Tim Morten’s Post

Hi Tim, great feedback and I agree that the games industry needs bold ideas. And I would of course love to see those projects and developers get funding (and hopefully by us!) But while I see where you're coming from and can respect we want the same things I have to disagree with your takeaway. Player validation can be had without a full game built, and it's up to the team to see what kind of feedback they want to get from an external audience As someone who has shipped games before, I know better than most the value of getting the opportunity to validate the team's ideas with outside eyes. That very practice has helped our teams make better games over and over. As I mentioned in my post, there's no such things as hard rules. And in a follow-up I mentioned that perhaps firms like ours can support teams with larger seed rounds to help get teams through development longer before they go out raising again Always open to chat if you want from one (former) game dev to another 🙂

It’s the “tested at scale” that is a total miss. Most of the accelerators necessary for AAA scope and scale to come to market under such framing just isn’t there. Largely, I think, it’s because game development studios are generally not technology companies. Our technical infrastructure is dated and bespoke at the time of release. Off-shelf solutions are all either kinda bad or require significant additional investment and domain expertise to reach AAA quality. If game development technologies were more open like web stack tech, it would be a realistic ask. Unfortunately, our industry is 10-20 years behind the curve of modern dev practices. Though VFX/CGI practices used in film are gradually getting dragged in along with mobile and web concepts. Still premature to expect “at scale” testing.

I actually disagree with both posters. I have three examples: - the first is through working with DeNA in China. We had a team of 300 in Shanghai. Player ‘validation’ was always done offline, with selected testers who would test on-site with our devices. This was a small part of the dev, as emphasis was put into how strong the monetization was (we’re talking in-game here, not ads). Nothing, at least in mobile, replaces a proven monetization team critically aware of loops and UX profiles. User validation is secondary as this doesn’t drive mass market adoption or installs. - my knowledge of operations from Supercell. Iteration first and always. The way they do it is unequaled in the world, and yet I don’t know any other team doing the same. Supercell are only 250 as I recall. - AAA pc and console dev at Namco: and mostly from the Dark Souls and Dragonball franchises. Again, on site teams testing during weeks long intense sessions. This would happen towards the end of the development, 6 months before release, and the keyword was ‘balancing’. Huge scale and costs involved, but done at the end, not at the beginning. Again, history proves that sales have little to do with player adoption during the early stage of the dev.

Very nice Tim. A game may have a strong following and high levels of engagement, but that does not necessarily mean that the studio is well-equipped to develop and release a AAA game. On the other hand, a studio that has made significant progress in areas such as art and pipeline development, technology, and prototyping is likely better equipped to handle the complex and demanding process of developing and releasing a AAA game. Traction can be influenced by many factors that are disconnected from the health of the studio, such as marketing efforts and external trends. In contrast, the progress made by the studio in areas such as art and pipeline development, technology, and prototyping reflects the hard work and dedication of the team, and is a more reliable indicator of the studio's potential to develop and release a successful AAA game. Funding a series A round based on the studio's growth and progress rather than audience validation allows investors to focus on the long-term potential of the studio and its ability to deliver a high-quality product. This can ultimately lead to a more successful and profitable investment for both the studio and the investors, and most importantly a better game.

I agree with your stance Tim. It is interesting that VCs are wanting more certainty for the LPs after dropping billions into much less certain businesses with more dubious metrics. I guess it makes sense they’re just trying to figure it all out while calibrating. But that is the business they have chosen to be in. One about people, ideas, and risk. It is natural for them to try and find ways to mitigate their risk. But some of those methods could actually prevent them from finding the gems. These methods would not have found a Riot, Minecraft, or Blizzard if utilized at the same stage an A would been needed. Though as you mentioned maybe could of found a Machine Zone. We as developers want to test our products out with users as soon as it feels like we could get real data. Though that point is different for each type of game. Some genres could not have happend at an A stage. Which inevitably means that VCs will be more apt to fund those teams that can, which will make our industry less rich in innovation if that ends up being the trend.

Coming from a startup background I'd have to agree with Joshua Lu on this one. If you don't validate your game with a live audience, especially when building an innovative game, how would you know that you are building something gamers want (Game-Market Fit)? Instinct? Previous experience? Even if the game is amazing (validated), at some point, you should prove that you have the skills/expertise/team to acquire a lot of gamers without a high CAC and that you can handle/maintain that audience (not high churn). So product development and UA should be done at the same time. Now I know how long-term AAA games are and these are huge bets but wouldn't it make it easier and less stressful to launch smaller versions of that big game along the way? The startup world has many examples of startups raising millions with a solid product only to fail on the market. That's why the Lean Startup methodology became so mandatory on building. That's why services like ours (should) exist! 😁

Without mentioning the scale issue, I would flip it around and say, if a VC can extrapolate from a few founders, deck and maybe a prototype, then I welcome them at the seed stage. By the time series A rolls around, there are many factors that have less risk and a good amount of new info after watching founders scale a team/product for 1-2 years that I think are deserving of a value increase.

Agree, raise enough to make the game, cash is king