In the past they have funded half of a project's development budget but I'm unsure of their procedures as of now. My inspiration for the idea was VicScreen, an Australian Victorian state government agency that funds film and interactive media projects. VC is one of many ways to get from point A to point B and if depends on the project - if you have an idea that needs rocket fuel and you're willing to take the risk that rocket fuel entails, then it can make a lot of sense. Failures don't mean the model doesn't work, and successes without it doesn't mean it's not needed. Either way, don't invest in a particular game product. Alternatively invest in a technology that is being built for the game, which is the Tencent approach and either use buy the tech if it works out or sell it.

The VC has to understand what's valuable, which is a team that ships and works well together, not a particular game idea.

Just like any VC, you want the VC to understand your industry, which games is hugely misunderstood by people who haven't worked in games. I think this article is really saying 'games shouldn't be funded by VC' which I think is just wrong. So while it's true that 'games don't need VC', yeah there is a huge market for smaller games, and what success means for 1-4 person team is vastly smaller than a big game, there is also a place for large VC funded teams. But so many games people have exited and formed their own VC studios, or hired people who get games, and the focus has switched to investing in teams which is way better. Rovio is a good example of that time period. 5 years ago I would have agreed, VCs invested in games, rather than studios and most games never get released, let alone be successful if they are released.

Squad builder fifa 22 300k