
Investing in Games: Broad or Deep? - prostoalex
http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/07/investing-in-games-broad-or-deep/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29
======
highCs
Very great article. Another thing I would love to see established is that
there is no such thing as a _game industry_. Using the same analogy, it would
be like saying: _the startup industry._ It's nonsense obviously.

~~~
keerthiko
That's a weird claim. Are you suggesting to bundle it into the "tech
industry", unless you deny that exists either? Or into the "software
industry"? Maybe the "entertainment industry"? Perhaps "art industry"?

Your hypothetical "startup industry" doesn't make sense because they're not
tied together with respect to products. But there is a "tech industry" or
"software industry" or "web tech industry" where the constituent players
actually are related by product/service sector.

I don't see why you find _that_ the most important thing that needs to be
established. Why does it matter and how is it negatively affecting those (or
any) businesses to refer to the games industry as such?

I think game development, publishing, services, esports, conventions and such
are enough of a mature ecosystem to be considered it's own "industry."

~~~
Retric
The "tech industry" is a subset of everyone building technology. Just as most
software is developed outside of the "software industry" Sure, some Airlines
may write more lines of code than Apple in a given year, but there not
software companies.

As to games it's not broken down in the same way. For example some
commercially generated games may be advertising for other products or even
training tools so lumping those in with Call of Duty is pointless. Thus,
rather than focusing on how their produced people break things out based on
how their used and who pays for them.

~~~
_delirium
Even among what you might call "consumer-targeted games", investing seems
quite different among different budgets and audiences as well. For example
IndieFund has been quite successful as an investor by picking a specific niche
that the people running it understand well enough to pick promising games, and
provide relevant advice to the companies they fund. But this list of games is
hardly a random subset of games in general: [http://indie-
fund.com/games/](http://indie-fund.com/games/)

Other investors I've run into also seem quite specialized. A bunch focus on
mobile games. One that I've had second-hand contact with invests only in
simulation games sold in boxed copies in Germany (this is a surprisingly large
market). And then the console market is a whole other kettle of fish, because
the console makers themselves have a pitch and funding process, which changes
the dynamics a bit.

------
LCDninja
Such a great article. The subject of connecting with an audience is really
key. Connecting and building a relationship with one's audience is a lot of
hard work, and once you've released something - maintaining that momentum can
be a serious challenge. This has been my own experience.

In terms of marketing, it's my understanding that two metrics really matter on
the success-side: engagement and the gold-standard - participation. Motivating
players to buy the game is one thing, however - I think platforms that have
inbuilt participation by design - really create a lot of free and ongoing
marketing value (e.g. Minecraft, iOS, Little Big Planet etc.) Content creators
have to promote the platform in lock-step with their own content. In my
opinion, inbuilt participation mechanisms make things so much easier in terms
of marketing. You can switch from "I've created something cool" to "look at
the cool stuff others have made." Shared aspiration is very powerful.

Interestingly, this concept is something that anyone in the dot com, web 2.0,
or whatever we're calling the tech scene these days knows. It's almost like
the game industry is an island separated from mainstream startup tech (or
perhaps I don't read enough).

What do you guys/gals think?

------
georgeecollins
Even most large game companies are supported by one or two franchises. It's
always been that way. Activision was supported by Tony Hawk, then Call of
Duty, then they bought Blizzard and did Skylanders. Without Blizzard (which is
very autonomous) Activision is the Call of Duty / Skylanders company. They
understand the principle very well.

------
penetrarthur
The whole article is based on an inefficient offer. The second offer is wrong
by definition. The article should have been about one game VS several games +
infrastructure if needed not one game VS infrastructure + several games. Games
are not regular startups - they don't solve your everyday problems. Games are
rather about experience. A small game that requires "not that big" investments
might be much better experience-wise than a game which has "very much" money
pumped in it.

------
coldcode
Yet few successful game companies started off trying to build a single big
hit. Most game companies that today are viewed as successful got lucky with
the first one which turned into a big hit, then simply redo the same game ala
King or Rovio. You never hear about the ones who built a single game that
flopped and then gave in. I'm not sure you can tell the difference up front.

------
lxfontes
relevant: YTD Revenue for A Dark Room iOS, a game that made the #1 spot in the
App Store
[http://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/2ok3r7/ytd_revenue_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/2ok3r7/ytd_revenue_for_a_dark_room_ios_a_game_that_made/)

------
CmonDev
Would you invest in a high-quality MOBA on tablets (e.g. Vainglory by Super
Evil Megacorp)?

~~~
Igglyboo
No. Long time (6+ years)DoTA player, I can't see this type of game working
without a mouse and a keyboard. I've tried FPS's and MMO's on tablets and they
are always dissatisfying, I doubt this would be any better.

~~~
CmonDev
It plays quite well actually, that's the thing.

------
Zigurd
Neither. It's a hits business.

