Subsidies for Videogame Developers is Not the Answer

Subsidies, sponsorships and other forms of public funding for videogames developers is not a good solution to increasing development costs, according to Dr Klemens Kundratitz, managing director of Koch Media.

Speaking exclusively to GamesIndustry.biz he is worried about the uneven playing field that countries such as Canada create, but believes that public funding would lead to games for the sake of culture, rather than for the sake of the customer.

"I don't believe in sponsorship, public funding and subsidies at all, because I think that those systems will lead to games being produced for reasons that are not what the consumer demands, but because people think they should be for cultural reasons."
"It takes the attention away from what the customer wants, and if we create great entertainment then the customer will buy it and I'd rather not have everybody focused on how to get subsidies from various places."

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=30129

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wraggster

is not a good solution to increasing development costs

---

wait.... what?! :eek:


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

o_O Who suggested subsidies? I'd impeach the **** out of anyone that agreed to subsidize video games.. the government has no reason to be involved. We don't NEED games.

Also.. why are we talking about Canada? They don't really make any real noteworthy games. =p So screw 'em.

i agree with the above, how about hunger, healthcare, energy, education, and whatever else may be a real concern to the wealth of humanity

there should be however some way of getting money out of giants to help out the little guy

what the consumer wants is a 14 million dollar budget, and 50 cent as a voiceover

which we all know is verry difficult when your 3 guys in a garage, you settle for the best you can make and maby bruce cambell

Subsidizing game development could lead to an industry of Uwe Bolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osgeld

i agree with the above, how about hunger, healthcare, energy, education, and whatever else may be a real concern to the wealth of humanity

---

This is a classic argument that most people sympathise with. But there are many ways to look at it.

What is of importance in the world, and what is not? Is art unimportant because it can't cure cancer? I bet most people get to deal with art of any kind in more forms than cancer, throughout life.

Preferably art should be self-profitable, but some people have grand visions for something original that companies never dare to produce because it's not a safe genre. I may be doubtful of subsidizing money for games, as the cost of creating games is too high. But who knows, in a few years we may be celebrating the idea.