Research and analysis

Evaluation of the UK Games Fund: Final report

Published 16 July 2026

Executive summary

Background and scope of the evaluation

The UK Games Fund aims to support the UK’s game development industry to create new jobs, enhance skills, and increase the level and quality of new games IP in the UK. It is run by UK Games and Talent CIC, a non-profit community interest company with a remit to support early-stage games development. The UK Games Fund is funded by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS), which also oversees the fund. Four strands make up the fund: Tranzfuser, DunDev, the Prototype Fund, and the Content Fund.

Alma Economics was previously commissioned by DCMS to conduct an economic, impact, and process evaluation of the UK Games Fund for the 2022/23 to 2024/25 iteration of the fund. The final results were published in 2025. Following the main evaluation, DCMS commissioned Alma to conduct additional research on DunDev and the Content Fund, with a focus on addressing evidence gaps highlighted in the previous evaluation. The focus of evaluation activities included (i) additional fieldwork with DunDev teams to build further evidence of medium- and long-term outcomes, (ii) additional fieldwork with Content Fund teams to understand the extent to which intended outcomes have materialised, and (iii) an economic evaluation of the Content Fund to measure the benefits and costs of the funding. Additional details are provided on the two programmes in scope below:

• DunDev, launched in January 2023, is an annual residential programme in Dundee for high-potential early-career or graduate games development studios, where selected teams spend a month collaborating, attending industry talks, and refining their pitches. The programme concludes with a competitive pitch for additional prototype funding from the UK Games Fund, with around four teams chosen each year through a competitive application process.
• The Content Fund, launched in 2023, provides UK games companies with £50k–£150k grants to develop new IP, support early-stage growth, and improve investability by derisking future private and publisher investment. Across eight rounds, 35 companies received funding to cover salaries for UK-based game development staff, with applicants required to meet financial and operational criteria, including having a prototype and a project budget at least double the grant requested.

Approach and methodology

The current research builds on the previous evaluation of the UK Games Fund through additional targeted interviews with DunDev and Content Fund beneficiaries and an economic evaluation of the Content Fund. Specifically, this included:

• Updating fieldwork tools to refocus impact evaluation questions on addressing evidence gaps and to gather additional information to support the economic evaluation.
• Interviews with n=22 grant beneficiaries across both programmes, including n=5 interviews with DunDev beneficiaries and n=17 interviews with Content Fund beneficiaries. Interviews were conducted between October 2025 and February 2026.
• A social cost-benefit analysis to estimate the benefits of the Content Fund, weighing these against the costs of delivery.

Highlights from the impact evaluation

Overall, our recent interviews with UKGF beneficiaries suggest that both the Content Fund and DunDev have successfully contributed to the development of key outcomes and impacts. The Content Fund has supported companies to launch high-quality and commercially-oriented games, leading to companies being able to grow their teams and leverage additional investment. DunDev has supported graduate teams with developing skills related to development and business management and provided them with valuable knowledge and ways of working to carry them through their careers. The differing impacts across the two programmes reflect the respective aims of the programmes, with the Content Fund supporting more mature and established video game companies, and DunDev supporting primarily graduate teams. Discussion of the main impacts of both programmes is detailed below.

Investability in funded companies

One of the key impacts of the Content Fund, as identified by beneficiaries, was its ability to unlock additional private investment for supported companies. The Content Fund was perceived by many beneficiaries to have acted as an endorsement of the studio, derisked investment for potential investors, and helped companies build more polished vertical slices, all of which made major contributions in leveraging additional investment for funded companies.

In contrast, as DunDev supported much earlier-stage companies, beneficiaries noted there was a greater focus on helping teams to build awareness of potential revenue streams and investment options, rather than direct commercialisation of games.

Staff remuneration and benefits

The Content Fund led to direct staffing changes for most of the supported teams interviewed, enabling studios to hire new employees and freelancers, increase pay for some staff, or retain existing jobs during a difficult period in the games industry. Several teams said they would not have been able to expand their workforce or raise salaries without the funding, and a few indicated their studios might have closed without it. In many cases, beneficiaries said the funding was used strategically to recruit more experienced or higher-quality staff, though some teams relied primarily on freelancers instead of permanent hires. While some improvements to employee benefits were mentioned, these were generally part of broader organisational strategies rather than direct outcomes of the Content Fund.

In contrast, DunDev was generally viewed to have had a more mixed impact in this area: some teams reported hiring additional staff or improving pay due to new opportunities created by the programme, while others remained the same size by choice or experienced reductions in staff and work after completing it. This likely reflects the targeting of the programme. As compared to the Content Fund, DunDev supports less-established companies, which may not necessarily be focused on growth or taking on a salary in the short term.

Revenues and commercialisation

Overall, based on interviews with beneficiaries, we found that the Content Fund supported commercialisation and revenue development for many teams. However, most had not yet released their games and could only provide revenue projections. Interviews indicated that funding enabled teams to experiment with early access, soft launches, or support from platform partners and publishers, reducing marketing costs and improving market readiness. Among teams that had launched games, reported revenue outcomes varied, with some reporting steady digital sales and others securing additional contracts, partnerships, or funding outside the Content Fund. In many cases, the Content Fund was viewed to have provided financial stability that allowed teams to plan their routes to market, negotiate partnerships under stronger terms, and gain valuable learning experiences, even when initial commercial performance was below expectations.

DunDev was found to have had a more modest impact on commercialisation: some teams reported benefiting from increased visibility or networking opportunities, while others saw limited direct effect on revenue generation or broader commercial strategies. Generally, commercialisation was not an immediate focus of DunDev, as the programme supported companies at an early stage in the development process.

Skill growth

Across both programmes, beneficiaries highlighted the impact of the programme on the teams’ skills. Skill development within the context of DunDev was attributed to the structure of the programme and the ability of companies and teams to fully dedicate themselves to their games. Specific skills noted by interviewees included technical skills, including building new types of games, and business skills, with the programme increasing teams’ understanding of the development cycle.

For the Content Fund specifically, skill growth was attributed to the Content Fund unlocking growth within the supported companies. With the larger pot of funding, some companies reported being able to develop more technically complex games, being pushed to manage larger teams and development cycles across longer time horizons, and being exposed to additional conversations with publishers, platforms, and investors.

Relationship building

Participants across DunDev and the Content Fund had mixed opinions about the impact of the programmes on relationship building. Generally, DunDev teams felt that the programme had a larger impact on their relationship with other development studios and teams, especially other DunDev teams with whom they shared working space. In contrast, companies supported by the Content Fund felt that while the programme had little impact on their relationship with other developers, receipt of the Content Fund improved their relationships with publishers, platforms, and investors. The Content Fund strengthened these relationships by enabling teams to attend additional events, opening up new conversations, and providing funded companies with added prestige.

Video game quality and the development of new creative IP

Across both programmes, the large majority of beneficiaries felt that the support had improved the quality of their games and helped them to develop new IP. Several Content Fund beneficiaries highlighted that the funding gave them the financial support to dedicate more time to their own projects, without reliance on co-development or work-for-hire projects. In some cases, they also used the funding to hire more specialised employees or contractors to develop specific elements of the game they could not have completed in-house. Nearly all DunDev beneficiaries felt that the quality of their games significantly improved, and attributed this to the structure of the programme, which allowed for a high degree of collaboration and feedback.

Creative portfolios

Both DunDev and Content Fund beneficiaries thought the programme had contributed to the development of their creative portfolios. The Content Fund was viewed to have helped many teams strengthen their creative portfolios, improve their studio profiles, and expand into new platforms or engines. It also supported junior staff in building strong portfolios and enabled opportunities such as collaborations with well-known talent. Similarly, the DunDev programme was viewed to have helped teams build their portfolios. One team noted that they were able to hire graduates and less experienced developers as a result of the funding, giving them game credits to help them secure future opportunities.

Economic evaluation of the Content Fund

The primary benefit stream measured in our economic evaluation of the Content Fund was increased firm-level productivity, which is expected to flow as a result of the support unlocking or enhancing the commercial potential of video game projects for supported companies. This reflects the role of the Content Fund in enabling supported companies to develop commercially orientated video game IP which, without the support, would either (i) not have been made at all, or (ii) have still been made but with less commercial potential (e.g., due to insufficient time, funding, or staff resource to develop a game of sufficient quality).

Our central case estimate of the Content Fund’s benefits is that it will generate around £27 million of additional firm-level productivity benefits (on a present value basis) over a ten-year period (see table below). Setting these benefits against the costs of delivery indicates a Benefit-Cost ratio of around 5.1 in our central case.

Underlying our central case estimates, it should be noted that there was a relatively high degree of uncertainty when estimating the Content Fund’s benefits, given the still relatively early stage of commercialisation of many of the games supported by the programme, which meant that some companies did not yet have a realised track record of generating commercial revenue. In such instances, we had to rely on revenue projections, which notably pose a risk of under- or over-performance relative to their projections. We recommend that this economic evaluation be updated at a later point in time, drawing on a fuller set of actual revenue data, to quantify the benefits of the Content Fund with a higher degree of certainty.

Table 1. Headline findings from the economic evaluation

Benefits/costs	Central estimate
Total benefits (£m)	£26.9m
Costs (£m)	£5.3m
Net social benefit (£m)	£21.7m
Benefit to Cost ratio (BCR)	5.1x

1. Background and context to the evaluation

About the UK Games Fund

The UK Games Fund aims to support the UK’s game development industry to create new jobs, enhance skills, and increase the level and quality of new games IP in the UK. It is run by UK Games and Talent CIC, a non-profit community interest company with a remit to support early-stage games development. The UK Games Fund is also supported by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS), which provides funding and oversees the fund. Four strands make up the fund: Tranzfuser, DunDev, the Prototype Fund, and the Content Fund. The diagram below provides details on how these funds relate to each other, followed by full descriptions of the two strands in scope for the current research.

Figure 1. UKGF sequencing

Use zoom on your browser to view

Text description

Relationship between the strands:

• Eligible graduate teams can apply for access to Tranzfuser.
• Tranzfuser participants are eligible to apply for DunDev.
• DunDev participants can win access to Prototype Fund.
• Tranzfuser participants can also win access to Prototype Fund.
• Eligible games companies can also apply externally for access to DunDev,  the Prototype Fund, and the Content Fund.

DunDev

DunDev is a residential development programme for high-potential early career or graduate games development studios that has run annually since January 2023. DunDev takes place in Dundee, where teams share a designated space for a one-month period, allowing them to collaborate more deeply and learn from peers and other teams. Teams also have the opportunity to attend talks and practice pitches put on by UKGF alumni and other industry stakeholders. At the end of the programme, teams participate in a competitive pitch for additional prototype funding from the UKGF. Approximately four teams are invited to take part in DunDev each year following a competitive application process.

The Content Fund

The Content Fund was launched in 2023 and provided high-potential companies with grants of £50k to £150k to develop games, allowing companies to develop new IP, derisking private investment and further content development funding. The Content Fund has two primary strategic objectives:

• Helping early-stage games companies by supporting pathways to content development funding, private investment from publishers, and debt and equity finance
• Improving investability in supported companies by improving investor perceptions of digital intellectual property and derisking future investment from publishers and equity funders.

The Content Fund was administered on a rolling basis, with the first round of funding administered in October 2023. 35 companies received funding across eight Content Fund rounds. Funds were to be used on salaries for UK PAYE employees and contractors, with hands-on involvement in game development and production.

Applicants to the Content Fund must meet a range of financial and operational criteria to qualify for funding. These include:

• (i) being a UK-registered company with PAYE employees undertaking games development work within the UK
• (ii) having an existing prototype, and
• (iii) demonstrating that the total project budget is at least twice the amount of grant funding requested.

Objectives and scope of the evaluation

Alma Economics was previously commissioned by DCMS to conduct an economic, impact, and process evaluation of the UK Games Fund for the 2022/23 to 2024/25 iteration of the fund. The final results were published in 2025.

Following the main evaluation, DCMS commissioned Alma Economics to conduct additional impact and economic evaluation research on DunDev and the Content Fund specifically. Given the relative infancy of both programmes, only early indications of impact were included in the main evaluation, thus this extension to the research sought to strengthen the evidence around the short- to medium-term outcomes and impacts of both programmes. The extended research included:

• additional fieldwork with DunDev teams to build further evidence of medium and long-term outcomes
• additional fieldwork with Content Fund teams to more fully understand how outcomes have evolved, given that the previous evaluation was conducted while the Content Fund was still ongoing. The evaluation also focused specifically on understanding outcomes related to revenues, access to finance, and commercialisation.
• an economic evaluation of the Content Fund, using revenue data collected from interviews to understand the extent to which the Content Fund delivers value for money.

The full methodology and approach to the evaluation are outlined in detail in Section 2.

Report structure

The remainder of the report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2 outlines our approach for the impact and economic evaluation.
• Chapter 3 presents key findings from the impact evaluation.
• Chapter 4 presents key findings from the economic evaluation.
• Annexes A, B, and C provide additional detail, including (a) technical detail on our approach to the social cost-benefit analysis, (b) interview guides used for fieldwork with beneficiaries, and (c) Theories of Change for the Content Fund and the UK Games Fund, developed for the previous evaluation by Alma Economics.

2. Evaluation approach

This section summarises our approach to the delivery of the evaluation. The current research builds on the previous evaluation of the UK Games Fund through (i) additional targeted interviews with DunDev and Content Fund beneficiaries and (ii) an economic evaluation of the Content Fund.

Stakeholder engagement

Updating fieldwork tools

As a first step in the research process, fieldwork materials from the previous evaluation were updated to ensure they were suitable for the needs of the current research and addressed previously identified evidence gaps. Interview guides were developed to assess the extent to which outcomes and impacts as set out in the Theories of Change had materialised. Specifically, this included:

• reprioritising the balance of the guides to focus on measuring impacts (rather than understanding processes)
• adding new questions to support the economic evaluation, including questions to capture realised or projected revenues from Content Fund projects, any additional funding received, including self-funding or funding by family and friends, and a question to gauge beneficiaries’ perception of the additionality of the Content Fund

The full text of the interview guides, as well as the evaluation Theories of Change are provided as Annexes.

Interviews with beneficiaries

We conducted n=22 semi-structured interviews with beneficiaries between October 2025 and February 2026 to inform the impact evaluation. This included interviews with n=5 DunDev beneficiaries and n=17 Content Fund beneficiaries. The tables below detail the profile of beneficiaries engaged in the research.

Table 2. Number of beneficiaries engaged in the research from DunDev

Participation year	Number of interviewees
2023	2
2024	2
2025	1
Total	n=5

Table 3. Number of beneficiaries engaged in the research from the Content Fund

Participation round	Number of interviewees
Round 1 (October 2023)	6
Round 2 (January 2024)	4
Rounds 3-5 (March 2024 to January 2025)	4
Rounds 7-8 (January 2025 to March 2025)	3
Total	n=17

In terms of sampling for the fieldwork, we prioritised companies that had participated or drawn down funding in earlier years to maximise the time available for impacts to accrue. In some cases, we re-interviewed beneficiaries whom we had previously engaged in the research, to understand how further impacts had materialised or changed over time. Interviews were then thematically analysed, with the main findings presented in Chapter 3.

Social cost-benefit analysis

In line with HM Treasury’s Green Book guidance, we conducted a social cost-benefit analysis to estimate the societal benefits associated with the Content Fund, weighing these against the costs of delivery. The primary benefit measured was an increase in firm-level productivity associated with provision of funding allowing (i) a greater number of commercially oriented games getting made, and (ii) development teams to reach their full commercial potential. Revenue and investment data was derived from interviews with beneficiaries, with the analysis supported by estimates from the literature and secondary data. The full methodology underpinning the social cost-benefit analysis is provided in Annex A.

3. Findings from the impact evaluation

Overall, the interviews with beneficiaries indicated that both DunDev and the Content Fund have delivered positive short- to medium-term impacts for supported developers and funded companies. Key impacts of the Content Fund included:

• Unlocking additional private investment. Beneficiaries highlighted that Content Fund endorsement has acted as a strong signal of credibility to private investors and helped studios leverage additional funding through supporting more fully formed prototypes and vertical slices.
• Supported staffing and studio stability. Beneficiaries noted that Content Fund support enabled many studios to hire new employees or freelancers, increase salaries, and retain staff during a difficult industry period; some teams reported they may have closed their studios without the funding.
• Enhanced team skills and development capacity. The amounts of funding on offer allowed teams to build more technically complex games, manage bigger teams and longer development cycles, and gave them opportunities to engage with more industry stakeholders.
• Improved game quality and development of new IP. Beneficiaries viewed Content Fund support to have provided their companies with the financial bandwidth to focus on studios’ own projects rather than contract work, sometimes enabling the hiring of specialised staff to strengthen particular aspects of development.
• Revenues and commercialisation. Findings from the interviews suggested that impacts around revenues and commercialisation may not have fully realised. Due to the length of video game development cycles, many companies engaged in the research had not yet released their game and thus were only able to provide projected revenues. Further evaluation of the Content Fund in the long term could strengthen this impact.

Key impacts of DunDev included:

• Strengthened developer networks and peer relationships. Shared working spaces and the in-person nature of DunDev were highlighted by beneficiaries as key aspects that fostered collaboration and strong connections with other development teams.
• Improved game quality through structured development. Beneficiaries thought that the programme environment, feedback, and dedicated time for development improved the quality of participants’ games and supported new IP creation.
• Increased awareness of revenue streams and investment options. This was noted as particularly valuable for earlier-stage teams who were still exploring commercial pathways.
• Limited direct impact on commercialisation. Some studios gained visibility and networking opportunities, but effects on revenue generation and broader commercial strategies were generally modest. This was largely driven by the companies supported being at a much earlier stage of maturity.

Investability in funded companies

Content Fund

The Content Fund was generally perceived by beneficiaries as being successful in increasing their companies’ access to private finance, primarily by strengthening their credibility and creating opportunities to engage with investors and strategic partners. One company highlighted that attending Cannes provided valuable exposure, ultimately leading to a contract with a major streaming platform. Others reported establishing collaborations or partnerships with well-known tech platforms and major industry publishers, both in the UK and abroad. The amounts of leveraged funding varied considerably across beneficiaries interviewed through the research, ranging from approximately £135,000 to over £3.6 million.

Most teams agreed that receiving the Content Fund acted as a form of endorsement. Because of the association with UKGF, the Content Fund served as a “vote of confidence” that enhanced their reputation within the industry. This validation was viewed to have helped open doors, initiate conversations with potential investors, and build new relationships that may not otherwise have been accessible. In a few cases, beneficiaries reported that the Content Fund helped to reduce the perceived risk for publishers and investors, as studios already had a source of funding in place.

The increased project budgets made possible through the Content Fund were also viewed to have enabled several teams to present stronger, more fully realised projects to investors and partners, further reinforcing their suitability for investment. This was viewed to be particularly important in the present context, with several teams noting that there has been a significant shift in the industry in recent years, with publishers now requiring projects to be at a much later stage in development or already have some indication of commercial viability before they are willing to invest. Some beneficiaries noted that the Content Fund was instrumental in getting their game to a place where it was feasible for them to pitch for a publication deal, contributing to accelerated growth. While the extent of direct private investment secured varies across teams, the evidence provided suggests the Content Fund has played a significant role in enhancing visibility, reputation, and access to networks that support private finance opportunities.

On the contrary, a small number of teams indicated that they were not actively seeking private investment. These organisations expressed a preference for self-publishing and maintaining full ownership of their companies. For some, this decision is strategic, as they believed that bringing in external investors could gradually lead to a loss of control or a slower path toward an eventual exit.

DunDev

As DunDev teams are typically at a much earlier stage than Content Fund beneficiaries, the programme had a greater focus on building beneficiaries’ awareness of different revenue streams and financing options within the games industry. Most beneficiaries engaged in the research felt that DunDev was beneficial in building their understanding of different financial options. A few teams noted that while they weren’t seeking out private finance at the moment, it was useful to have the information for future projects and strengthen their understanding of the industry more generally.

Staff remuneration and benefits

Content Fund

Almost all teams reported direct changes in staffing as a result of receiving the Content Fund. A few beneficiaries noted that the additional cash flow provided by the Content Fund enabled organisations to recruit both full-time employees and freelancers, as well as increase their remuneration for existing staff. Several teams acknowledged that, without the funding, workforce expansion and salary increases would likely not have been possible, with a few going as far as to say their studios would have shuttered without the funding, noting the downturn in the wider games industry. Others noted that while they didn’t hire any additional employees, the funding allowed them to protect the jobs of existing staff.

While a few companies noted in interviews that they increased salaries as a result of receiving funding, most opted to use the funding to retain existing staff or hire new staff. In some cases, the funding was used strategically to attract more experienced, higher-quality, and higher-cost staff. One team reported relying mainly on freelancers, engaging them on higher-rate, contract-based arrangements during project development.

In terms of employee benefits, some teams noted improvements such as expanded healthcare provision, but these changes were not directly attributed to the Content Fund. Instead, these changes were generally driven by broader organisational strategies aimed at remaining competitive in the market, strengthening reputation, and improving prospects for securing partnerships and future funding opportunities.

DunDev

Generally, DunDev was found to have had a mixed impact on staff remuneration and benefits across the teams. Just under half of DunDev teams hired full-time or part-time staff after the programme finished. One of these teams had grown by over five members of staff, attributing some of this growth to having participated in DunDev. One team also commented that staff pay had improved as DunDev had opened more opportunities for contract work for them. A couple of teams stayed the same size upon finishing the programme, but typically said this was through choice and a preference for working with a smaller team.

One team has since faced a reduction in number of staff and an overall downturn in work since completing DunDev. They partly attributed this to ceasing work on other projects during their time participating in DunDev.

Revenues and commercialisation

Content Fund

When asked about commercialisation and revenues generated from their video games since receiving the Content Fund, most teams had not yet released their games and were therefore unable to specify actual revenues, instead providing future revenue projections. A few teams indicated that their games were released as free products, with revenue not being the primary objective. Instead, their focus was on commercialising their companies and establishing leadership within their respective game genres and platforms. A few teams had started to commercialise their projects in different ways. Some opted for early access or soft launches to test audience response and generate feedback before full release, while others described support from platform partners or publishers that reduced their need for direct marketing spend.

Among the teams interviewed that had released their games, revenue growth varied. Some reported steady sales of their games through digital platforms, while others had secured additional contracts, partnerships or additional funding outside the Content Fund. Most teams projected positive future revenue growth, citing exposure or a high number of wish-lists or saves, or receipt of publisher or venture capital investment as a vote of confidence in the game’s commercial potential. One team noted that the Content Fund had helped them with their first game release, and although it did not perform as strongly as anticipated, they emphasised the valuable learning gained through the process.

When speaking about the commercialisation process more broadly, the Content Fund was cited by many beneficiaries as a key factor in making development financially viable or helping secure additional investment. In several cases, it was viewed to have given teams time and stability to refine their products, plan their routes to market, and negotiate partnerships under stronger terms.

While some teams were able to provide projections, a couple of teams noted that projected revenue remains difficult to assess because of recent changes in the market regarding audience demographics, expectations, and swiftly changing technologies. One interviewee noted that these factors have altered the types of games that are typically successful. For example, while virtual reality (VR) previously attracted a core audience of older gamers, the user base has become younger over time, leading to more interest in free-to-play content.

DunDev

Generally, beneficiaries felt that DunDev had a modest impact on revenue growth and commercialisation. While there were some talks from industry professionals on marketing and commercialisation strategies, the primary focus of the programme was on the development of the games. One beneficiary highlighted the opportunity to showcase their game at an event, while another noted being able to tag UK Games Fund on social media as being helpful in boosting their profile. However, it should be noted that as DunDev teams are very early in their development career, commercialisation is not a key focus of the programme.

Skill development

Content Fund

Similar to the previous evaluation, many teams said the Content Fund helped them develop their skills by taking on projects that were more ambitious than before. This was viewed to have given them the opportunity to strengthen creative and technical capabilities, try new approaches, and build confidence for future work. Further, several teams also reflected that Content Fund support enabled them to invest more time in development, which in turn accelerated their professional growth.

In addition to gaining technical and development skills through receipt of the Content Fund, some teams emphasised the value of gaining business, pitching, and publishing experience through the process. They learned how to plan and position their games commercially, manage release processes, and tailor their approach when talking to investors or potential partners. These lessons were often described as important for building long-term sustainability.

A number of beneficiaries in leadership positions in their companies noted that leading a larger or more complex project or taking on additional contractors and employees also helped them build management and leadership skills. This included new administrative and staffing responsibilities, learning how to structure teams, and finding ways to balance creative and development work with newfound managerial roles.

As the Content Fund supports companies with a range of maturity levels and sizes, a few more established studios said the Content Fund mainly helped refine and reinforce their existing expertise rather than introducing new skills, echoing findings from the previous evaluation.

I think definitely. It’s built on the skills that we had as a team and kind of refined our skills…For example, we’ve been able to attach talent before but this time around when we attached talent, we knew exactly who to speak to and we did it very quickly.

DunDev

Almost all DunDev teams interviewed felt that the programme had helped to develop their skills. Many teams attributed this to the time and space the programme gave them to work exclusively on their game, as well as the safety net to experiment and learn from mistakes. One team also particularly enjoyed the office environment, and attributed lots of the skills developed to the team being able to work together in a shared space.

Specific skills noted by interviewees included technical skills, with two interviewees mentioning that their teams took on the development of multiplayer games, which offered a new challenge to programmers. Business skills were also highlighted, with one team noting that the programme helped them understand where skill and knowledge gaps in their company were, and another adding that the programme contributed to their overall knowledge of the development cycle, and understanding the scale of the project, it was feasible to complete within a certain time and budget.

Only one team interviewed felt that the programme did not contribute to their skills and attributed this to being a much more established business in the industry already. They felt the content was tailored largely to graduates, which felt less relevant to their company.

Relationship building

Relationships with other development studios and teams

Content Fund

Most teams indicated that the Content Fund had not substantially changed their relationships with other developers. They reported working with other studios prior to the Content Fund and noted that the games industry is generally highly collaborative, meaning they were already aware of relevant peers and companies.

However, some teams noted that the Content Fund had created channels where interaction with other developers was possible, such as through a Slack group, and noted that teams were aware of each other through shared attendance at specific events. One team felt there were useful opportunities to meet other studios through these routes, but explained that they had limited time to engage and were therefore highly selective about where they invested their effort. This team also observed that, because the Content Fund supports a wide range of studios with a range of development projects, lessons emerging from peer interaction were not always directly applicable to their own focus.

One interviewee noted that the financial stability provided by the Content Fund allowed them to invest more time in networking. The interviewee went on to say that, despite networking being a key part of the games development business, it is one of the first areas that gets cut in businesses with a limited cash flow.

Other teams, particularly experienced studios with long-established networks or those working on a work-for-hire basis, said the Content Fund had not significantly expanded their contacts. One team mentioned they already had strong industry links and did not have time to participate in additional networking. Another team, also industry veterans, suggested that newer studios would likely gain more from these opportunities.

DunDev

The majority of DunDev teams engaged in the research spoke about the importance of the connections they had made with other teams. One team in particular noted that this was the most important impact of the programme for them. After participating in DunDev when their studio hit a rough patch, they were able to collaborate with another previous DunDev team to form a new studio and stayed in the industry as a result.

[Without DunDev], I wouldn’t be in the position I’m in now. I wouldn’t have a games studio if it weren’t for DunDev.

A few interviewees also highlighted the social aspect of DunDev, and noted that the shared space naturally fostered collaboration, allowing teams to socialise and learn from one another. While a few interviewees kept up social relationships after the programme, they noted that distance made it difficult to stay close once they completed the residential programme.

Relationships with publishers and platforms

Content Fund

Most teams felt their involvement in the Content Fund supported their relationships with publishers and investors. Several teams discussed being able to attend events, trade missions, and conferences off the back of the success achieved through the Content Fund, which provided visibility and valuable introductions they would not have accessed otherwise. One team highlighted the support of a liaison who helped connect them with other studios and offered insight into wider industry practice.

A few teams also noted that receipt of the funding had changed the nature of their conversations with publishers and other investors. The Content Fund acted as a seal of approval from an established body, further legitimising funded companies. This also opened up additional opportunities with publishers, platforms and investors, with a few interviewees noting that certain investors or co-development partners had only signed on once they had received the Content Fund.

It’s a mark of approval that this government body has stamped it to say that this will be good game. So we try and use that to build confidence with our investors.

A few teams also commented that such connections take time to develop, noting that building trust with publishers or funders often requires repeated engagement over several events. They felt that the Content Fund’s backing was important in sustaining this process, especially when networking budgets are limited.

Almost all teams reported that the Content Fund has also generally contributed positively to raising their company’s profile and increasing industry awareness. The Content Fund was widely perceived as a mark of credibility, enhancing reputation and serving as a platform for promotion. According to a few beneficiaries, visibility through Content Fund communications, including social media, events, and website listings, as well as the use of the UKGF logo on games and company websites, has strengthened brand recognition among external stakeholders.

I think that’s [the support provided by the Content Fund] been quite useful. We’ve had some posts on us as a company from the Content Fund on LinkedIn and social media…, which has kind of raised awareness. I had actually had some publishers reach out to me because they saw some of those posts, so that’s been useful.

In addition, a few teams highlighted the value of access to industry networks and events, such as games festivals and showcases, which have facilitated connections within the developer ecosystem. For many, this exposure has opened conversations with potential partners and created opportunities for future projects. While not all engagement has been translated directly into business deals, the overall impact has been an expansion of professional networks, greater peer recognition, and improved positioning within the industry community.

DunDev

Across DunDev interviewees, there were mixed views on whether the programme improved teams’ relationships with publishers and investors. Some teams felt that they received constructive feedback from publishers at the showcase event, and one team said they were able to get meaningful contacts from the programme. However, some teams thought that their businesses were at too early a stage to capitalise on the connections to venture capitalists, publishers, and other private financiers that came in to deliver sessions and talks.

Video game quality and the development of new creative IP

Content Fund

All Content Fund beneficiaries reported that the support provided them with additional time and resources to advance their games, projects, and broader IP development. For several companies, the funding allowed them to move away from a primarily work-for-hire model and increase the time and staff capacity they were able to dedicate to their own games.

The Content Fund has helped us to move from work for hire for other people, making whatever they want, to making something that targets a customer segment that we’ve identified.

A few beneficiaries mentioned that without the Content Fund, they would have to significantly de-scope their games, while others noted that the development would have taken much longer, as staff would have to dedicate the majority of their time to co-development projects. Thus, beneficiaries provided evidence that the Content Fund accelerated their path to commercialisation. A couple of teams used the funding to hire staff or contractors with specialised design and technical skills to work on specific aspects of the game, increasing the intricacy and quality. This also freed up existing team members to train in new skills and allowed company leadership extra time to focus on commercialisation and longer-term growth, without sacrificing the development of the game.

In one case, the funding supported diversification beyond core game development, including exploring related areas such as television, film, and visualisation projects. Others invested in prototyping and improving backend technologies that could both support their own products and be used to offer additional services to external clients, helping create new potential income streams over time. For many companies, the Content Fund provided the time and financial capacity needed to further develop their IP and greater freedom to experiment creatively, without immediate commercial pressure.

I think it lets us make a lot more mistakes that are needed when you’re making games. I think with games, it’s a creative industry, so it’s very much you can’t make the perfect thing the first time over, or everyone would do it.

DunDev

All but one DunDev team expressed that their game had improved in quality considerably as a result of the programme, commenting that having the time, space, and the right working environment was what made the difference. The in-person office space allowed for constant feedback, and for teams to discuss and gather information from one another, as well as utilising other games developers. One beneficiary noted that the pace and intensity of the programme meant they were able to create something that “resonated”, as they had no time to second-guess their decisions. Another team expressed that their game would not exist had they not taken part in DunDev.

While most beneficiaries engaged in the research appreciated the in-person environment, one beneficiary felt that sharing space with other teams made the programme feel overly competitive and noted that they felt burnt out by the end of the session. Overall, this team felt that their game had been ‘slightly’ improved as a result of DunDev.

Creative portfolios

Content Fund

Most teams said the Content Fund had helped strengthen their creative portfolios and raise the profile of their studios. Some teams were able to pivot to new platforms or engines, broadening the types of projects they could take on in future. Others said the Content Fund supported junior staff to build impressive portfolios of consistent, high-quality work, which in turn benefited the studio’s reputation and talent pipeline.

One team noted that the Content Fund facilitated a collaboration with a well-known talent, which helped demonstrate their credibility and skills to others in the industry.

DunDev

Most DunDev representatives we interviewed said that participating in the programme had helped them build their creative portfolios. One representative added that after participating in DunDev they made specific efforts to hire graduates and less experienced contractors, who will all get credits in the game once it releases, in turn helping them get more opportunities.

It’s one of the main things we’ve looked at in terms of what people have struggled with. They need to get one published game out before they can get bigger contracts and jobs.

4. Findings from the economic evaluation

The primary benefit stream measured in our economic evaluation of the Content Fund was increased firm-level productivity, which is expected to flow as a result of the support unlocking or enhancing the commercial potential of video game projects for supported companies. This reflects the role of the Content Fund in enabling supported companies to develop commercially orientated video game IP which, without the support, would either (i) not have been made at all, or (ii) have still been made but with less commercial potential (e.g., due to insufficient time, staff resource, or funding to develop a game of sufficient quality).

Our central case estimate of the Content Fund’s benefits is that it will generate around £27 million of additional firm-level productivity benefits (on a present value basis) over a ten-year period (see table below). Setting these benefits against the costs of delivery indicates a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of around 5.1 in our central case.

Underlying our central case estimates, it should be noted that there was a relatively high degree of uncertainty when estimating the Content Fund’s benefits, given the still relatively early stage of commercialisation of many of the games supported by the programme, which meant that some companies did not yet have a realised track record of generating commercial revenue. In such instances, we had to rely on revenue projections, which notably poses a risk of under- or over-performance relative to their projections. We recommend that this economic evaluation be updated at a later point in time, drawing on a fuller set of actual revenue data, to quantify the benefits of the Content Fund with a higher degree of certainty.

Table 4. Headline findings from the economic evaluation

Benefits/costs	Central estimate
Total benefits (£m)	£26.9m
Costs (£m)	£5.3m
Net social benefit (£m)	£21.7m
Benefit to Cost ratio (BCR)	5.1

This section presents findings from the social cost-benefit analysis, providing estimates of the value for money of the Content Fund specifically. Our approach builds on the economic evaluation framework established in the main Evaluation of the UK Games Fund and was developed in line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance around best practice for appraisal.

Programme benefits

Firm-level productivity benefits

The primary benefit stream measured in our cost-benefit analysis was increased firm-level productivity, derived through the estimated contribution of the Content Fund to increased revenues experienced by supported companies. Based on insights from the interviews, the primary mechanism through which the Content Fund increases firm-level productivity is enabling funded companies to develop commercially oriented games and IP that otherwise would not have been made. Specifically:

• The funding allows companies to increase the time spent on the development of their own commercially orientated games and IP (as opposed to co-development or work for hire), thus contributing to the generation of new content.
• Along with re-dedicating the time of existing staff, the funding also allows companies to hire additional staff who can support with game production and commercialisation.
• In instances where games still would have been made in the absence of the funding, the Content Fund allows the games to be developed more quickly, or to a higher standard, allowing them to reach greater commercial potential.

Our modelling quantified firm-level productivity using actual and projected revenue data supplied by Content Fund beneficiaries. Revenue was then converted to Gross Value Added (GVA), which represents the value created after subtracting any intermediate inputs, serving as a proxy for the share of revenue that represents value added by the business. A full summary of our approach to quantifying this benefit is summarised in Annex A.

As many beneficiaries were only able to provide projected revenue figures rather than actuals, we present three possible revenue scenarios to account for uncertainty around revenue projections:

• Central case. This scenario is based on the average company revenue, excluding a small number of projected “breakout hits” with very high projected revenues. This adjustment reflects that whilst one might expect some “breakout” hits amongst the portfolio of games supported by the Content Fund, we would need to see more evidence of realised revenues to attribute this to the Content Fund.
• Lower bound estimate. This scenario is based on 75% of average company revenue (actual or projected) from the central case. This scenario therefore illustrates potential downside risk to beneficiary revenue projections (e.g., due to market downturns or lower than predicted commercial success).
• Upper bound estimates. This scenario is based on average company revenues (actual or projected) and thus includes the top 10% of revenue estimates. This scenario therefore reflects upside potential to the Content Fund’s benefits if company projections are realised in full.

Based on these scenarios, we estimate that the Content Fund will generate between anywhere between £20 million and £63 million in additional firm-level productivity benefits (on a present value basis) over a ten-year period. Full details of the total benefits and costs associated with the Content Fund are provided in Table 6.

Additionality

Our modelling assumed that 68% of the measurable firm-level productivity benefits of the Content Fund are additional, or those that would not have occurred in the absence of the funding. This assumption is based on interviewee perceptions of the extent to which they feel the Content Fund has contributed to their video game’s revenues. While interviewees were asked directly about the extent to which they could attribute their revenues or commercial success to the Content Fund, other qualitative insights into the counterfactual (e.g., likely scenarios for companies had they not received the Content Fund) provide further justification for the high level of additionality.

Without receipt of the Content Fund, beneficiaries noted several ways in which their game or company would be adversely affected:

• Game not being created: In many cases, beneficiaries thought that without the Content Fund, the game simply would not have been able to be made, resulting in lower overall company revenues.
• Longer development cycles: Even in instances where beneficiaries were confident the game would still have been created, they noted it would have taken much longer, as they would be required to dedicate more time to co-development or work for hire, or would have been unable to hire additional staff who supported the project. A longer time horizon for game development means that any benefits accruing as a result of additional game revenues would be much more highly discounted.
• Reduced scope or quality: In other scenarios, beneficiaries noted they would have had to descope the game or reduce expenditure on specialised elements, worsening the game’s quality. In turn, this would limit the potential customer base, as well as the ability to leverage the game’s success into additional funding.

Non-monetised benefits

In addition to increased firm-level productivity, there are additional benefits generated by the Content Fund that were not able to be monetised in the context of the current evaluation.

Increased skill development for early career developers

A few interviewees engaged in the research noted that the Content Fund gave their businesses the stability to hire early-career developers and staff or provide internships and work experience placements. Further, the Content Fund also allowed businesses to retain existing employees on funded projects, allowing them to upskill in new software, platforms, or artistic techniques. Thus, there are likely additional benefits based on the employee and intern skills developed as a result of the funding.

Increased wellbeing for developers

Evidence from the interviews suggests that receipt of the Content Fund supported improved wellbeing for games developers, as many interviewees expressed a deep passion for games development. Therefore, it can be assumed that there would be further wellbeing benefits for beneficiaries derived from being employed in the video games sector, compared with other employment options. Evidence from Gallup (2022) found that the quality of the work employees are engaged in has a 2.5 times greater impact on wellbeing, than the total number of working days or hours.

Technology and IP spillovers

Insights from interviews with beneficiaries suggest that the Content Fund has supported funded companies in developing intellectual property, which can be reused across subsequent projects. While IP and technology spillovers are challenging to measure and will vary considerably based on the commercial success of the games supported by the Content Fund, we anticipate that this will yield additional benefits not monetised within the current cost-benefit analyses. A 2023 report authored by Ukie and FTI Consulting estimated that in 2021, 10,000 jobs were supported by game technology spillovers. They also estimated that these same spillovers contributed approximately £760 million to the UK’s GDP.

Programme costs

UKGTF provided cost information relating to the administration and delivery of the Content Fund for the first eight rounds of funding, from 2023/24 to 2024/25. The table below summarises the costs associated with the delivery of the Content Fund.

Table 5. Content Fund delivery and administration costs (£m)

Cost category	2023/24	2024/25
Programme costs	£2.15	£2.40
Administrative costs	£0.15	£0.30
Total	£2.30	£2.70

Source: UKGTF Cost Data

Across the two years of the Content Fund relevant to the evaluation, 91% of spend was dedicated to grants to funded companies. 9% of spend was dedicated to wider administrative costs, including overheads and staffing costs associated with distribution of the grant funding.

Time and financial costs not covered by UKGF

While not explicitly included within our social cost-benefit analysis, interviewees suggested that funded companies and founders may make additional personal contributions – both financial and in-kind – to support the development of their games. Thus, some of the benefits experienced by beneficiaries may be attributable to their own contributions, rather than the Content Fund exclusively. Approximately half of interviewees engaged in the research suggested that they contributed additional funding to support their game’s development. While not all interviewees provided specific figures, the highest amount noted was around £300,000. In many cases, even if interviewees did not provide any self-funding, they noted that they worked unpaid hours or worked for a below-market salary to make the development of their game feasible.

Value for money assessment

We estimate that the previous two-year iteration of the Content Fund will generate benefits in the range of approximately £20 million to £63 million (in Present Value terms) over a ten-year time horizon. When set against the cost of delivery, this translates to a net present value (NPV) of between £15 million and £58 million, representing a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) in the range of 3.8 to 12.0, with a central estimate of 5.1.

As detailed above, when developing our central estimate, we focused on the average revenue reported by beneficiaries with the top 10% of earners removed. While some companies with breakout hits could generate very high returns, most companies experience a more modest or steady success. Within our relatively small sample of companies engaged in the research, inclusion of runaway success stories may disproportionately inflate total benefits. Therefore, by setting aside these high outliers, our central BCR provides an estimate based on the typical journey for most Content Fund companies.

If we include these breakout hits in our estimation, the Benefit to Cost ratio could be as high as 12.0, as reflected in our upper-bound estimate. This striking increase reflects the outsized impact that a few exceptionally successful games can have on the industry, illustrating the potential upside of the Content Fund, outside of typical outcomes. Conversely, our lower bound estimate accounts for uncertainty by using 75% of the revenue amount in our central case, reflecting that companies may underperform versus their projections (due to overestimation of revenues or market downturn). This uncertainty would reduce to the extent we have evidence of actual revenue performance. Our main results are summarised in the table below:

Table 6. Benefits and costs of the Content Fund

Benefits/costs	Central estimate	Lower bound estimate	Upper bound estimate
Total benefits (£m)	£26.9m	£20.2m	£63.2m
Costs (£m)	(£5.3m)	(£5.3m)	(£5.3m)
Net social benefit (£m)	£21.7m	£14.9m	£57.9m
Benefit to Cost ratio (BCR)	5.1x	3.8x	12.0x

Source: Alma Economics analysis, 2026

Annex A. Technical detail on the cost-benefit analysis

The following Annex outlines in detail our approach to the social cost-benefit analysis of the Content Fund. Figure 2 provides a high-level schematic, outlining the model mechanics.

Content Fund model schematic

Use zoom on your browser to view

General assumptions

Discounting

In line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance, benefits and costs of the Content Fund have been discounted and presented at present value, representing social time preference. Both past and future costs have been discounted. Based on Green Book guidance, the social discount rate is set at 3.5%.

Programme benefits

Firm-level productivity benefits for supported companies

The firm-level productivity benefits from receipt of the Content Fund were derived based on the increase in revenues experienced by supported companies. Firm-level productivity was proxied by the ratio of GVA to total output (turnover). As GVA represents the value created after subtracting any intermediate inputs, it serves as a proxy for the share of revenue that represents value added by the business.

Our modelling involved the following steps:

• Actual or projected revenue data was collected through interviews with beneficiaries and averaged across all observations.
• As many beneficiaries were only able to provide projected revenue figures rather than actuals, we present three possible revenue scenarios to account for uncertainty around revenue projections:
  • Central case. This scenario is based on the average company revenue (actual or projected) but excluded the companies with the highest 10% of revenue, which includes a small number of projected “breakout hits” with very high projected revenues. This adjustment reflects that whilst one might expect some “breakout” hits amongst the portfolio of games supported by the Content Fund (as can be the “hit”-based nature of the games industry), we would need to see more evidence of realised revenues at these kinds of levels to assign the credit for these to the Content Fund.
  • Lower bound estimate. This scenario is based on 75% of average company revenue (actual or projected) from the central case. This scenario therefore illustrates potential downside risk to beneficiary revenue projections (e.g., due to market downturns or lower than predicted commercial success) and the resulting impact this would have on the estimated benefits of the Content Fund.
  • Upper bound estimates. This scenario is based on average company revenues (actual or projected) and thus includes the top 10% of revenue estimates. This scenario therefore reflects upside potential to the Content Fund’s benefits if company projections are realised in full.
• Estimated average revenue was then multiplied by the ratio of GVA to total turnover for the SIC code for “Computer programming activities” (62.01), using data from the Annual Business Survey (2023). Multiplying annual revenue by the ratio of GVA to total turnover provides an estimate of the firm-level productivity benefits per company per year. At the time of analysis, there was no designated SIC code available for video game development. While we assume computer programming activities is the best substitute, “Publishing of video games” (58.21) could also be used. Updated SIC codes for video game development are expected to be published at the end of March.
• The estimated total firm-level productivity benefits per company were then multiplied by the 35 companies supported by the Content Fund across the two-year period. While funding was administered on a rolling basis, we understand that 17 companies were supported in 2023/24, with a further 16 companies supported in 2024/25.

Table 7. Firm-level productivity assumptions

Assumption	Central estimate	Lower bound estimate	Upper bound estimate
Estimated annual revenue for Content Fund companies (£000s)	£316	£237	£741
Ratio of turnover to GVA	0.51	0.51	0.51
Revenue attributable to GVA (£000s)	£161	£122	£378

Source: Alma Economics analysis

Additionality

In line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance, we have adjusted our estimate of the firm-level productivity benefits to reflect additionality, leakage, and displacement. An estimate of additionality was elicited directly from beneficiaries by asking them for their perception of the extent to which the Content Fund contributed to the increase in revenues. Specifically,

To what extent do you feel that these revenues can be attributed to receipt of the Content Fund (e.g., as compared to your revenues had you not received support)?

Prompt: How would you rate the importance of the support provided by the Content Fund in terms of additional revenues, where 0 is not at all important and 10 is the most important factor, considering all the factors which contribute to business success in the video game sector.

Based on the data collected through interviews, we have assumed an overall additionality rate of 68%. In other words, we estimate that 68% of the measured firm-level productivity of supported games companies is attributable to the Content Fund. This corroborates insights from the interviews, which indicate the Content Fund significantly contributes to supporting companies to make commercially orientated games more quickly and to a higher standard, whilst also supporting them in leveraging additional funding sources to support the development and commercialisation of their video game projects.

Leakage

Leakage represents the share of the Content Fund’s benefits expected to accrue outside of the UK. For the purposes of our modelling of firm-level productivity benefits, we have assumed a relatively low level of leakage (6%). This assumption is corroborated by findings from the interviews. Specifically, the majority of beneficiaries noted that funding from the Content Fund was spent on hiring PAYE employees, suggesting that the majority of benefits are accruing to team members based in the UK. However, we assume leakage to be 6% (as opposed to 0%), as a few beneficiaries noted that funds leveraged as a result of the Content Fund allowed them to hire additional contractors or employees based abroad, resulting in some leakage of programme benefits. This assumption is consistent with Alma Economics’ 2025 Evaluation of the UK Games Fund, which estimated leakage to be 6%, based on responses to a survey question about the share of company staff based outside the UK.

Displacement

Displacement represents the extent to which programme benefits displace existing UK video game development activity. We have assumed a displacement rate of 0% for the purposes of our modelling of firm-level productivity benefits. As the video game industry is a global business, we anticipate that the grant funding is unlikely to displace private investment domestically. As video game sales primarily occur through online platforms, revenue is typically generated from a broad international customer base rather than shifting demand within a local market, meaning supported companies are unlikely to take sales away from other domestic firms. Interviews with beneficiaries have supported that many companies are accessing international publishers and investors, with the Content Fund supplementing, rather than replacing existing finance sources.

Persistence of benefits

As this evaluation is taking place at a relatively early stage, we do not have access to data on the long-term revenue profiles for Content Fund-supported video games. As is the nature of the video game business, the continuance of revenue streams for supported video game projects cannot be guaranteed indefinitely into the future in a competitive global marketplace in which the preferences of gamers continually shift. Our modelling profiles future revenues by making an assumption around the average survival rate of video game development businesses (drawing on evidence developed by Cabras et al. (2017)). Based on the average survival rate identified in this report, we have assumed that benefits persist for eight years following receipt of the Content Fund.

Programme costs

UKGTF provided cost information relating to the administration and delivery of the Content Fund for the first eight rounds of funding, from 2023/24 to 2024/25. Programme costs consist primarily of grant funding to funded companies, while administrative costs relate to overheads and staffing costs associated with disseminating the funding. The table below summarises the costs associated with the administration of the Content Fund.

Table 8. Content Fund delivery and administration costs (£m)

Cost category	2023/24	2024/25
Programme costs	£2.15	£2.40
Administrative costs	£0.15	£0.30
Total	£2.30	£2.70

Source: UKGTF cost data

Annex B. Interview guides

Interview questions - DunDev

Introduction

1. Can you tell me a bit about your videogame development team or company?  

• Prompt: How long has it been running, how many members, etc.? 

• Prompt: Can you briefly describe the game you have developed or are developing as part of DunDev?

2. How did you find out about DunDev and the UK Games Fund?  

• Prompt: What drew you to apply?

3. Have you applied for or participated in any UK Games Fund programmes other than DunDev?  

4. Which DunDev activities and events did you and your team/company get involved in?  

Funding overview

5. Did your team or company receive grant funding as part of the programme, and if so approximately how much did you receive?  

• Prompt: How did you use this funding?

• Prompt: Do you feel that this funding was enough to sufficiently support the project?  

• Prompt: If no, what would have been sufficient and why?

6. Did your team financially self-fund any elements of the project (including finance provided by friends or family)?  

• Prompt: If yes, which elements were, at least partially, self-funded? E.g., software and tools, hardware, travel costs, wages or staff costs, marketing and distribution of game.  

• Prompt: Did you work any unpaid hours? If so, how much?

Impact questions

7. Do you feel that DunDev has had an impact on the skills of the team members?  

• Prompt: Technical skills? Soft skills? Business and commercial skills?

8. Do you feel that DunDev has had an impact on your relationship with other game developers?  

9. Do you feel that DunDev has had an impact on your relationship with publishers or investors?  

• Prompt: In terms of starting relationships and opening conversations?

• Prompt: In terms of securing private investment? 

10. Do you feel that DunDev has had an impact on the quality of the game you have developed (compared with if you had not participated in the programme)?  

11. How, and to what extent, have staff numbers changed as a result of DunDev?  

• Prompt: How many additional full-time team members have you hired since participating in the programme?

• Prompt: How many additional part-time team members have you hired since participating in the programme?

• Prompt: To what extent can you attribute this change in staff numbers to DunDev specifically?

12. How and to what extent have staff benefits (including salaries) changed as a result of DunDev?  

• Prompt: To what extent can you attribute this change in staff benefits to DunDev specifically?

13. [Must ask] What have the approximate revenues been for your videogame project, since participating in DunDev?  

14. [Must ask] What do you expect in terms of revenue growth over the next year?  

15. [Must ask] To what extent do you feel that these revenues can be attributed to participating in DunDev (e.g., as compared to your revenues if you had not received support)?  

• Prompt: How would you rate the importance of participating in DunDev in terms of additional revenues, where 0 is not at all important and 10 is the most important factor, considering all the factors which contribute to business success in the video game sector.

16. How, and to what extent, has DunDev developed the creative portfolios of team members in both funded companies and associated freelancers/contractors?  

• Prompt: How has this contributed to the growth of your games company?

17. How, and to what extent, has DunDev improved your understanding of the financial options available to increase investment and enhance growth?  

• Prompt: Does your company intend to apply to any other funding to continue the commercial development of your game?

18. How, and to what extent, has DunDev supported commercialisation of your games since finishing the programme?  

• Prompt: Which stages of commercialisation did the fund help with in particular? I.e., opening conversations with investors/publishers, having meaningful conversations, or securing investment?

19. How, and to what extent, has DunDev helped to reduce business risk and increase business sustainability?  

• Prompt: Consider risks such as high development costs, irregular cashflow, funding uncertainty, high competition, IP protection, staff turnover, skills shortages, etc.

• Prompt: Has DunDev supported your team and company in remaining in the videogames industry (compared with if you had not participated in the programme)? 

Conclusion

20. How do you think the programme could be improved further?  

21. Do you have any other comments or feedback on the programme before we finish? (E.g., any impacts experienced that we haven’t discussed yet?) 

Interview questions – Content Fund

Introduction 

1. Can you tell me a bit about your videogame company and your role within the company?  

• Prompt: Can you briefly describe the game you have developed or are developing as part of the Content Fund?

• Prompt: How long has it been running, how many members, etc.?

2. How did you find out about the Content Fund?  

• Prompt: What drew you to apply?

3. Can you please describe the support you have received so far as part of the Content Fund?  

• Prompt: What amount of funding did you receive/are you expecting to receive?  

• Prompt: How did you use this funding?

• Prompt: Is any further support or funding expected in future?

4. Have you applied for or participated in any UK Games Fund programmes other than the Content Fund?  

• Prompt: Tranzfuser, DunDev, Prototype funding?

Funding overview 

5. Do you feel that the funding received was sufficient to achieve your objectives?  

• Prompt: If no, what amount would’ve been sufficient?

6. Has your game received any other funding, outside of the support you mentioned from the UK Games Fund?  

• Prompt: If yes, what were the sources of this additional funding and how much did you receive?  

• Prompt: If no, why haven’t you received any additional funding?

7. Did you or team members use any personal funds to support your game (including finance provided by friends or family)? 

• Prompt: If so, how much?

• Prompt: What about unpaid hours? If so, how many? 

• Prompt: If yes, which elements were, at least partially, self-funded? (e.g., software and tools, hardware, travel costs, wages, or staff costs, marketing and distribution of game) 

Impact questions

Helping early-stage businesses and entrepreneurs 

8. How and to what extent have staff numbers changed as a result of receiving funding from the Content Fund?  

• Prompt: How many additional full-time staff members have you hired since you received funding from the Content Fund?

• Prompt: How many additional part-time staff members have you hired since you received funding from the Content Fund?

• Prompt: To what extent do you attribute this growth in staff to receiving support from the Content Fund?

9. How and to what extent have staff benefits (including salaries) changed as a result of receiving the funding from the Content Fund?  

• Prompt: To what extent do you attribute this change in staff benefits to receiving support from the Content Fund?

10. [Must ask] What have the approximate revenues been for your videogame project, since receiving support from the Content Fund?  

11. [Must ask] What do you expect in terms of revenue growth over the next year?  

12. [Must ask] To what extent do you feel that these revenues can be attributed to receipt of the Content Fund (e.g., as compared to your revenues if you had not received support)?  

• Prompt: How would you rate the importance of the support provided by the Content Fund in terms of additional revenues, where 0 is not at all important and 10 is the most important factor, considering all the factors which contribute to business success in the video game sector.

13. How and to what extent has the Content Fund been successful in increasing your company’s access to private finance?  

• Prompt: Approximately how much additional private finance was secured?

• Prompt: What were the sources of the private finance (e.g., private equity, venture capital, angel investors, publishers, etc.)?

• Prompt: How instrumental was the Content Fund to you securing this deal?

14. How and to what extent has the support provided by the Content Fund increased the awareness and profile of your company?  

• Prompt: Has it opened up any particularly useful conversations?

Improving inevitability in supported companies

15. How and to what extent has the Content Fund led to the creation of new, innovative, and high-standard IP for your company?

• Prompt: To what extent did the funding allow you to focus on your own IP vs balancing it with contract work?

16. How and to what extent has the Content Fund led to the commercialisation of new video games for your company?  

• Prompt: Which stages of commercialisation did the Content Fund help with in particular? (i.e., opening conversations with investors/publishers, having meaningful conversations, or securing investment?)

• Prompt: How might the project have been impacted if you had not received access to Content Fund support?

Developing talented games designers to become entrepreneurs with careers in the games sector 

17. How and to what extent has the Content Fund led to, or do you expect it to lead to, the development of your technical, managerial, business/entrepreneurial, and founder skills?  

18. How and to what extent has the programme developed, or do you expect it to develop the creative portfolios of members of your company and associated freelancers/contractors?

• Prompt: How has this contributed to the growth and productivity of your company?

19. How and to what extent has the Content Fund supported you in expanding your professional network and connections with peers, investors, publishers, and platforms?  

• Prompt: Have increased network connections led to the acquisition of new skills?

20. How and to what extent has the Content Fund supported your development of new collaborations with other games developers?  

Conclusion 

21. How do you think the Content Fund could be further improved?  

• Prompt: What types of support would be beneficial to companies in the future?

22. Do you have any other comments or feedback on the Content Fund before we end?

Annex C. Theories of Change

Figure 3. Theory of Change for the Content Fund

Use zoom on your browser to view

Text description

Rationale:

• Problems facing small businesses
  • Limited access to finance for start up and scale up given perceived risk profile of micro and small videogames businesses
  • Market power, with market concentrated around small number of multinational publishers and media distributors
  • Information failure on investment opportunities in new games IP for publishers and investors

Resources:

£5 million investment: Content Fund 

Activities:

• £50,000 to £150,000 of grant funding

Outputs:

• 30 to 35 teams developing new games IP
• Faster commercialisation of games IP
• Enhanced skills and experience of games developers and business owners, including founder skills
• Companies are a more investable prospect to publishers and other pirate investors

Outcomes:

• Increased attraction and retention of talent
• Start-up development and increased business survival rate
• Increased investment in micro and SME UK games businesses
• De-risked  investment in funded companies
• Enhanced investor networks and greater access to private finance
• Improved video games portfolio for funded teams

Impacts:

• Accelerated growth rate of high-potential games studios
• Increase in business GVA
• Increase number of jobs in funded businesses 
• Increased development of high-quality and commercially valuable IP
• Greater number of UK games published and commercialised

Figure 4. Theory of Change for the UK Games Fund (including DunDev)

Use zoom on your browser to view

Text description

Rationale:

• Problems facing small businesses
  • Limited access to finance for start up and scale up
  • Market power with market concentrated in small number of multinational publishers and media distributors
  • Information failure on investment opportunities in new games IP for publishers and investors
•  Skilled-based problems
  • Lack of business skills
  • Skills gaps and shortages, and need to develop new pathways into sector (e.g., apprenticeship standards)

Resources:

£8.4 million investment and Time contributions from previous UKGF alumni embedded in all Strands:

• 9 UKGF Prototype funding rounds (Rounds 9 to 15)
• Tranzfuser talent programme (Rounds 8 to 10)
• DunDev residential project (Round 1 to 3)

Activities:

• Activities related to Prototype funding
  • Up to £30,000 grant for each awarded project
• Activities related to Tranzfuser:
  • U to £7500 grant with mentoring and skills development support
  • 4 virtual conferences and 3 live stream events
  • 2 local award and two pitching events
  • 2 networking events 
• Activities related to DunDev: 
  • Up to £10,000 value of cash and in-kind support, including consultancy and access to ‘hot housing’ environment 
  • Tailored consultancy support to develop entrepreneurial skills
  • Participation in pitching events

Outputs:

• Around 180 (60 p.a.) diverse early-stage companies developing new games IP^{[footnote 1]}
• Development of technical and commercial skills^{[footnote 2]}
• Around 60 (20 p.a.) Tranzfuser and 12 (4 p.a.) DunDev graduate teams developing technical and commercial skills^{[footnote 3]}
• Improved interaction with other developers and development of potential collaboration opportunities
• Increased interaction with investors, publishers and platforms 
• Improved understanding of finance options available and networking with potential investors 

Early outcomes:

• Further development of creative portfolios/ development of new game IPs
• Commercialisation of game IP
• Skills gaps reduction
• Career development in the games sector
• New collaborations with games developers
• Improved networking with peers, investors, publishers and platforms
• Improved investors perception of games company (company profile)
• Higher access to private finance

Medium-term outcomes:

• Increased productivity
• Reduction in company financial risk level
• Increased investment in micro and SME businesses
• Start up development and increased business survival rate
• Increased attraction and retention of graduates/talent within the games industry
• Greater number of prototype games published and commercialised

Impacts:

• Company level impact:
  • UK-wide increase in number of jobs in funded businesses
• Sector-wide impact:
  • Increased number of supported graduates working in games sector
  • UK-wide increase in GVA
  • Increased quality and quantity of British IP

1. The application process for prototype funding views as desirable businesses which are working with inclusivity / diversity and supporting different voices (e.g. the BFI guidance). ↩

2. Commercial skills include the non-technical skills necessary to successfully commercialise a game, including (but not limited to) business management, networking, legal, content regulation etc. ↩

3. Commercial skills include the non-technical skills necessary to successfully commercialise a game, including (but not limited to) business management, networking, legal, content regulation etc. ↩