Games don't need venture capitalism
iatia.substack.com
Games don't need venture capitalism
1–10 of 81 posts
Re: Games don't need venture capitalism
#2hiya, author here. Palworld is a wild, wild game (think pokemon meets ark:survival evolved, or simply pokemon with guns), and it follows a number of other super-successful indie games that got made with no VC funding. i myself work heavily within the VC ecosystem, so it got me thinking about how games and VC tie together. while the article is written in an opinionated manner, i don't mean to present it as fact - more some musings and steelmanning of why VCs aren't needed
Re: Games don't need venture capitalism
#3hiya, author here. Palworld is a wild, wild game (think pokemon meets ark:survival evolved, or simply pokemon with guns), and it follows a number of other super-successful indie games that got made with no VC funding. i myself work heavily within the VC ecosystem, so it got me thinking about how games and VC tie together. while the article is written in an opinionated manner, i don't mean to present it as fact - more…
Having worked in games for 10+ years, and having recently joined a more traditional VC-backed startup outside of games, I think you are 100% on the money.
The VC model doesn't make a lot of sense for games. So many outsiders come into games thinking they know what they're doing and they learn some hard (and expensive!) lessons fast. Thanks for writing this.
Re: Games don't need venture capitalism
#4hiya, author here. Palworld is a wild, wild game (think pokemon meets ark:survival evolved, or simply pokemon with guns), and it follows a number of other super-successful indie games that got made with no VC funding. i myself work heavily within the VC ecosystem, so it got me thinking about how games and VC tie together. while the article is written in an opinionated manner, i don't mean to present it as fact - more…
Palworld is an extreme lightning in a bottle and is not a consistent model for game development success.
For every Baldur's Gate 3 and Among Us, there are thousands of games that never reach that level of popularity. It's a similar survivorship bias as typical VC.
Re: Games don't need venture capitalism
#5hiya, author here. Palworld is a wild, wild game (think pokemon meets ark:survival evolved, or simply pokemon with guns), and it follows a number of other super-successful indie games that got made with no VC funding. i myself work heavily within the VC ecosystem, so it got me thinking about how games and VC tie together. while the article is written in an opinionated manner, i don't mean to present it as fact - more…
Having worked in games for 10+ years, and having recently joined a more traditional VC-backed startup outside of games, I think you are 100% on the money. The VC model doesn't make a lot of sense for games. So many outsiders come into games thinking they know what they're doing and they learn some hard (and expensive!) lessons fast. Thanks for writing this.
Games are a hit making business, much more similar to movies than to product businesses. Sequels and spinoffs can reduce the risk by leveraging the existing IP and fan base, but it's still a hit making business.
Indie games are more like self-published novels or youtube creators - you are trying to find a core fan base who will support your artistic endeavors. Sometimes they crossover into mainstream, but 99.99% of the time it remains a niche. At best you can earn a liveble wage that grows over many years.
I have seen many VCs dabble in games and they learn their lesson quick. VR / AR / Metaverse attracted a lot of VC investment, all of which is now burned into nothing.
Re: Games don't need venture capitalism
#6This is ancient Internet history at this point but does anyone remember Rovio? In the early days of the iPhone/iPad they made a large amount of money with the Angry Birds franchise, even licensing the IP to a movie (or was it 2?). In 2011 Rovio took ~$40 million in VC funding and I distinctly remember thinking "well, that's over".
Creative ventures don't scale. You cannot reduce them to a magic and infinitely-repeatable formula no matter how hard people try. People try and that's why we get the exact same summer blockbuster movies every year, 20+ years of superhero movies just rehashing old IP, endless sequelss, annual Call of Duty releases, FIFA/Madden annual micro-transaction hell and so on.
VC funding works what you're doing is repeatable otherwise it doesn't.
Re: Games don't need venture capitalism
#7hiya, author here. Palworld is a wild, wild game (think pokemon meets ark:survival evolved, or simply pokemon with guns), and it follows a number of other super-successful indie games that got made with no VC funding. i myself work heavily within the VC ecosystem, so it got me thinking about how games and VC tie together. while the article is written in an opinionated manner, i don't mean to present it as fact - more…
Palworld's budget is 1 billion yen (6M dollars). If you're willing to invest $6M out of your or your family's pocket yes you don't need VC.
For most people $6M budget means VC.
Re: Games don't need venture capitalism
#8This is ancient Internet history at this point but does anyone remember Rovio? In the early days of the iPhone/iPad they made a large amount of money with the Angry Birds franchise, even licensing the IP to a movie (or was it 2?). In 2011 Rovio took ~$40 million in VC funding and I distinctly remember thinking "well, that's over". Creative ventures don't scale. You cannot reduce them to a magic and infinitely-repeata…
I’m not sure I agree. Disney and Pixar lives and dies on being able to repeat success. And both have lived for quite a while now.
Rovio was extremely conscious about not building an empire on top of angry birds, as that dad would eventually fade and they needed a new thing. They were aiming to be the next Disney, but of games and smartphones, not cinema and tv.
I’m surprised they took $40 million in VC as that sounds like it must have been Pennie’s to Rovio during angry bird mania.
Re: Games don't need venture capitalism
#9This is ancient Internet history at this point but does anyone remember Rovio? In the early days of the iPhone/iPad they made a large amount of money with the Angry Birds franchise, even licensing the IP to a movie (or was it 2?). In 2011 Rovio took ~$40 million in VC funding and I distinctly remember thinking "well, that's over". Creative ventures don't scale. You cannot reduce them to a magic and infinitely-repeata…
> You cannot reduce them to a magic and infinitely-repeatable formula
The formula is:
> blockbuster movies every year, 20+ years of superhero movies just rehashing old IP, endless sequelss, annual Call of Duty releases, FIFA/Madden annual micro-transaction hell and so on
These are very successful businesses. You might not like them as a gamer, but I don't know why you said it like they're some failures. They're not OpenAI but clearly are printing money. From an investor's point of view that's what matters.
Re: Games don't need venture capitalism
#10hiya, author here. Palworld is a wild, wild game (think pokemon meets ark:survival evolved, or simply pokemon with guns), and it follows a number of other super-successful indie games that got made with no VC funding. i myself work heavily within the VC ecosystem, so it got me thinking about how games and VC tie together. while the article is written in an opinionated manner, i don't mean to present it as fact - more…
Palworld may end up being the first "big" GenAI-based copyright infringement case if Nintendo/Gamefreak decide to pursue it.