A roundtable workshop at this year’s Madeira Games Summit, at which executives and studio leaders spoke under the condition of anonymity, gave some insight into why funding keeps going to the same companies and risk-averse projects, rather than deserving, original video games.
Hosted by Vivrato founder Adam Boyes – formerly co-CEO of Iron Galaxy Studios and VP of third-party relations at PlayStation – the workshop consisted of four stages. First, the participants wrote game pitches, then they designed investment funds, before building a hypothetical portfolio as a group. Finally, they rewrote their pitches using what they had learned.
The result: when given $1 million to invest, almost nobody built a fund to back video games.
Participants who had passionately pitched original game projects at the start of the session found themselves designing funds that were weighted toward tools, infrastructure, platform technology, and Roblox creator ecosystems. Less than half of the total capital allocated across all fund designs went to traditional game content.
The irony was not lost on the room. As one participant put it: “I literally built an investment firm that wouldn’t have funded my own pitch.”
This highlights the core problem: developers and investors do not operate from the same mental model, and most developers don’t realise this until they are forced to sit in the other chair.
Key insights
A major insight from the workshop was the language gap between developers and investors.
In their pitches, the participants led with creative vision, emotional conviction, and game design, but when asked to switch to the investor seat, they instinctively demanded financial results like return structures and downside protection. Leaders knew how to think like investors, but they didn’t apply that thinking when they were on the other side of the table.
.jpg?width=2048&height=2048&fit=bounds&quality=85&format=jpg&auto=webp)
This revelation prompted some introspection from the participants. “The dichotomy in mindset between pitching and investing was something I’d never felt before,” said one. “As a developer I’d say take more risks,” said another. “As an investor I’d only email the ones already succeeding.”
One participant who had run a company for nine years found themselves being drawn to Roblox rather than conventional game development, judging its model as “the most interesting because of the number of bets.”
“As a developer I’d say take more risks. As an investor I’d only email the ones already succeeding”
Another key insight was that no one quoted returns when they made their initial pitches, even though all who designed a fund included explicit return targets and timelines. “Articulating passion in a way that also shows forecast and realistic return – that’s the work,” said one participant.
The attendees observed that the investors who remain interested in games – having been burned by previous forays – are more risk-averse than they used to be, which makes the communication burden on developers higher.
Solutions offered in order to lower the risk for investors included the use of demos and playtesting platforms to validate the market for a game, as well as targeting emerging markets via local payment structures.
Pitch recommendations
Several recommendations for developers emerged from the workshop. One was to lead every pitch with return expectations and a specific timeframe.
Another was to identify what kind of capital was actually needed – publisher advance, equity investment, or a revenue share deal – as well as to carefully research the investment fund’s remit before approaching them. Pitching content to a tools-and-tech fund, to cite one example, would be a wasted meeting for both sides.
One piece of advice was to actually talk with fund managers and ask how they make money, with the idea that even a short, 15-minute conversation could provide invaluable pitch preparation. The discussion suggested that there’s a need for more operators who understand both the investment and development mindset, and can bridge the gap between them.
.jpg?width=2048&height=2048&fit=bounds&quality=85&format=jpg&auto=webp)
A key finding that emerged during discussion was that most developers pitch their dream funding targets first, but a more effective approach is to deliberately sequence pitches in order of target hierarchy, and only approach the desired backers at the end of the process.
The suggested sequence was to first pitch to friends and industry contacts to gain feedback, before then targeting those who are likely to reject the pitch, in order to learn from their responses. The third target should be long-shot funders and publishers, before finally pitching to the “real” targets, with the benefit of having delivered and honed the pitch over dozens of previous presentations over a period of 9-12 months.
Attendees also suggested other ways in which the industry could adapt to support companies looking for funding. One proposal was to create structured forums where developers can practice investor-side thinking before they’re in live pitch situations.
Another was to create fund structures that are purpose-built for games, for example using revenue-share models that match game development timelines rather than traditional fund cycles. Indeed, one idea was to normalize the three-game deal structure, with the notion that this would provide better “portfolio math” – the equations and frameworks used by investors to calculate returns – as well as giving developers more runway.
Boyes provides the final conclusion: “The money exists. The games exist. The gap is a translation problem – and it’s solvable. The developers in this room proved it by thinking like investors the moment real capital was on the table. The work is getting them to bring that thinking into every pitch meeting, not just the ones where it’s their own money at risk.”
