Surely you aren't suggesting that the government should fund game developer R&D.

Forcing the general public to fund bringing your ideas to fruition is a completely unsustainable economic model.

Governments all over the world are flat broke from this type of thinking.

>Forcing the general public to fund bringing your ideas to fruition is a completely unsustainable economic model. Governments all over the world are flat broke from this type of thinking.

Actually most of the cool stuff we have, we have it because of government funding research. Including the very internet.

While, you are correct that a lot of innovation and "cool stuff" has come from government programs and funding, I would disagree that "most" of it is because of government funded research.

Can you prove to me they wouldn't exist otherwise? People like Tim Berners-Lee didn't come up with the ideas they came up with because they were government funded. They created things because they were innovative and smart.

The fact that YC exists is proof that government programs are not a prerequisite.

>Can you prove to me they wouldn't exist otherwise? People like Tim Berners-Lee didn't come up with the ideas they came up with because they were government funded. They created things because they were innovative and smart.

That's orthogonal. And company X's engineer didn't create Y because he was working in the private sector, he created it because he was innovative and smart.

Still, Tim Berners Lee WAS government funded. As was Arpanet. As was TCP-IP. As was most early work on computers. As was lots of basic physics, chemistry etc research before the US had any scientists worthy of mention (in Germany, France, Britain etc).

Governments can think a bit further ahead than typical venture capitalists... it is not about making an exit year from now, but instead ensuring that there is enough tax revenue coming in when the current generation of workers retires.

In Finland the current focus is ensuring that the economy can transition from the failing mobile phones and shipyards to something else, and the game cluster is a part of that.

Update: found an article about the role public funding played with Rovio's success:

Rovio Ltd. has benefited from support schemes by Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation. According to the public information provided by Tekes, the company received grants of € 379,510 over the years 2005-2007.

In addition, the Finnish Film Foundation, an institution backed by the state, has granted Rovio Ltd. € 50,000 of support for the production of an Angry Birds animation movie. Already before, Rovio had announced cooperations for producing “Angry Bird” films, including a cooperation with 20th Century Fox.

http://www.proinno-europe.eu/inno-grips-ii/newsroom/finnish-...

How many failed ventures have they funded, for how much?

Anybody funding ventures will mostly fund ones that end up failing. The question is how much value or employment the few that succeed generate.

The success of Finnish game industry has a very little to do with Finnish Government programs. IMO, the number one factor is a demo scene culture that's been going on since 80s. Also Nokia's success in mobile phones breed several mobile gaming companies already in 90s (in addition to more traditional game studios), which is more important factor than government programs.

Sure, you need both. Private talent and public money. Private money would often work, too, but there is very little of that to go around in Finland.

Found the article! Very good read: http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/04/features/how...