Our Properties: Gamasutra GameCareerGuide IndieGames Indie Royale GDC IGF Game Developer Magazine GAO
My Message close
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
June 2, 2012
 
38 Studios' Downfall: The Gamasutra Report [65]
 
How Space Quest's creative duo buried the hatchet after 20 years apart [2]
 
Gamasutra's on-site E3 2012 coverage starts Monday
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 2, 2012
 
Insomniac Games
Senior Gameplay Programmer
 
Insomniac Games
Gameplay Programmer
 
Square Enix
Product Manager - PC/ Web-Based Browser Games
 
Nexon America, Inc.
Game Development Intern
 
ROBLOX Corporation
Game Developer – ROBLOX – Fast Growing...
 
Big Fish Games
Game Designer
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
June 2, 2012
 
arrow The 20-Year Estrangement of the Two Guys from Andromeda [7]
 
arrow The Anatomy of a Bad Game [16]
 
arrow Old Grumpy Designer Syndrome [22]
 
arrow 10 Tips: The Creation and Integration of Audio [2]
 
arrow Beyond Heavy Rain: David Cage on Interactive Narrative [49]
 
arrow Leading Change - An Excerpt from Beyond Critical [4]
 
arrow Persuasive Games: Process Intensity and Social Experimentation [29]
 
arrow Culture Clash: How Video Games Are Crashing the Museum Party [8]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 2, 2012
 
A Few Thoughts on Kickstarter [8]
 
Dust in The Wind: An Analysis of A Valley Without Wind [2]
 
The "Gratitude Update": Connectrode 2.0
 
Molleindustria's Unmanned: Excellence Through Boredom [11]
 
Story Design Challenge #4: Design a World [2]
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
News Director:
Frank Cifaldi
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Frank Cifaldi, Tom Curtis, Mike Rose, Eric Caoili, Kris Graft
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
 
Feature Submissions
 
Comment Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  SPONSORED FEATURE: Are Game Development Funds Doing Developers More Harm than Good?
by Si Shen [Business/Marketing, Sponsored Feature, Social/Online, Smartphone/Tablet]
12 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
January 30, 2012
 

In an industry as dynamic as mobile, its volatility is one of the key drivers of innovation. Companies compete with one another trying be disruptive rather than iterative: the race to create something new and unexpected, to create the next global phenomenon is something which all developers dream about.

Being first to find 'the next big thing', so the belief goes, means adulation, downloads and lots and lots of profit. But could the increasing number of game development funds, accelerators and incubators be creating an unsustainable bubble that will hurt the same developers they are meant to help?


It's undeniable that the past 12 months has seen a big increase in the number of governments, industry bodies, VCs and mobile games publishers creating their own funds and incubators aimed at game developers. Search for 'mobile game development fund' and just the first page of results details initiatives from MocoSpace, CrowdStar, The9, Intel, Box and W3i. It seems that you risk being a nobody in the mobile industry if you don't launch some kind of fund or competition aimed at 'fuelling innovation', to quote just one of them.

My concern is that if the industry continues on its current course and becomes over-saturated with game development funds, the result will be the exact opposite of the innovation and commercial success that they are meant to generate. The over-supply of risk-free funding available to developers actually creates less pressure to innovate and to develop high quality apps, leading to an increase of average-to-good content or existing games ported to yet more platforms. With close to a million apps already on the market, do we really need more versions of the same thing?

While we all want to be involved in finding, creating, or porting the next blockbuster mobile game, as an industry we have to acknowledge it's going to take more than just a pile of cash and a few SDKs. The approach of many of these funds presumes that creating compelling games can be boiled down to a formula, or that it's a simple case of applying X game to Y device. The reality is that a well-crafted game takes vision, skill, talent, capital, timing, and plenty of luck if it's to go above and beyond the competition and become a breakout hit.

This is important. Typically, an incubator or VC vehicle will expect a return of at least ten times their initial investment. But with ever more competition on the app stores creating a sustainable hit is much harder, the chance of a game not hitting that magic 10x becomes ever greater. So as more funds and incubators are launched, there is more expectation of significant returns, and the chances of not delivering on those expectations increase.

Perhaps the issue is that too often revenues are seen as the only benchmark for success. This has a tendency to create a view that the acquisition of a proven hit is a safer bet than launching a new and unproven product. This can work very well for the handful of developers that have a truly global product (think Angry Birds, one of the few mobile games successful enough to launch on every mobile platform currently available), but by filling app stores with multiple versions of the same game the end result is that it becomes much harder to find those few games that truly have the X factor.

So what is the solution? Perhaps part of the problem is how we measure success: often the games industry can be guilty of forgetting its own heritage in its rush to keep creating something new. Despite being less than a decade old, there are many mobile gaming veterans who have a huge amount to contribute back to the developer superstars of tomorrow, and its this idea of collaboration that I believe will make a lasting difference to how mobile gaming will evolve. Rather than yet more funding, we at PapayaMobile have launched the Games Academy as a way to foster a new approach, rather than simply a new game.

The Games Academy is focused on providing developers and studios the tools they need to create the next blockbuster social game not through funding, but by bringing together a huge amount of experience and gaming talent with a mandate simply to help developers to think, learn and innovate. By taking a workshop approach, developers are also able to learn from each other, sharing ideas and collaborating right through the development process. Of course, we hope - and expect - great new games to emerge from the Academy. But more than that, this initiative is about changing the way in which developers and the industry work with each other.

I really believe that collaboration is the missing piece of the mobile games industry puzzle. For us, the Games Academy is an attempt to create a significant new shift in mobile game development -- the rise of game optimization through group collaboration and professional mentorship. I sincerely hope that what we have started in San Francisco goes global: if it does, then it will because the developers themselves agree that collaboration is a better route to success than little more than an expensive I.O.U.

To find out more about the PapayaMobile Games Academy, visit http://papayamobile.com/academy/index.html

 
Comments

Matt Hackett
profile image
I don't find the core argument very compelling.



> The over-supply of risk-free funding available to developers actually creates less pressure to innovate and to develop high quality apps…



I certainly wouldn't feel "less pressure to innovate" if I was on a project that was funded by one of these initiatives. Meeting investor requirements sounds like a lot of pressure and would surely be a strong motivator.



Anyway, that complaint aside, this program is interesting and I'm sure it has value. The main issue is that for most (indie) developers I know of, funding would have more value than mentorship, since the devs couldn't afford the 3-4 months without food/shelter money to keep them afloat.

E McNeill
profile image
No kidding. A ruthless financial imperative can kill innovation, since you have to deliver something that works. If there's a ton of funding available, there's some room to stretch.

Alan Youngblood
profile image
Matt, you have a great point about funding. In my experience starting up two game developers, no one wants to give enough money for the devs to live on while they make their games. This can lead to many problems like focusing on contract jobs to keep the studio doors open. Contract jobs are fine and good, except they don't always pay enough and then the investors want to know what you did with that time that you spent on paying the bills.



Si - collaboration is wonderful and I think there should certainly be more of it. Mentorship/apprenticeship as well. The thing is you have to pay the people a living wage while you train them, or insure they have day jobs that pay the bills and allow enough time to learn.



Basically this amounts to what I've recently discovered on my own and I believe Tadhg Kelly wrote about in his personal blog, the rise of the pro-amateur. I'm getting a day job and doing game dev on the side. The stressful demands of the industry combined with democratized tools makes it all too apparent that's the only way to go. I tried my hand at solving things from the inside, but there's a lot of work that needs to happen in the game industry.



Pressuring people into innovation actually squelches it. Withholding paychecks or bonuses until people deliver on a poorly defined "innovation" will get you nothing of the sort. To encourage innovation hire awesome people, give them what they need, and get out of the way. Sure they should be accountable, but not at the cost of their autonomy. Reference Dan Pink's book Drive if you are interested in more about this.



It's also worth noting that most people don't want real "innovation" when they say that's what they want. Usually it's just a way of saying they want whatever's the buzz fad of the moment. Even Seth Godin's definition of innovation through "edge-crafting" (not thinking outside of the box, but on the edge of it) is more than many people want. Iteration is not necessarily a bad thing and often it's more preferred to innovation.

Kevin Reilly
profile image
Funny thing, I never hear indie devs complain that they are overwhelmed by funding opportunities. While I believe there is some merit to the workshop collaboration model, this article is really a thinly veiled pitch to use Papya's social platform. Maybe the availability of funding for games is impeding their business model.

Nathaniel Marlow
profile image
Yeah, I definitely got a thinly veiled advertisement vibe from this article. But then again, it does say "SPONSORED FEATURE" at the top.

David Ballard
profile image
It was an interesting article until I read "Rather than yet more funding, we at PapayaMobile have launched..."

Now I'll be sure to avoid articles with "Sponsored Feature" in the title.

David Paris
profile image
Pretty much the same take I had on this article.

Kenneth Blaney
profile image
I don't think too much funding will crush the current level of innovation out there, but it certainly won't do much to increase it either. However, more available funding will increase the number of average-to-good games in the same way that absolutely no restrictions or milestones increases the amount of terrible games. The risk then is the great getting lost in a sea of average-to-good like on sites like Kongregate (which is full of average-to-good).

Stephen Keating
profile image
Does paying people do more harm than good? Answer: No, you idiot.

Nathaniel Grundy
profile image
I'm in a game development program myself, and one of the things we learned in first year is that monetary incentive for work is not as effective as other, intangible means of incentive - like creative freedom, or doing something that the employee feels is right or will benefit the world.



For example, wikipedia is the most comprehensive online knowledge resource known to man, and it is comprised almost entirely of volunteers. People write it for free, because they think others ought to know what they know.



I'm not saying "don't pay people, give them a paintbrush instead". Obviously people need to eat. But simply motivating developers by saying "this game will really sell!" is ineffective and, in the long run, is less effective than the alternative.

Chad Wagner
profile image
I think you've all missed that the article's main negative point to funding is that you must pay it back 10x. That's exactly the pressure that has moved the big publishers to producing Football games each year, and franchise #5 and #6. Innovation doesn't guarentee success -- it has to be innovation that people want to buy. Putting a developer in a hole makes them risk averse, and want to make sure that what they make will sell -- which reduces innovation.



Welcome to the world we live in.



(Which is not to say this article isn't an advertisement, which it is.)

Jamie Ottilie
profile image
I think you are all missing the main point - it is a paid piece meant to promote papaya's recruiting efforts. There are not that many game funds running around - and having a source of risk capital other then publishers has lead to more innovation not less and it will continue to do so.


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.