ALPHA | OPINION //COMMENT: BUSINESS
European gaming’s venture capital problem by Nick Gibson, Games Investor Consulting
intelligence with which to compare prospective investments. Truth be told, Europe has a history with a number of terrible games company investments and although the US market has also suffered from failed investments, it would appear European investors have been more easily deterred by these past failures.
X
CULTURAL DIVERSITY Thanks to its multitude of different cultures and languages, Europe is clearly a more difficult market in which to scale a games company. Although based on anecdotal evidence only, I would also suggest that European games companies themselves can be more conservative than their US counterparts, less prone to take risks and less willing, as a result, to incorporate third party finance in their growth plans. The implications of this relative under-
While Europe is strong in the browser MMO space with games like Bigpoint’s Drakensang Online (above), it has a long way to go in the mobile and social sectors to attract more investors
IN THE NEWworld order of web, mobile and social gaming, the concept of independent studios relying on publishers for development finance has, for many, already been consigned to history with the tag ‘do not revive’ on its toe. In this new reality, bootstrapped self-
finance and early commercialisation fuel development. However, for many of the most successful companies venture capital has provided a crucial supplement to these, accelerating growth and allowing companies to take the sort of risks that self-financing often precludes. Some $2.1bn of this sort of finance was raised in 2009 and 2010 alone but, a closer look at the data reveals a stark reality; that Europe not only lags a long way behind North America but has seen its share of global investment collapse in recent years compared to the US, Asia and the rest of the world. For this month’s column I want to delve into this, explore why it has happened and what the implications are.
SOMETHING VENTURED Between 2000 and 2008, privately held games companies in Europe raised some $830m of venture capital financing (20 per cent of the global total), second to North America (primarily the USA) whose $2.9bn represented 69 per cent, and well ahead of Asia and ROW (11 per cent). For the network gaming boom years of 2009 and 2010, North America consolidated its lead with 81 per cent of total finance raised, Asia/ROW grew to 12 per cent and Europe collapsed to just seven per cent. Given that Europe represented over 30 per
cent of the global games software market in 2010, why does it punch so far below its weight with VC investment?
10 | DECEMBER 2011 / JANUARY 2012
For a start, Europe generally invests less than the USA. Although Europe houses a large and active VC community of over 700 firms that invested €3.5bn across all sectors last year, the USA’s 800 VC firms invested a remarkable $22bn in the same period (source: EVCA, NVCA). This investment chasm undoubtedly
reflects on the territories’ respective games investment stats and can itself be attributed to several factors; significantly smaller average fund and deal sizes in Europe, and, I would argue, a greater level of risk aversion inherent to European investors.
There appears to be a vicious cycle in
Europe: underinvestment leading to underperformance which contributes to underinvestment.
For the games sector specifically, there are a number of additional factors behind Europe’s under-performance. The paucity of major stock market listed games companies in Europe compared to Asia and the USA means many VCs will see their only viable exit via a trade sale – in contrast to the IPO potential of other sectors –which in turn reduces the likelihood of investment. This also contributes to another problem in Europe; ignorance about the global and in particular local games sector as investors have less actual company – and market –
investment could be profound. VC funding has helped developers retain control of their own creative direction, intellectual property and, ultimately, commercial
destinies.It has encouraged risk-taking, spurred the creation of new games markets and propelled start- ups to market leading positions, often overtaking companies reliant on organic growth alone. Europe is strong in one corner of the
network games market, browser MMOs, but comparatively weak in most other; particularly mobile and social where, with a tiny number of exceptions, investors have few European candidates to choose from, with the top 100 leader boards dominated by North American and Asian companies. There is clearly a virtuous circle in the US
where investment has led to growth and successful exits which have encouraged further investment. In contrast there appears to be a vicious
cycle in Europe: underinvestment leading to underperformance which contributes to underinvestment. Europe clearly has the potential to create new global games powerhouses, but to date it has rarely realised that potential. Breaking this vicious cycle is therefore critical for Europe’s future. This will only be achieved gradually as
more successful exits – or other incentives such as tax breaks – encourage more investment, and as more European games companies enter new markets and, like their US counterparts, plan growth around VC finance.
Nick Gibson is a director at Games Investor Consulting, providing research, strategy consulting and corporate finance services to the games, media and finance industries.
www.gamesinvestor.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76