ask yourself how many ideas there are for games – good games – within your development studio right now. Ten? A hundred? A thousand? I would bet that there are more great ideas than your studio could possibly develop in a century.

The same is true for investors. They see hundreds of great companies every year, who are already executing on an idea. They see more wannabe entrepreneurs than that, all of whom get frustrated because “if only they had the money, they could turn this brilliant idea into reality.”

Entrepreneurs don’t wait for the money. They do it anyway.

Point 3: VCs want sustainable businesses

Traditional games developers are really difficult for any investor to fund. They look like quite late-stage businesses: they may have hundreds of staff, millions in turnover and a proven track record. But fundamentally, they are always just one deal away from bankruptcy. They look like startups from a risk perspective but are like late stage investments from a reward perspective.

Games developers always think that VCs want too much of their equity; VCs think that the risk is so high they need a huge slug of the company to compensate them for the risk they are taking. There is rarely a meeting of minds.

Broadly speaking, traditional games developers are just too risky for VCs.

Point 4: History sucks

Just taking British examples, investors have seen failures in Warthog, Argonaut, Elixir… They’ve seen poor returns from Lionhead and Kuju. Talking to investors a couple of years ago and they shook their heads sadly about the games industry, saying it was just not for them.

The good news

Investor perception is changing. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we are about to enter another bubble, where too much money is chasing too few assets, and in the ensuing carnage, margins will be competed away, bad companies will survive for too long and good companies will die through hubris and bad luck. (But that’s a topic for another post).

However, for traditional games developers, the news is not all good. Investors don’t want AAA content. They don’t want games that are products, whether those are on console, PSN/XBLA or smartphones.

They want Games As A Service. They want ongoing revenue streams. They want virtual goods. They want free distribution with an upsell model. They want browser-based games.

There is a wall of money flooding into games right now. It just ain’t coming to console.

* * *

Tomorrow, I’ll post about the difference between seed, Series A and Series B funding, why it is so misunderstood by games companies and how getting the wrong investor at the wrong time can destroy your company.

* delete according to your genre preferences

 
 
Comments

Tim Carter
profile image
In other words, VCs don't want games to be games. They want them to be something else...

How about... Internet ventures that "attract eyeballs"... (translation: Zynga).

Anyway... Games *are* projects - no matter how much you stamp your feet an insist they shouldn't be. They are what they are. Pardon me: What I mean is games that have substance.

And this is more proof why project-based game development funding needs to occur - and why some of us are implementing the proper risk-mitigation elements to make it a possibility.

In other words... you mitigate risk by investing in groups of projects: slates. It's not rocket science.

Larry Weya
profile image
Very insightful however I disagree that AAA games are on their way out, in the words of Mark Rein "How'd that Modern Warfare 2 do," There will always be those traditional gamers - like me (and millions more) who want AAA content and there is nothing stopping AAA titles from adapting and providing ongoing revenue streams.

What we need is to invest in the right tools and people to get our games out faster and better, not re-thinking our entire business models.

Ephriam Knight
profile image
@Tim, Larry,

Yes traditional games are projects and they are not going away. What I took from this article, is that the current model of game development studio is dependent on the success of individual projects. A studio can have one successful project and the next bomb and the studio fail. That is the risk that VCs don't like.

They want sustainable business models. They want to invest in game companies that will exist in 5 years time. They want games companies that have multiple revenue streams. They don't want companies that put all their eggs in one basket. That is what is so appealing about social games companies. They have a large portfolio of income producing games. Games that produce sizable income months and often years after release.

When traditional games development studios can show similar means of producing income, then VCs will begin to look at them again.

Tim Carter
profile image
This is precisely why you need to invest in *slates* of projects.

Nicholas Lovell
profile image
I do believe that AAA games will decrease in number. Fewer, larger products, funded by large companies.
As a result, many AAA studios will go bust.

So AAA games will be eclipsed for the mass market by web games, much as television eclipsed movies for the mass market.

But both will survive. VCs will only invest in the television-like business, not the film-like business

Randell Trulson
profile image
I have had my fair share of sessions with VC's. My take on the ones I have talked to are as follows.

1. They are terrified of the computer industry after the .com bubble even though it was 10 years ago.

2. They don't know much about how games are developed and frankly have trouble ramping up or even wrapping their minds around some of the concepts involved in developing games.

3. VC's can't see the value in creative ideas. Think about it, VCs are there for people who are so creative they can't think of ideas on their own to invest in so they give it to a VC. The people at VC firms (the ones that I know) are the least creative people I know. They are number crunchers and they want hard numbers on returns, which is impossible to give on a game especially if it is a new game idea. You have better luck trying to fund a snow shovel company than a game company with traditional VCs.

That is my 2 cents. I find it is a total waste of time to deal with VC's you have to go to angels for money.

Timothy Ryan
profile image
I really appreciate this article. The way I see it, most VC's want a return on investment that is fairly short-term (5 years). With developers that either means: (1) self-publishing a block-buster, or (2) acquisition by a major studio. IP, like ideas, have no value until they are proven to make money or have a proven fan-base. I mention the latter because even though they are giving their games away for free, Zynga and Playfish have managed to build up a huge fan-base - which evidently is enough for investors to see potential.

Kevin Reilly
profile image
Good article. I imagine VC's evaluate game companies like any other investor would evaluate stocks - i.e. they want a reasonable rate of return across a portfolio of investments. Buying into 1 idea is not enough to cover the risk of loss in their investment if that idea doesn't pan out. Companies with steady revenues and products that can appeal to people beyond one market or niche are therefore more attractive as investments.

I am not so sure web based games and facebook will replace AAA anytime soon as that market is mature and stable in terms of year over year revenues. Also, casual games are not perfect substitutes for AAA games in terms of depth/quality. I think they may displace console games with low production values, marginal consumer appeal or are the result of "me too" development, but with digital distribution and better downloadable titles hitting XBLA/PSN each year, that may take a while.

Matt Mihaly
profile image
Nick,

It's simply not true that VCs won't fund games companies. I run a VC-funded games company (Sparkplay Media) and here are some other VC funded games companies: Six Degrees Games, Conduit Labs, Ohai, Turbine, Gazillion, Red5, Zynga, Playdom, Trion, Rebel Monkey (deceased), Digital Chocolate, Kongregate, Areae (now Metaplace), Mind Candy, Wild Tangent, Sulake, Stardoll, Riot Games, OMGPop, Three Rings, ngmoco, Wonderhill, eRepublik, Outspark, Gaia Online, Hidden City Games, and on and on.

Some of those were not start-up funding, but most of those got VC money before launching anything and in some cases before even starting serious development on anything.

--matt

Ian Uniacke
profile image
AAA will continue to exist but maybe not in the way that it traditionally has. I think AAA will become more of a niche market, like the Dungeons And Dragons tabletop game. There will be companies with a huge backlog of money that specialise in AAA, and new studios will find it incredibly difficult to enter the market.

Ephriam Knight
profile image
@Matt,

I think you may have missed the point of the article. The point is that VCs are reluctant to fund your run of the mill AAA studio. You know the type that focuses on a single make it or break it title at a time.

Look carefully at that list you provided. very few if any of those companies are that type of company.

Kobie Fuller
profile image
Here's my perspective, being a more later stage VC out there that has looked in the space (www.openviewpartners.com):

- the traditional console marketplace is too risky given the hit driven nature of the business and upfront capital costs necessary to get a game going. if a developer got lucky on one game, doesn't necessarily mean the second one will do well
- the console gaming marketplace is starting to shift where we are seeing a polarization of content, titles will either be low budget A or high budget AAA (where AA titles will no longer be developed because these consumers have moved online). VC's just don't see this segment as being very attractive relative to the alternatives out there
- online gaming (social gaming more specifically) represents a more attractive investment opportunity due to high global broadband penetration, wide usage of social networks and the transparency in terms of activities that go on in those social networks (Facebook just surpassed Google last week in terms of daily traffic), and the wide acceptance of virtual goods and currency (a monetization vehicle for online games)
- traditional casual gaming represents a dying sector in the face of social games and mobile games (as evidenced by PopCap raising a fund to go after social gaming)
- niche virtual worlds are becoming attractive as well due to varied demographics looking for different ways outside of Facebook to engage online (as evidenced with WeeWorld, Ourworld, ClubPenguin) and are willing to buy virtual goods as part of their experience
- MMOGs have always represented great investment opportunities due to predictable recurring revenue and high profits once scale is achieved (I invested in a top 5 MMO at my last firm). however, in the face of social gaming, the economics on investments in MMO currently fall short
- payment providers that are delivering easier ways of buying virtual goods online are beginning to emerge and represent interesting investment opportunities
- gaming middleware (a la Unity 3d) is also an interesting segment. however, there are only a couple players that will do well here

In summary, and in alignment with many of the comments in this thread, investors are looking for diversified revenue streams that are predictable and capital efficient. Investing in the console game development market represents a much higher risk opportunity given the high upfront capital expenditures and current shift in consumer demands. I believe you will still see some funding going into this space only for select AAA projects that have huge vision and represent large returns. However, I believe the industry has shifted its attention drastically towards the online marketplace.


-Kobie Fuller

Matt Tolleson
profile image
Very interesting perspectives on this matter. Here is my take:

When it comes to a project-by-project business model, what about the IP-by-IP Joint Venture model? I have worked on multiple AAA properties from a publishing standpoint and the type of funding models I find that make the most sense for all parties (Capital investment, publishing, IP, and development partners) is the Joint Venture.

This is a business model I have put into practice at publishers in the past and it is one that I am currently researching to develop into a new venture. Incubating true Intellectual Property with the proper partners while sharing IP ownership and developing a franchise roadmap or what I call a Franchise Milestone Schedule that makes since for the IP and inline with partners. People have to relearn how to work together in an organization. Understanding from a capital perspective what the financial partners goals and intentions are and doing the same with the development partner, and others either vested by service in the venture, ownership in assets, or consumer minded distribution points.

My main point here is that we always look at the game business from our business models "needs" but what happens when we twist around our way of thinking and work with capital providers and stop negotiating with them. A partnership is born out of goals that are purposeful and forged for success.

If you cannot get investment, it is not due to a lack of knowledge within the investment community. It is a lack of cooperation between the parties considering the partnership. It is the creative vision building roadblocks instead of bridges for the financial attractiveness of the business model. Understand that it takes a special kind of animal to gracefully marry the creatively genius mass consumer service and product too the calculating worldly workings of the capital provider.

-Matt Tolleson

Nicholas Lovell
profile image
@Matt, As Ephriam says, I was intentionally targeting the traditional AAA console developers with my provocative headline. I am completely aware of how many games companies have successfully raised VC funding. However, as seen at recent GDC events, your average GamaSutra readers screams at them "BUT YOU DON'T MAKE GAMES."

Kobie, thanks for your detailed comments, really helpful.

Other Matt: I agree that we need to work together more. I think that the "film financing model that you describe is still very difficult."

To everyone, why not come over to www.gamesbrief.com, where this is the kind of topic that I cover.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Techweb
Game Network
Game Developers Conference | GDC Europe | GDC Online | GDC China | Gamasutra | Game Developer Magazine | Game Advertising Online
Game Career Guide | Independent Games Festival | Indie Royale | IndieGames

Other UBM TechWeb Networks
Business Technology | Business Technology Events | Telecommunications & Communications Providers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us | Copyright © UBM TechWeb, All Rights Reserved.