Research and analysis

Evaluation of the UK Games Fund

Published 18 July 2025

Report Structure

This report is structured as follows:

Summary findings provides a two-page summary of the key impact evaluation findings of the report related to business growth, IP quality, financial stability, and skills.

Executive summary provides a summary of the key elements of the report, including a programme summary of the UKGF, the methodology used for the evaluation, and the key findings from the main evaluation and the evaluation of the Content Fund.

• Chapter I presents a summary of each UKGF strand, as well as detailing the scope and rationale for this evaluation.
• Chapter II provides an overview of the approach and methodologies used to conduct the process, impact, and economic evaluations of the UKGF and the process and impact evaluation of the Content Fund.
• Chapter III presents the UKGF (Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund) Theory of Change and the Content Fund Theory of Change.
• Chapters IV and V present the key findings from the final process and impact evaluations of Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund.
• Chapter VI presents findings from the process and impact evaluation of the Content Fund.
• Chapter VII presents findings from the economic evaluation of the UKGF, including an economic evaluation framework for the Content Fund.
• Appendices providing supplementary detail in relation to the evaluation, including (a) evaluation questions and (b) a technical appendix providing a detailed summary of our quantitative approaches used in the impact and economic evaluations.

Summary findings

This summary provides headline insights from the impact and economic evaluation of the UK Games Fund (UKGF), covering Tranzfuser, DunDev, and Prototype Fund.

The UKGF helps beneficiaries grow their businesses and their teams

The UKGF increased the number of jobs in the video game industry whilst contributing to productivity benefits for the UK economy. We found that:

• Based on a cost-benefit analysis of funding, the current three-year iteration of the UKGF will generate in the range of £30m to £58m in productivity benefits for the UK economy due to salary uplifts for supported video game developers. When set against the costs of delivery, this represents a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of between 3.8 and 7.3, with a central estimate of 4.8.
• Based on analysis of a survey of beneficiaries, UKGF funding was associated with generating an additional 0.3 FTE employees, after one year of receiving funding, compared to those who did not receive UKGF support. Each additional £10k of funding is associated with an increase of an additional 0.2 FTE. Aggregating this information, our economic evaluation found that the current three-year iteration of the UKGF was estimated to contribute around 430 additional FTE jobs in the video games sector.

The UKGF supports teams to generate high-quality and monetisable IP

Through UKGF support, funded teams were able to further develop their creative portfolios and dedicate more time to the generation of new IP. We found that:

• UKGF support was associated with an eight-percentage-point increase in the probability of beneficiaries having developed a prototype or video game after one year of funding, compared to those who did not receive UKGF support.
• Every £10k of funding is associated with a five-percentage-point increase in the probability of generating reusable assets or code after one year of receiving funding, with the average funding award value (£22.7k) associated with a ten-percentage-point increase in the probability of generating reusable assets or code, and the maximum award value (£30k) associated with a 14-percentage-point increase in the probability of generating reusable assets or code.
• 74% of beneficiaries surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that their prototype or video game would not have been completed without UKGF support, and 85% agreed or strongly agreed that UKGF support increased how quickly their prototype had been developed.
• UKGF funding recipients were also able to monetise an additional 0.2 games after one year of funding, compared to those who did not receive support. Aggregating this estimate to the full cohort of UKGF beneficiaries, this indicates that around an additional 115 games were commercialised or monetised by teams supported by the UKGF after one year of support, compared to those teams that did not receive support.
• 78% of beneficiaries surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that UKGF support had increased the quality of their prototype or complete game.

The UKGF supports the financial stability of funded companies

Our findings indicated that the UKGF has been successful at reducing the financial risk level of funded companies, helping micro and SME video games businesses leverage additional private investment. We found that:

• UKGF-funded companies surveyed leveraged an additional £18.2m in funding, which exceeds the total £13m invested into the fund. This figure is likely to be an underestimation of the total funding leveraged by UKGF beneficiaries, as only 15% of all applicants responded to the survey.
• 75% of beneficiaries surveyed also agreed or strongly agreed that the UKGF increased their skills related to accessing funding and awareness of available funding options, suggesting that UKGF companies feel they have a better ability to raise funding following UKGF.
• A large majority (80%) of beneficiaries agreed or strongly agreed that the UKGF support had reduced the risk level of their video game project.

The extent of UKGF’s impact on skill development is strand-specific

Beneficiaries had more mixed views on the extent to which UKGF support helped them develop their skills. Tranzfuser and DunDev beneficiaries felt more positively about the extent to which UKGF built their skills than those supported by the Prototype Fund.

• With respect to skills regarding managing intellectual property, 79% of Tranzfuser participants agreed or strongly agreed that the UKGF had supported the development of these skills, while only 60% of Prototype Fund beneficiaries agreed or strongly agreed.
• The impact of the UKGF in addressing a skills gap in education and training for video game development and design was mixed. Whilst 49% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this was the case, 34% were neutral to the statement, with a further 17% disagreeing that this was the case.

Executive summary

Scope of the evaluation

Alma Economics was commissioned to conduct an independent evaluation of the UK Games Fund (UKGF), covering the period from 2015/16 to 2024/25. The impact, process, and economic evaluation covered the extent to which the four funding strands that make up the UKGF (Tranzfuser, DunDev, the Prototype Fund, and the Content Fund) were meeting their aims and objectives, how the UKGF contributed to positive outcomes among recipient companies and teams, and quantified the benefits generated by the programme. This report is the final output from the evaluation and includes an evaluation of the three years of funding awards within the current iteration of funding (2022/23 to 2024/25), as well as the period 2015/16 to 2021/22 relating to previous iterations of the programme.

UK Games Fund objectives and structure

The UKGF aims to provide support to the UK games development sector to grow, create new jobs and skills, and develop new intellectual property. The UKGF has three strategic objectives to support this:

• To help early-stage games businesses and entrepreneurs by supporting the pathways to prototype funding and follow-on match funding, as well as private debt and equity finance investment.
• To improve investability in supported companies, by improving investor perceptions of digital intellectual property (IP) and promoting high IP housekeeping standards and,
• To develop talented games designers and developers, including graduates, to become entrepreneurs with careers in the games sector.

The UKGF is run by UK Games Talent and Finance Community Interest Company (UKGTF), a non-profit organisation with the remit to support the UK’s early-stage games development and digital interactive businesses and creative ecosystem. The UKGF is also supported by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS), who provide funding and oversee the fund, working closely with the delivery partner on the design and administration. The total value of the UK Games Fund was approximately £13.4m, spread over the three-year period 2022/23 to 2024/25. There are three strands of support that make up the main programme of UKGF: Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund, and comprise £8.4m of the total funding. An additional £5m of funding was also committed at a later date to the Content Fund, which is described separately below. The key aims and activities of each strand are:

• Prototype Fund: provides financial support to early-stage game development companies to help them commercialise their games or IP.
• Content Fund: provides grant funding to high-potential companies for video game content development.
• Tranzfuser: provides funding and support to graduate game development teams to enable them to get ready for pitching to the Prototype Fund.
• DunDev: a pilot residential development programme, taking place in Dundee, supporting high-potential studios that have completed the Tranzfuser programme.

Launch of the Content Fund in 2023

The Content Fund, launched in September 2023, is a £5m uplift to the UKGF, providing high-potential companies with grants for video game content development of between £50k and £150k. Its strategic objectives include:

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

Content Fund funding is administered on a rolling basis, with assessment panels meeting roughly once a month to review and approve applications. To apply to the Content Fund, any company can submit an Expression of Interest (EOI), which is then reviewed by UKGTF, who proceed to invite companies with good cases for support to submit a full application.

Our evaluation approach

Our approach to this evaluation involved a combination of (i) quasi-experimental analytical techniques to develop robust estimates of the UKGF’s impact, and (ii) a theory-based realist approach using mixed methods to generate a blend of qualitative and quantitative insights into the processes and impact delivered by the UKGF. The key stages of our approach included:

• A desk-based review of key UKGF documentation.
• Analysis of monitoring data associated with the fund.
• Delivery of a survey of successful and unsuccessful UKGF applicants. This survey included a set of quantitative questions asking applicants about key outcomes before and after the fund, which were analysed to measure the causal impact of funding.
• Interviews with UKGF applicants and key industry stakeholders.
• Analysis of survey data using quasi-experimental analytical techniques.
• A social cost-benefit analysis to deliver insight into the UKGF’s value-for-money.

Given the relatively early stage of the Content Fund, the process and impact evaluation were primarily informed through interviews with programme beneficiaries, supplemented by analysis of available monitoring data. A full economic evaluation was not carried out for the Content Fund as part of this evaluation.

The evaluation of the Content Fund ran in parallel with, but separate from, the evaluation of Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund. Therefore, the findings from the evaluation of those three strands have been grouped together, whereas findings from the evaluation of the Content Fund are presented separately.

Highlights from the process evaluation

Headline findings from the process evaluation of the UKGF (Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund) are presented below, with more detail provided in Chapter IV. The process evaluation spanned insights from the UKGF and industry stakeholders, covering the period 2015/16 to 2024/25.

Application process

The application process was generally found to be effective at selecting high-quality applicants in line with the UKGF’s application criteria, and was considered proportionate to the level of funding available. It was viewed by some applicants that the provision of more detailed and personalised feedback, particularly for unsuccessful applicants, would provide valuable learnings for future funding applications.

Information provision and awareness

Awareness of UKGF support was found to be high across the stakeholders we engaged with, further evidenced by programmes often being heavily oversubscribed, with the average success rate of funding being around 20% across all strands. Applicants reported being referred to the UKGF programmes through a range of channels, including through academic institutions and universities, social media, word of mouth, and industry newsletters. Applicants were drawn to apply for the UKGF programmes for both financial and non-financial benefits, with many applicants drawn to the grant-based structure of the Prototype Fund, and to the events and support provided as part of the Tranzfuser and DunDev programmes. It was generally viewed that flows of information during the programme were sufficient, with key channels of information including correspondence with UKGTF and access to previous successful and unsuccessful applicants via the programme’s Discord channels.

Operational delivery and programme design

Feedback on UKGTF’s role delivering the programmes was generally very positive, with programme beneficiaries and industry stakeholders praising their knowledge, responsiveness, relationship building with beneficiaries, and industry contacts. Beneficiaries typically valued the contribution of industry professionals to the Tranzfuser and DunDev programmes, although some would have preferred more ‘hands-on’ mentorship and more opportunities to interact with publishers and investors. Beneficiaries were generally very complimentary of the model of ‘community contribution,’ whereby previous beneficiaries are provided with support from UKGF alumni.

Whilst financial support provided as part of all three UKGF strands was highly valued by beneficiaries, some advocated for the provision of larger awards, more flexibility on how funding can be used, or longer-term funding commitments. Tranzfuser beneficiaries were generally highly complementary toward the programme, praising elements such as the practice pitches and showcasing events, the playtest offering, peer support, and mentorship opportunities. DunDev participants were typically satisfied with the programme, highlighting as plus points its structured nature, the camaraderie developed through the residential element, and the interactions facilitated with publishers and investors. Some beneficiaries were disappointed with the scale of the showcase event. Prototype Fund beneficiaries generally highly valued the financial support offered through the programme, although some advocated for more non-financial support as part of the programme, including mentorship, industry events, introductions, and networking opportunities.

Highlights from the impact evaluation

Key findings from the impact evaluation of the UKGF are presented below, with more detail provided in Chapter V. The impact evaluation synthesised insights and data from UKGF applicants and other industry stakeholders, covering the period 2015/16 to 2024/25. While quantitative analysis of survey data presents good initial evidence of the impact of UKGF support on video game development companies, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, based on a relatively small sample size amongst some participant groups, and varying levels of statistical significance for different impacts.

Developing video games or prototypes

Quantitative analysis of applicant survey data suggests that receiving UKGF support is associated with an eight-percentage-point increase in the probability of having developed a complete prototype or video game after one year of receiving support. Beneficiaries also generally felt that participating in the UKGF programmes had increased the quality of the game they were able to create as a result. Specific elements several beneficiaries discussed as improving the quality of their game included (i) having funding to hire contract workers to develop specialist elements of their game, (ii) having the opportunity to participate in playtest sessions to get feedback from the public and industry professionals, and (iii) having to submit regular progress updates to the UKGF, which ensured consistent development work throughout the programme period.

Generating high-quality, reusable IP

Based on findings from the survey of applicants, UKGF support is associated with an 11-percentage-point increase in the probability of generating reusable IP after one year of receiving support. Survey respondents were also asked if UKGF support increased how quickly their video game or prototype was able to be developed, and if the video game would have been built without UK Games Fund support. A large majority of beneficiaries (85%) either agreed or strongly agreed that UKGF support had increased how quickly their complete or prototype game was developed. A large majority of beneficiaries (74%) also either agreed or strongly agreed that their prototype or complete video game would not have been built without UKGF support, with 18% of respondents disagreeing that this was the case. Industry stakeholders were mostly positive that the UKGF programmes had led to the development of innovative and high-standard IP. The most common explanation for this was simply that programmes allowed funded companies to dedicate the time, money, and space to developing their own IP, rather than having to do contract work on the side.

Monetising and commercialising video games

Analysis of survey data found that UKGF-supported games companies were estimated to have monetised 0.2 extra video games than those who did not receive support, after one year of receiving funding. Aggregating this estimate to the full cohort of UKGF beneficiaries, this indicates that around an additional 115 games were commercialised or monetised by teams supported by the UKGF after one year of support, compared to those teams that did not receive support. Most industry stakeholders interviewed also felt that the UKGF-funded programmes provided a clear pathway for companies from development to commercialisation. Several industry stakeholders said that whilst the funding is important, it is also the mentoring, support, skill-building, and creation of a cohort of funded companies that is equally important to achieve commercialisation.

Company growth and employment

UKGF-supported games companies were estimated to have employed 0.3 extra full-time equivalent employees after one year of receiving support, compared with if they had not received support. Beneficiaries who discussed changes in the number of employees were mixed regarding whether employment had grown, decreased, or stayed the same. For graduates specifically, analysis of UKGF monitoring data suggested that the majority (59%) of funded companies had not hired any graduates and were not planning to. Insights from interviews also suggested that the UKGF had a positive impact on financial performance and growth, with applicants noting that turnover and profit had increased after having participated in the fund.

Highlights from the economic evaluation

The economic evaluation for the UKGF was based on outputs of the impact evaluation and inputs from the economic literature, all combined within cost-benefit analysis.

Estimated benefits are primarily related to increased labour productivity flowing from increased employment in the games sector, reflecting evidence that the games sector is a relatively high productivity sector compared with alternative employment options for supported developers. We also estimated that the UKGF generates benefits relating to increased consumer welfare for video gamers through their consumption of supported game titles, and increased welfare for UKGF participants, reflecting the training elements of DunDev and Tranzfuser, although the monetised value of these benefits is much smaller than those stemming from gains to labour force productivity. Other benefits we were not able to monetise, due to lack of evidence, included technology and IP spillovers, which benefit both the wider video game sector and adjacent sectors.

Overall, we estimate that the current three-year iteration of the UKGF (including Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund) will generate combined benefits in the range of £30m to £58m (in Present Value terms) over a 10- to 15-year time horizon, with a central estimate of around £38m. When set against the costs of delivery, this represents a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of between 3.8 and 7.3, with a central estimate of 4.8. Our central, low, and upper bound estimates account for uncertainty in several key assumptions, in particular representing more and less optimistic assumptions for the level of displacement and the persistence of the productivity impacts over time (see Appendix for full details). These results are summarised in the table below.

Table 1. UKGF benefits and costs summary

Benefits/costs (Present value terms, 2023 base year)	Central estimate	Lower bound estimate	Upper bound estimate
Labour productivity benefits (£m)	38.4	29.9	58.5
Wellbeing benefits for adult learners (£m)	0.3	0.3	0.3
Increased consumer welfare for video gamers (£m)	0.2	0.2	0.2
Total benefits (£m)	38.8	30.3	58.9
Costs (£m)	(8.1)	(8.1)	(8.1)
Net social benefit (£m)	30.7	22.2	50.8
Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (BCR)	4.8	3.8	7.3

Source: Alma Economics analysis

Content Fund evaluation

Given the relatively early stage of the Content Fund at the time of the evaluation, its process and impact evaluation are discussed separately from the evaluation of the other, longer-running UKGF programmes (Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund). The aim of the Content Fund evaluation was to gather early feedback on the implementation of the Content Fund, including key processes, early impacts, and perceived future impacts.

Key findings from the process and impact evaluation of Content Fund are presented below, with more detail provided in Chapter VI. The process and impact evaluation spanned insights from the UKGTF team and funded companies through the period September 2023 to March 2025.

Highlights from the process evaluation

Application process

The application process for the Content Fund currently consists of an Expression of Interest, followed by an invitation for good cases to provide a full application. The UKGTF team explained that this helps manage the high demand for the funding and ensures those reaching the full application stage are those with a higher chance of receiving funding. Funded companies were generally satisfied with the application process and viewed it as straightforward and proportionate to the level of funding on offer, as well as other funding opportunities they had applied for. A few studios felt that the eligibility criteria could be made clearer.

Information provision and awareness

Both the UKGTF team and funded companies viewed there to be good awareness of the Content Fund amongst games studios and the wider industry. Most commonly, funded companies found out about Content Fund through word-of-mouth, but also sometimes mailing lists, forums, and talks at events. Throughout the programme, information provision was said to be sufficient, with opportunities to receive information through regular reporting and catch-up sessions, as well as ad-hoc queries to the UKGTF team.

Operational delivery and programme design

The support offered through Content Fund takes the form of non-repayable grants of £50,000 to £150,000. The UKGTF team also mentioned opportunistic events that involve publishers and investors, which are made available to funded companies (for example, the Develop conference in Brighton). Overall, funded companies felt the amount on offer was sufficient. Beneficiaries also generally preferred the ‘hands-off’ approach from UKGTF in relation to non-financial support and advice, owing to the fact that they are more established studios. All of the funded companies interviewed felt that the UKGTF team have the right skills and expertise to effectively deliver the Content Fund.

As the Content Fund has been in pilot stage, the UKGTF team expressed that the only iterations of the programme so far have come from the application process (e.g., additional questions added), but they view learning and iterating as a key part of all UKGF programmes.

Highlights from the impact evaluation

Company growth and employment

Interviews with funded companies revealed most businesses had grown, or were expected to grow, in terms of revenue and headcount, with Content Fund funding said to have contributed positively to enabling this growth. As a result of the support, some funded companies had also released their games, and others had signed deals with publishers. Those who felt their business had not yet grown owed this to their game not having been released yet. Many funded companies had made full-time hires using the funding, mostly converting contractors to PAYE employees. Remuneration and staff benefits were less directly impacted. Awareness and profile of businesses were also less directly impacted, as the interviewed studios were typically already established within the industry.

Investability and generating IP

For most funded companies, the quality of the game they were able to produce was also improved through Content Fund funding. Some expressed that their game would not have reached commercial launch at all without the funding. Around half of the interviewees felt that the funding had been instrumental in moving conversations along with publishers and investors. For those who had not yet secured a publisher deal, this often related to the fact that they had only recently finished development using the funds, or they were not seeking this route (e.g., self-publishing instead). A number of these studios felt that the Content Fund would help with securing a publisher deal in the future, firstly through developing a polished demo and secondly because of the prestige that comes with being UKGF-funded, making their project more attractive to publishers. A few funded companies also said that the funding had allowed them to better balance work for hire versus working on their own IP.

Collaborations and relationships

Funded companies typically viewed that their collaborations with other game developers did not benefit from access to the Content Fund, although generally, companies were not expecting or proactively seeking out these opportunities. New relationships with publishers and investors were also less directly impacted by Content Fund, but some funded companies noted that their existing investors viewed being awarded the funding positively. A couple of companies did, however, mention being invited by the UKGTF team to the Develop conference in Brighton as a good opportunity to meet publishers and investors.

Skills development

Some funded companies felt that Content Fund had strengthened their technical skills due to the fact that the funding increased their security and freedom to experiment with more advanced features, new engines, and more detailed artwork. Other skills that were mentioned as being developed due to receipt of funding included managerial, production, and marketing skills.

1. Background and context of this evaluation

About the UK Games Fund

The UK Games Fund (UKGF) aims to provide support to the UK’s games development sector to grow, create new jobs and skills, and develop new intellectual property (IP). The UKGF has three strategic objectives to support this:

• to help early-stage games businesses and entrepreneurs, by supporting the pathways to prototype funding and follow-on match funding (for example, from publishers) and also in some cases private debt and equity finance investment.
• to improve investability in supported companies, by improving investor perceptions of digital IP and promoting very high IP housekeeping standards, and
• to develop talented games designers and developers, including graduates, to become entrepreneurs with careers in the games sector.

The UKGF is run by UK Games Talent and Finance Community Interest Company (UKGTF). UKGTF is a non-profit organisation with the remit to support the UK’s early-stage games development and digital interactive business and creative ecosystem in terms of both companies and individuals. The UKGF is supported by the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS), who provide funding and oversee the fund, working closely with the delivery partner on its design and administration. The total value of the UKGF was approximately £13.4m, spread over the three-year period 2022/23 to 2024/25. The three strands of UKGF support that are the main focus of this evaluation are Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund, representing £8.4m of total funding, but we also carried out an evaluation of the relatively early-stage £5m Content Fund (see Chapter VI). These funding strands are described in more detail in the diagram and descriptions below.

Figure 1. Access pathways for UKGF funding strand.

The Prototype Fund

The Prototype Fund provides support to early-stage games developments, offering single grant awards of up to £30,000 through open competition to games development business^{[footnote 1]}. Through 2022/23 to 2024/25, around 60 businesses were supported each year, varying with the level of grant awarded.

The Content Fund

The Content Fund, launched in September 2023, is a £5 million uplift to the UKGF, providing high-potential companies with grants for video game content development of between £50k-£150k. This funding is designated for paying UK PAYE employees and (to a lesser extent) contractors with hands-on involvement in development. Through this support, it is expected that the Content Fund will allow companies to develop new IP, derisking private investment and further content development funding. Its strategic objectives include:

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

Content Fund grants are administered on a rolling basis, with assessment panels meeting roughly once a month to review and approve applications. To apply to the Content Fund, any company can submit an Expression of Interest (EOI), which is then reviewed by UKGTF, who proceed to invite companies with good cases for support to submit a full application.

Applicants to the Content Fund must comply with a series of financial and operational requirements to be eligible for funding, including the need for (i) the company to be UK registered with PAYE employees engaged in games development work in the UK, (ii) a prototype to already be in place, and (iii) overall project costs at least double the requested grant^{[footnote 2]}.

Tranzfuser

Tranzfuser provides an access route to the prototype funding grants for graduate development teams pre-formation. Approximately 20 graduate teams participate in Tranzfuser in every financial year. This strand offers grants of £7,500 with mentoring and skills development support, as well as an opportunity for teams to pitch for up to an additional £25,000 prototype grant awards to continue the commercial development of their game with further business support. The funding dedicated to each Tranzfuser team has increased over the years. From 2016 to 2021, teams received £5,000 in funding, in 2022, teams received £6,000, and in 2023, the amount increased to £7,500.

DunDev

DunDev (originally the Dundee Development Project) is a pilot residential development project that aims to capitalise on UKGTF’s location in the Dundee games development cluster and support the accelerated growth of high-potential post-Tranzfuser studios through a combination of facilities fostering development sprints and business skills. This provides the studios with the resources to be best placed to pitch for an additional £30,000 prototype funding grant from the UKGF. Up to four companies are invited to join DunDev each year from a pool of competitive applications.

Objectives and scope of the evaluation

In Summer 2023, we were commissioned by DCMS to conduct an independent evaluation of the UKGF, covering the activities supported through Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund. Within the scope for this research was a process, impact, and economic evaluation of the UKGF for the current funding iteration (covering the period 2022/23 to 2024/25). An impact evaluation for previous iterations of the UKGF, covering the period 2015/16 to 2021/22, was also within scope for the evaluation and was used primarily to understand medium- to long-term impacts of funding.

Following the launch of the Content Fund in September 2023, the scope of the evaluation was extended to include a process evaluation and impact evaluation of Content Fund funding through to the end of March 2025. The scope of this evaluation also included an early-stage economic evaluation with the aim of developing a framework for measuring the Content Fund’s value-for-money.

2. Approach and methodology

Approach–UKGF evaluation

The diagram below summarises our approach to delivering the evaluation of Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund, with further detail on the methodology adopted at each stage of the process provided below. The approach to evaluating the Content Fund is described at the end of this section.

Figure 2. Summary of research methodology.

1a. Desk-based review of UKGF documentation

At the start of the evaluation, we identified and reviewed key documentation relating to the UKGF with the aim of understanding the processes involved in administering funding, the key areas of impact, and the UKGF’s wider context within the video game sector. Key documents reviewed at this stage included (i) descriptions of the three strands, (ii) eligibility criteria, (iii) the previous UKGF programme evaluation (conducted by EKOS in 2019), and (iv) the existing UKGF Theory of Change.

1b. Collection and analysis of monitoring data

Monitoring data for the UKGF programmes was extracted and reviewed as part of this evaluation to provide insight into the nature and performance of the funding. Data shared with Alma by UKGTF included information on (i) the status of the application, (ii) the size and type of any support, (iii) anticipated benefits from the programme, and (iv) beneficiary feedback on the programmes.

1c. Scoping discussions with UKGTF

A series of scoping discussions were held with the UKGTF team, covering topics such as (i) background and context behind UKGF, (ii) discussion of key processes, (iii) access to data and documentation, (iv) access to stakeholders and steers and support with survey distribution.

2. Theory of Change workshop

To reach a shared understanding of the UKGF and agree on key evaluation priorities (including evaluation questions and key impacts to be measured), a Theory of Change workshop was held in August 2023. This involved presenting and discussing a refined version of the UKGF Theory of Change in a workshop format, which included representatives from DCMS, UKGTF, and industry experts, with feedback being collated and used to further refine and finalise the programme’s Theory of Change. The Theory of Change was a live tool that was monitored throughout the evaluation period. The final UKGF Theory of Change can be found in Chapter III.

The Theory of Change is a framework that sets out the causal chains that flow from the implementation of a project or policy, determining how, why, and to what extent inputs result in outcomes and impact. The distinct events in this framework are defined as follows:

Figure 3. Theory of Change framework.

3a. Survey of applicants

Approach to survey design and rollout

A survey questionnaire was distributed to 1,119 previous successful and unsuccessful applicants to the three UKGF strands covering the period 2015 to 2022, collecting data to inform primarily the impact evaluation of the UKGF. A long-form version of the survey was open for responses from December 2023 to January 2024, receiving valid responses from 111 past applicants. A shortened version of the survey, focusing on a targeted set of core research questions, was open in February 2024 and received a further 41 valid responses. Finally, in November of 2024, the long-form survey was reopened to capture responses from new beneficiaries engaged in the UKGF programmes since the previous wave. This survey received an additional 58 valid responses and was distributed to 242 recipients. Across both surveys, this represented a survey response rate of around 15%. Table 1 shows the number of successful and unsuccessful applicants who responded to the survey across all three waves.

The survey included questions on the following topics and themes:

• Which programme(s) each applicant had applied for and when, specifying which applications were successful or unsuccessful.
• The characteristics make-up of the team or company that had applied for the funding.
• A series of questions asking all applicants to consider their situation with respect to an
• Array of potential outcomes just before, one year after, and four years after (if applicable) their last successful application (or last unsuccessful application if they had never received funding). The questions sought to elicit changes in outcomes over time for both successful and unsuccessful applicants, spanning key impact areas from the Theory of Change, including generation of IP, game monetisation and commercialisation, and job creation.

Table 2. Number of survey respondents (all waves) by date of last successful application

Date of last successful application	All applicants (successful and unsuccessful)	Successful applicants
2020 or earlier	40	20
Between 2021 and 2022	112	68
2023 or later	58	33
Total	210	121

Source: A final set of questions asked successful applicants to consider the extent to which the perceived UKGF support has contributed to a range of other impacts (including leveraging additional funding, improving the quality of their game, increasing skills, amongst others).

Approach to quantitative analysis of survey responses

Our primary approach to quantitatively measuring the impact of the UKGF involved the application of a Difference-in-Difference research design, an HM Treasury Magenta Book-endorsed quasi-experimental impact evaluation approach. One of the main challenges for estimating the impact of the UKGF is that its counterfactual—the scenario that would have occurred if beneficiaries had not received funding—is unknown. Our Difference-in-Difference research design involved three main steps (a technical summary of the approach can be found in Appendix B):

1. Outcomes immediately before funding and at defined post-funding intervals (i.e., one year after the last successful application) were measured through the survey and used to calculate changes in outcomes for beneficiaries over time.

2. The step above was repeated, but for the outcomes of unsuccessful applicants.

3. The impact of the UKGF was derived by estimating the difference in the change in outcomes between successful and unsuccessful applicants, thus using unsuccessful applicants as a proxy for the counterfactual of successful applicants (i.e., providing insight into how the careers of beneficiaries may have progressed without UKGF support).

The impacts measured through this method included (i) the likelihood of developing a prototype video game, (ii) the likelihood of developing reusable video game IP, (iii) the number of video games monetised, and (iv) the number of jobs being sustained in the video game industry. Four-year outcomes were also captured through the survey but are generally not reported as low sample sizes for earlier cohorts led to low levels of robustness.

3b. Interviews with programme stakeholders

A series of semi-structured interviews was held between September 2023 and February 2025 to inform the process and impact evaluation of the UKGF. Our research team then conducted a thematic analysis of the interviews, with the main findings presented in detail within the subsequent chapters. Insights from 54 interviews were included in this report, covering:

• Forty-two interviews with UKGF applicants, 41 successful and one unsuccessful, with coverage of all three UKGF strands (DunDev, Tranzfuser, Prototype Fund). Applicants were recruited either through contact details shared by the UKGF evaluation research team (e.g., for some Tranzfuser and DunDev participants) or through expressions of interest in participating through the surveys.
• Twelve interviews with other industry stakeholders, including members of the UKGTF delivery team, the UKGF Community Advisory Group, DCMS policymakers, Local Hub Coordinators, and industry trade bodies^{[footnote 3]},^{[footnote 4]}.

3c. Social cost-benefit analysis

In line with HM Treasury Green Book best practice, we conducted a Social Cost-Benefit Analysis to estimate the benefits of the UKGF programme, weighing these against its costs of delivery. Benefits measured included uplifts in labour productivity, increased wellbeing for programme participants, and increases in consumer welfare for video gamers. The assumptions underpinning our economic modelling are summarised in Appendix B of this report, and include data gathered through a range of sources, including (i) analysis of responses to the Alma Economics survey of UKGF beneficiaries, (ii) data provided by the programme delivery partner (UKGTF), (iii) data from major statistical publications, and (iv) estimates from the academic literature.

Approach to the Content Fund evaluation

Given the relatively early stage of the Content Fund at the time of this evaluation, its process and impact evaluation were primarily informed by interviews with programme beneficiaries and the programme delivery partner (UKGTF), supplemented by analysis of available monitoring data. The aim of these activities was to gather early feedback on the implementation of the Content Fund, including key processes, early impacts, and perceived future impacts.

To develop these insights, a series of semi-structured interviews was held with Content Fund beneficiaries between July 2024 and February 2025. Our research team then conducted a thematic analysis of the interviews, with the main findings presented in detail in subsequent chapters. Insights from 16 interviews were included in this report, covering:

• Fifteen interviews with Content Fund applicants, all successful applicants, with contact details obtained from the UKGTF delivery team.
• One interview with three members of the Content Fund delivery team, including the Head of Impact, Portfolio Manager, and Grant Monitor.

We also developed a framework for a future economic evaluation of the Content Fund, which describes approaches for quantifying the benefits and costs of the funding within a social cost-benefit analysis framework as part of future evaluation activities.

3. Theory of Change for UK Games Fund

Theory of Change: Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund

Theory of Change: The Content Fund

4. Findings from process evaluation of Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund

Summary of findings

There were high levels of satisfaction with the programme amongst beneficiaries of all three UKGF strands, with evidence generally pointing to key processes working as intended.

Application process

• The application process was generally found to be effective at selecting high-quality applicants in line with the UKGF’s application criteria, with the process overall considered to be proportionate to the level of funding available.
• It was viewed by some that the provision of more detailed and personalised feedback, particularly for unsuccessful applicants, would provide valuable learnings for future funding applications.

Information provision and awareness

• Awareness of the UKGF support offering was found to be high across the stakeholders we engaged with, further evidenced by programmes often being heavily oversubscribed, with a minority of applicants being successful in their application to the fund. Applicants reported being referred to the UKGF programmes through a range of channels, including academic institutions, social media, word-of-mouth, and newsletters.
• Applicants were drawn to apply for the UKGF programmes for both financial and non-financial benefits, with many valuing the ‘no strings’ nature (as opposed to a recoupable loan or matched funding arrangement) of Prototype Fund grants and the events and support provided as part of the Tranzfuser and DunDev programmes.
• It was generally viewed that flows of information during programmes were sufficient, with key channels of information including correspondence with UKGTF and access to previous successful and unsuccessful applicants via the programme’s Discord channels.

Operational delivery

• Feedback on UKGTF’s role delivering the programmes was generally very positive, with programme beneficiaries and industry stakeholders praising their knowledge, responsiveness, relationship building with beneficiaries, and industry contacts.
• Beneficiaries typically valued the contribution of industry professionals to the Tranzfuser and DunDev programmes, although some would have preferred more ‘hands-on’ mentorship and more opportunities to interact with publishers and investors. Beneficiaries were generally very complimentary of the model of ‘community contribution,’ whereby previous beneficiaries are provided with support from UKGF alumni.

Programme design

• Whilst financial support provided as part of all three UKGF strands was highly valued by beneficiaries, some advocated for the provision of larger awards, more flexibility on how funding can be used, or longer-term funding commitments. A few applicants and some industry stakeholders noted that the introduction of the Content Fund was a step in the right direction in this regard.
• Tranzfuser beneficiaries were generally highly complementary toward the programme, praising elements such as the practice pitches and showcasing events, the playtest offering, peer support, and mentorship opportunities.
• DunDev participants were typically satisfied with the programme, highlighting as plus points its structured nature, the camaraderie developed through the residential element, and the interactions facilitated with publishers and investors. Some beneficiaries were disappointed with the scale of the showcase event.
• Prototype Fund beneficiaries generally highly valued the financial support offered through the programme, although some advocated for more non-financial support as part of the programme, including mentorship, industry events, introductions, and networking opportunities.

Monitoring and evaluation

• The UKGF was generally viewed to be proactive in identifying and refining key processes, with several processes having been refined substantially since the programme’s inception.
• A range of suggested refinements was made by the applicants and stakeholders we engaged with. These are summarised above and, in the text, below.

The remainder of this section presents in more detail the key findings from the process evaluation of the UKGF, drawing on insights from interviews, monitoring data, and the survey of previous applicants. Insights relate to applicants who applied for support between 2022/23 and 2024/25, supplemented by insights from those who applied in earlier cohorts (2015 to 2021). Findings are arranged thematically, relating to the area of process that the analysis relates to.

Summary of the UKGF

The following tables provide details on the number of applicants and beneficiaries for each programme and the amounts of funding awarded, based on monitoring data provided by UKGTF.

Tranzfuser

Sixty-one games teams (approximately 20 per year) were enrolled onto the Tranzfuser programme across the period 2022/23 to 2024/25, with 135 teams having received support through previous iterations of Tranzfuser. The success rate for Tranzfuser from 2015/16 to 2024/25 was around 50%.

Table 3. Tranzfuser applicants and teams funded

Round	Number of teams applying	Number of teams supported	Success rate
2015/16-2021/22 waves	235	135	57%
2022/23-2024/25 waves	150	61	41%
Total	385	196	51%

Source: UKGTF monitoring data

DunDev

DunDev was introduced in 2022/23 and supported 11 game companies (approximately four per annum) across three annual cohorts over the period 2022/23 to 2024/25. The success rate of applications for DunDev was approximately 30%^{[footnote 5]}.

Table 4. DunDev participants and funding awarded

Round	Number of companies supported
2022/23	4
2023/24	3
2024/25	4
Total	11

Source: UKGTF monitoring data

Prototype Fund

One hundred seventy-three game companies (approximately 60 per annum) benefited from Prototype Fund grants across the three-year period, 2022/23 to 2024/25, with around £5.1m of funding expected to be distributed. One hundred eighty-nine companies also benefited from previous iterations of the Prototype Fund, with a success rate of around 15% from 2015/16 to 2021/22. As of the most recent funding round, the maximum Prototype grant award was £30,000.

Table 5. Prototype applications, award rate, and funding awarded

Evaluation period	Number of applicants	Number of applicants successful	Success rate	Funding awarded (£m)
2015/16-2021/22	1,296	189	15%	4.3
2022/23-2024/25	615	173	28%	5.1
Total	1,911	362	19%	9.4

Source: UKGTF monitoring data

1. Application process

Prototype fund

To apply to the Prototype Fund, applicants first submit a short Expression of Interest (EOI). UKGTF then reviews EOIs and invites companies who potentially meet the criteria to submit a full application. The application consists of a short, written form and a two-minute video where they have the opportunity to describe their game and business. Applications are assessed centrally by UKGTF in rounds. Successful applicants can receive grants of up to £30,000.

Tranzfuser

To apply to the Tranzfuzer Talent programme, prospective teams submit a two-minute video and a written form that provides information about the team, the company, and the game. Prospective Tranzfuser teams apply to their closest Local Hub, which are typically based within universities. There are 32 Local Hubs in total, with two in Scotland, three in Wales, seven in London, four in Yorkshire, four in the South East, three in the East of England, three in the North West, two in the West Midlands, and one in each of the North East, the East Midlands, and the South West. There is also one virtual hub to facilitate remote and dispersed teams working together. Each Local Hub carries out a review on the applications submitted to them, making a nomination of one team. Where a Local Hub receives more than four applications, UKGTF will consider second and third nominations in the interest of fairness. All applications are assessed by team of external reviewers and Tranzfuser staff, with final teams selected as a result of Local Hub nomination, external and Tranzfuser staff review. Teams are assessed on a set of consistent criteria provided by UKGTF.

DunDev

Historically, only previous Tranzfuser teams are invited to apply to DunDev, although in the most recent iteration of the programme (2025), it was opened up more widely to those who had not previously participated in Tranzfuser. UKGTF assesses DunDev applications, and four teams are chosen to participate in the residential programme. Applications for DunDev open annually in Autumn. At the end of the programme, teams pitch to receive a further £30k Prototype Fund.

1a. General satisfaction

Insights from monitoring data

Data from final claims surveys for the Prototype Fund showed that beneficiaries generally have a favourable opinion of the programme delivery partner, UKGTF, with at least 80% of respondents having a positive view of (i) the effectiveness of UKGTF communications and (ii) their experience with UKGTF overall. A large majority of respondents also either agreed or strongly agreed that the applications and claims processes were simple and straightforward.

Figure 4. Satisfaction of beneficiaries with UKGTF. Source: UKGF Final Claims Survey (N=273).

Insights from interviews

The applicants interviewed were generally satisfied with the content of the application process, viewing it as straightforward compared to other funding opportunities. A few applicants also liked the applications’ focus on the sustainability of the business and on what market the game was catering to, rather than the quality of the game alone. However, others felt that aspects of the application focusing on feasibility and route to market of the game could be highlighted to a greater extent. When comparing the UKGF to other funding opportunities, applicants liked that the application process was tailored to the games sector, noting that it could be difficult to translate their work to more general funding schemes, where they were competing against businesses in other sectors.

Other industry stakeholders’ general impression was that applicant satisfaction with the process was high. A specific positive mentioned by a couple of industry stakeholders was that the Prototype Fund being open in regular ‘rounds’ meant that applicants could apply when they were ready, knowing that another round would not be far away, thus removing the incentive to rush to meet an arbitrary deadline. Some industry stakeholders did, however, caveat that it is impossible to make all applicants happy, stating that, naturally, applicants will prefer an easier or shorter application. It was also highlighted by some industry stakeholders that unsuccessful applicants would naturally feel less satisfied with the application process.

Most industry stakeholders also brought up the oversubscription to programmes when discussing the effectiveness of the application process. One interviewee mentioned that due to the large number of applications received for the most recent round of the Prototype Fund, the UKGF had closed applications sooner than expected, and this was not fully understood by applicants. Similarly, another industry stakeholder mentioned an example of UKGF communications having told potential applicants to take their time with applications, only to then close applications early, which could risk damaging the UKGF’s reputation.

1b. Support for applicants and application feedback

Applicants and stakeholders were asked for their views on the support and feedback offered to applicants during and after the application process. A few applicants specifically noted the support they received from UKGTF during the application process in the form of workshops and Q&A sessions. These applicants felt that this gave them clarity about what they should include in the application or what the fund was looking for. Others spoke about the UKGTF team being responsive when they had more ad-hoc queries.

A few other industry stakeholders stated that feedback on applications was provided for those reaching the interview stage and to those who request it in a polite and professional manner, closer to the time of their next application. One industry stakeholder involved in assessing applications stated that the UKGTF team aimed to make this feedback as constructive as possible, but also caveated that it can be time-consuming to go back through videos and notes.

For both successful and unsuccessful applications, most applicants could not remember receiving feedback, although they did note that it is quite rare to receive feedback for any successful application. Of those who did remember receiving feedback, applicants had mixed opinions on its quality. While one applicant felt that they had received ‘bulk’ or generic feedback, others felt it was bespoke and specific to their team’s game. One unsuccessful applicant thought that Discord could be a good place for applicants to seek out general feedback on their application.

Most UKGTF interviewees also expressed that they would like to be able to provide individual or more detailed feedback, especially for those who are not accepted onto the programmes, but that limited resources do not allow them to do so. Another point raised by one UKGF interviewee was that the community of past and present applicants is now large enough to ‘run itself,’ representing a network that can provide feedback and answer each other’s questions, which has helped ease pressure off the UKGF delivery team.

1c. Intensity of the application process

When asked about the intensity of the application process, most applicants viewed that UKGF applications were comparable to other funding opportunities they had pursued. This was reflected by most industry stakeholders as well, who viewed that whilst the applications were detailed and required work, they were not disproportionate. A few industry stakeholders also mentioned how the funding being government money means that the application process is part of due diligence and therefore should not be just a “tick box exercise.” This was also noted by several applicants who thought that whilst the application process was intense and thorough, it was also a reasonable ask.

Tranzfuser applicants overall found the application process more challenging than DunDev or Prototype applicants, owing to the acknowledgement that they are less experienced and typically figuring out the business side as they go. One industry stakeholder said that the timings for students having to complete applications at the same time as their final deadlines at university make it a more onerous process. This was echoed by a number of Tranzfuser applicants who found the process stressful due to their high workloads at university at the time of applying. Applicants who had participated in more than one programme found that the application was less challenging in subsequent programmes. Overall, the majority of interviewees found the current application processes to be proportionate and at the right level of intensity.

1d. Effectiveness of the UKGF at selecting high-quality applicants

The application process was generally viewed by interviewees as effective at selecting high-quality applicants, with most industry stakeholders stating that the process is thorough, captures what it aims to capture, and ensures supported companies are subject to specific application criteria, which standardise the process and help select the highest-quality applicants.

Some UKGTF interviewees commented that assessing the applications is a subjective process to some degree, but using the same core staff over time, as well as engaging external experts as assessors, has proven effective in making the process more systematic. Most industry stakeholders also said that the UKGF delivery team have a good mix of skills and different perspectives. However, a couple of industry stakeholders mentioned limitations of the current Tranzfuser application process, with one stating that the regional focus of the programmes means that they cannot always accept all high-quality teams from the same area for the risk of overrepresentation, as each Local Hub can only accept one team in most cases. Another commented that the application process could provide applicants with a clearer place to highlight the diversity of their team.

Many industry stakeholders also raised how the UKGF application processes have improved for the better over time. Those involved from early in the life of UKGF highlighted that the application process originally trialled different approaches and has subsequently been honed over time and in response to feedback. Examples of changes to the application processes that were provided by a few industry stakeholders included (i) introducing both a video and written element to capture a wider range of desirable skills from applicants, as well as making the application process more engaging for applicants, (ii) incorporating the screening criteria at an earlier stage in the process to ensure only the most relevant and high-quality companies reach the later, more intense stages of application, subsequently saving resources spent in assessing applications, (iii) Tranzfuser applications moving to a new platform to reduce administrative burden for Local Hubs, and (iv) having expressions of interest open ahead of formal applications to alleviate the issue of oversubscription and the current ‘first-come first-served’ model of the Prototype Fund rounds.

2. Information provision and awareness of UKGF

2a. Awareness of UKGF support

When asked about how they had heard about UKGF support, Tranzfuser applicants had most frequently heard of and were encouraged to apply by their universities or specific lecturers, who sign-posted the relevant Local Hub. The DunDev applicants we interviewed had all previously taken part in Tranzfuser, so they were told about DunDev by the UKGTF team during Tranzfuser. On the other hand, Prototype applicants most commonly said they had heard about the UKGF through games development conferences or meet-ups, both virtually and in-person, as well as word of mouth and social media. Some applicants spoke about reaching out to past funded companies to learn more before applying. A couple of applicants specifically mentioned trade bodies promoting the funding opportunities (e.g., through Ukie’s newsletter).

Most other industry stakeholders viewed that there is good awareness of the UKGF programmes among their target audience, citing social media, word of mouth, and newsletters as key channels for how the support is promoted. Some industry stakeholders also raised that the Prototype Fund rounds are often oversubscribed, providing evidence of good awareness and demand for the programme. Almost all applicants agreed that there is good awareness of the UKGF programmes within the industry.

One industry stakeholder said that despite good awareness, there will always be some companies being missed, but through no fault of the UKGF (e.g., because of potential applicants not reading their emails). A couple of industry stakeholders also said that the Prototype fund had found a niche in its target audience and that no other organisations are funding at that level (it should be noted that despite this perception, other agencies, such as Games Talent Wales and Northern Ireland Screen, also offer funding for video game prototypes). This was caveated by one industry stakeholder who said that medium and large companies do not tend to have an awareness of or engage with the UKGF, and thus, there is still a significant gap in funding opportunities for them.

2b. Rationale for applying for UKGF support

Applicants were asked for their rationale for applying for UKGF funding and reported being incentivised to apply by both the financial and non-financial benefits the fund offered. The majority of Prototype applicants liked that the funding was provided as a non-refundable grant, as opposed to other funding opportunities, like loans, or where there was a revenue share attached. Some applicants also viewed that the fund was well-targeted to smaller studios early in the development process and felt that being accepted into the fund was achievable as a result. One applicant added that the UKGF is a critical funding source for games studios that have not yet made a game in full, as they are often excluded from other funding opportunities.

Most applicants were also attracted by the opportunity to showcase their game and present at events, practice pitching and network with industry professionals, and receive business and marketing support for their game. The majority of DunDev applicants also liked the idea of being able to work in an office and build working relationships with their teammates, many of whom had previously been working remotely.

2c. Flows of information to applicants during the application process

The majority of applicants viewed that they had sufficient information to complete their application, with UKGTF being able and available to answer their questions. A few applicants also viewed that the application process was straightforward enough, and thus, they did not require additional assistance. Some applicants reported receiving information or support from past successful and unsuccessful applicants, either through Discord channels or through other game development meetups. One applicant added that they would seek advice and support from peers before turning to the UKGF for help.

UK Games Fund Discord server

Discord is a website that allows users to interact in real time via text, voice, and video chat in private channels or servers. Tranzfuser, DunDev, and Prototype studios have access to private Discord servers, which are moderated by UKGTF. Within the Prototype server (which only funded companies have access to), there are round-specific channels, as well as a general channel through which funded companies can seek advice from companies from past rounds. During the Tranzfuser application period, a Discord server is open to all applicants to exchange information with one another. Once the application period ends, the application server closes, and successful teams are added to a Tranzfuser programme server. At the end of Tranzfuser each year, the Tranzfuser server closes, and teams gain access to an alumni server, where they can communicate with other Tranzfuser alumni from previous rounds. During DunDev, teams have access to a cohort-specific Discord server, and those who are awarded a UKGF grant after DunDev are invited to join the wider portfolio server. DunDev alumni are then invited to join the subsequent year’s cohort-specific Discord server, this time as alumni.

Most other industry stakeholders viewed that there is sufficient information provided to applicants to support them through their application. One of these interviewees caveated that applicants might not necessarily use this information effectively. Another said that there may even be too much information provided and that details can be lost (for example, due to many emails being received). It was also stated by one industry stakeholder that there are further (non-UKGF-provided) resources available, which can be found online by applicants, particularly to help with pitching.

3. Operational delivery

3a. Role of UKGTF

Beneficiaries of the programmes were overall very satisfied with the support that UKGTF provided them during the programme, finding them responsive and knowledgeable. Several beneficiaries highlighted the support around matters related to business and finance, with one noting that the UKGTF team were “realistic and pragmatic but invested.” While some beneficiaries had insights on the input of specific team members, others remarked that they did not have much engagement with the UKGTF team, indicating some variation in levels of support. Tranzfuser and DunDev teams tended to have more interaction with the UKGTF team, owing to the fact that support is more ‘hands-on’ for these programmes.

Other industry stakeholders generally had a very positive view of the UKGTF team and their role in delivering the UKGF programmes. It was widely viewed that the UKGTF team has a great range of expertise and the ability to bring in relevant external partners where needed. Specific positive aspects noted by a couple of industry stakeholders were the strong relationships held with the funded community, as well as the gender balance on the UKGTF delivery team. Several interviewees also noted, however, that the team was quite resource-constrained and at times had to deal with large administrative workloads, which can be time-consuming.

3b. Role of industry professionals

Overall, the majority of industry stakeholders felt that the UKGF programmes are able to draw from a wealth of well-known industry professionals covering a variety of areas of expertise and providing opportunities for future work for funded companies. However, more specifically, the involvement of industry professionals varied by programme strand.

All industry stakeholders and beneficiaries with more knowledge of Tranzfuser and DunDev said that most exposure to industry professionals was through mentors or facilitators matched with teams. Some Tranzfuser participants expressed that they would have liked their mentors to be more involved or hands-on. A few others noted that they received information that was not directly relevant to their game or development process. Having said this, several industry stakeholders said that teams obtain good feedback from their mentors and that participants appear to enjoy interactions.

Within the Prototype Fund, the vast majority of beneficiaries said that they did not have many opportunities to interact with industry professionals outside of the selection panel. Industry professionals’ role as reviewers for Prototype applications was also emphasised by a few industry stakeholder interviewees, as well as where they attended the same events as programme participants. A few Prototype Fund participants expressed that they would have liked industry professionals to be more involved.

As highlighted by some industry stakeholders, past funded companies also support the programmes. This was explained through a model of ‘community contribution,’ where past funded companies give their time and expertise to share learnings with the current cohorts of funded companies. As a condition of the Prototype grant, funded companies must commit 12 to 16 days of senior staff time as a mentor, judge, reviewer, or speaker in support of other UKGF companies or teams. Several industry stakeholders stated that this was very positive and that current programme participants can learn a lot from those who have gone before them. Anecdotally, we understand that many funded companies have kept to their pledges, with a number describing the mentoring or talks they have provided as a result.

Finally, one industry stakeholder also mentioned the role of industry professionals on the Advisory Board. They described this as a useful resource, but one which is not used to its full potential, for example, stating that the Advisory Board used to meet quarterly and in person, but this has now moved to virtual meetings every six months (or more). They expressed that Board members are happy to contribute and have significant experience in the industry, and so they should be utilised more frequently and effectively to help shape future iterations of the UKGF programmes.

3c. Role of investors, publishers, and platforms

The majority of Tranzfuser participants spoke of meeting investors and publishers through Q&A sessions, talks, and practice pitches, although some beneficiaries thought that there could have been more involvement from external advisers in the programme. Beneficiaries who participated in both DunDev and Tranzfuser were more satisfied with the involvement of investors, publishers, and platforms. One of these interviewees mentioned meeting a publisher during Tranzfuser and having the opportunity to follow up with them during DunDev. Another DunDev participant appreciated the opportunity to meet international publishers from Europe and the US.

Most Prototype participants viewed that investors, publishers, and platforms were not deeply involved in the programme, with a few beneficiaries noting that more involvement from these stakeholders would have been beneficial. One beneficiary spoke of attending a talk by another games developer discussing the publishing process, which they appreciated, but felt it would have been more beneficial if given by an actual publisher. However, many participants across all programmes mentioned the benefits that being associated with UKGF provided when they met with publishers and investors, explaining that it is perceived as a symbol of validation and trustworthiness.

When asked about the role of investors, publishers, and platforms, industry stakeholders generally felt that it was useful for programme participants to be exposed to these key actors and that they wanted to see more of this within the UKGF programmes. For Tranzfuser specifically, most industry stakeholders said there is involvement all the way through, with pitch events being mentioned in particular, and that teams have fed back their appreciation for this. However, it was also brought up by a couple of industry stakeholders that Tranzfuser teams are sometimes too early in their development for meaningful interactions and relationships with publishers and investors.

3d. Role of trade bodies and other national and regional organisations

A few industry stakeholders expressed that trade bodies are involved in UKGF through lobbying the government for funding, as well as promoting and announcing funding rounds, sometimes also attending or sponsoring events. It was also said by several industry stakeholders that trade bodies do not often interact with programme participants themselves and that more could be done to facilitate this, for example, by having them deliver talks as part of the programmes.

When asked about other relevant organisations and their role within the UKGF programmes, a few industry stakeholders brought up Local Hubs and their involvement in Tranzfuser, as well as universities, those involved in policymaking, and various networks within the games industry.

4. Programme design

4a. Sufficiency and structure of funding

Most often, Tranzfuser teams had spent their grant funding on wages, travel, and merchandise for events and showcases, and hiring contract workers to work on features of the game that they could not develop within the team. One individual, who participated in both Tranzfuser and Prototype, appreciated the flexibility with which Tranzfuser teams could spend their funds. They noted that Prototype funds can only be spent on employee wages, and they would have liked to use some of the funding for travel and marketing costs instead. Most Tranzfuser teams thought that the funding they received was sufficient, but some teams added that this was based on careful budgeting and clarity around project goals. One beneficiary discussed that while the funding was sufficient, in that they successfully created a prototype, they were left with no clear plan after Tranzfuser, as publishers or investors were unlikely to invest in student or recent graduate teams. The same beneficiary thought that apprenticeship or graduate placements would potentially be useful.

Most DunDev participants spent the funding on teams’ wages and some living costs associated with relocating to Scotland during the programme period (note that accommodation is provided free of cost as part of the programme). While most beneficiaries thought DunDev funding was sufficient, a few thought that additional funds would have been useful to hire contract workers or cover additional responsibilities (e.g., caring), as the programme required applicants to relocate to Scotland for one month.

Beneficiaries had mixed views on whether or not the Prototype fund was sufficient to cover the costs of developing their prototype. Those who thought the funding was insufficient compared the level of funding to other opportunities, such as international prototype funds or more general interest UK-based grant schemes, such as Innovate UK. Beneficiaries who felt the funding was sufficient were able to extend their development runway, spend time polishing games, and felt ready to pitch to publishers. One Prototype participant noted that while they thought the funding was sufficient, it would have been good to communicate to teams the necessity of appropriately scoping their prototype and the associated cost to avoid teams applying with overly ambitious projects.

Beneficiaries across all three strands noted that the sufficiency of the funding directly relates to the number of people in teams and studios.

4b. Activities and support during the Tranzfuser programme

Beneficiaries had overwhelmingly positive feedback about getting the opportunity to participate in practice pitches and showcase events. One beneficiary fed back that the showcase “felt like a celebration” and highlighted the sense of pride they felt in showing their game to the public. The majority of beneficiaries noted getting invaluable playtesting feedback from the public, who had not previously been exposed to the game. They also appreciated practice-pitching sessions to get feedback on their games from publishers and investors, whom they would not have had exposure to without the programme. Practice pitching sessions seemed to have occurred at different points in time, in different years of the programme. Generally, beneficiaries appreciated getting time in between practice-pitching sessions and actual pitches or showcases, to have time to implement feedback.

Other forms of support appreciated by many programme beneficiaries included the games industry mentors who support teams throughout the programme duration, frequent webinars to answer questions, the Discord channel for funded companies, and support from Local Hubs (such as involving university staff specialising in different disciplines, such as art or programming).

Most beneficiaries also mentioned being able to build relationships and learn more about the industry through one-on-one support from programme mentors or facilitators, and more generally, through weekly talks from different industry professionals. Several Tranzfuser beneficiaries mentioned talks relating to business skills being particularly useful, such as those centred around creating and sustaining a start-up, marketing, and commercialisation. Generally, beneficiaries thought having a mentor assigned to them for the duration of the programme was useful, although two interviewees had more unfavourable feedback, noting that the mentor check-ins felt more like a “tick-box exercise” or that the feedback given was too soft and gave them unrealistic expectations.

Other industry stakeholders were also generally very positive about the support offered to Tranzfuser participants throughout the duration of the programme. They described a mixture of online and in-person events, allowing teams to bond and build their own networks. One industry stakeholder also said that teams had fed back that they had learnt more during Tranzfuser than they did in their four-to-five-year university degrees.

Practice pitch events were one such activity that industry stakeholders mentioned frequently. These events were commonly described as “speed dating” between teams and publishers and were said to allow teams to hone their pitches quickly. Showcase events were also unanimously said to be very beneficial to teams, providing a real-world deadline for teams to work towards, allowing for feedback from a variety of actors (e.g., ranging from publishers and investors to members of the public and other games developers), and providing an opportunity for team members to practise public speaking. One industry stakeholder stated that “the showcase event at the end is absolutely the jewel in the crown of Tranzfuser.”

4c. Activities and support during the DunDev programme

DunDev participants were broadly satisfied with the level of support provided by the programme and thought that it was a good “stepping stone” from Tranzfuser. Most enjoyed having a physical space for DunDev and the highly structured nature of the programme, breaking up “development days” with days for talks and meetings. However, one beneficiary thought that the programme was too structured, with the “9 to 5” structure causing them to miss a meeting with a publisher outside of DunDev, as they could not leave the office.

Interviewees from the more recent DunDev cohort described having two events, one playtest event with members of the public (at Dundee Contemporary Arts) and another showcase event with industry professionals that had been involved in delivering the programme (at the McManus Galleries). Both events were viewed positively, and teams enjoyed having the opportunity for the public to provide feedback on their games. Cohorts before this instead spoke about just one showcase event (at the McManus Galleries), which was again viewed as useful, but a few beneficiaries were underwhelmed by its size, as those who had attended previous programmes and showcase events had high expectations. One beneficiary noted that many of the industry professionals involved in the showcase were those they had already met throughout the course of the programme. Interviewees from the more recent cohort also spoke positively about psychometric tests that were done to provide insights into their skills and personalities to maximise their interpersonal skills and productivity (this activity was a new addition for DunDev 2025).

Other industry stakeholders generally had less to say about the support offered on the DunDev programme due to it having been running for the least amount of time, and so fewer teams have been through the programme. Those who did comment suggested that it was beneficial for bringing both teams and industry professionals together, for example, through organised talks and conferences. A few industry stakeholders also mentioned that there was more “match-making” of teams and publishers or investors in DunDev than in other funded programmes, but this could still be improved.

4d. Support during the Prototype Fund programme

Beneficiaries generally thought that support provided during the Prototype Fund programme was more “hands-off” than for Tranzfuser and DunDev. Several beneficiaries noted that most of their communication with UKGTF during the Prototype Fund was through feedback on their monthly returns and progress videos, which UKGTF collect as part of their ongoing process to monitor grant spend and compliance. Beneficiaries had mixed opinions on the usefulness of these submissions. While some felt that they were a good learning exercise and a good way to track their personal progress, others felt that they cut too much into development time. Several beneficiaries also mentioned the Discord channel and online meetings within it, although there was variance in how much participants made use of this, with some noting it would be more useful if there was wider participation.

Similarly, other industry stakeholders also generally described the support provided during the Prototype programme as more “hands-off” than for Tranzfuser and DunDev. Like beneficiaries, some industry stakeholders mentioned the Discord community set up for participants to interact alongside small-scale social events. Also mentioned by a few industry stakeholders was the facilitation of meetings between funded companies and publishers or investors, as well as industry professionals (for example, those involved in reviewing applications) being able to offer advice and signpost other support programmes for beneficiaries. The application process for the Prototype Fund was said by a couple of industry stakeholders to be a key form of support in itself, with even unsuccessful applicants learning a lot through the process. One industry stakeholder explained that there are no specific activities or events offered during the Prototype programme, but that often the larger and more established recipients will attend events themselves anyway.

5. Monitoring and evaluation

5a. Continuous learning and improvement

Industry stakeholders commonly described the UKGF programmes as constantly evolving and an iterative process with feedback acted upon frequently, with one of these interviewees describing UKGF’s approach to learning and improvement as “quite experimental in a subtle way”. Another industry stakeholder explained that information collected for this purpose includes evaluation forms and exit surveys filled out by applicants and beneficiaries at the end of each programme or application round, as well as anecdotal feedback provided throughout the programme duration. This data is then compiled into UKGTF’s Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system for ease of access and analysis. A couple of industry stakeholders expressed that the information currently collected is not sufficient for the monitoring and evaluation of the UKGF programmes, or that more could be done with the information that is collected. For example, conducting a greater variety of analyses on the data that is currently being collected or collecting new types of data (such as more extensive information on the socio-demographic characteristics of applicants and beneficiaries).

Several industry stakeholders provided specific examples of where continuous learning and improvement had been deployed. These included changes made to Local Hubs for Tranzfuser, such as increasing their numbers and involving them more heavily within application monitoring. Other examples included splitting the grant given to Prototype-funded companies so that they receive half at the beginning of the programme and the other half midway through, after a decision has been made to continue their funding. Interviewees who provided these examples generally said that this had increased flexibility and ensured public funds were not being spent frivolously. Further examples of iterative learning included compiling guidance documents for participants to make them more user-friendly, as well as frequently updating the UKGF website to ensure the right audience is targeted.

6. Recommendations for improvement from stakeholders

The following section summarises recommendations for improving the delivery of the UK Games Fund provided by industry stakeholders and beneficiaries. Recommendations commonly mentioned by stakeholders included increasing the level of funding available to beneficiaries, increasing programming alongside funding for Prototype awardees, more detailed application feedback, and more tailored support for Tranzfuser teams. It is worth noting that whilst areas for improvement were identified, the majority of interviewees were generally satisfied with their experience with the UK Games Fund and did not provide suggestions for improvements, suggesting that the funding is largely being delivered as intended.

Continuation of current practice

While a few beneficiaries and industry professionals expressed what they thought could be improved about the fund, most stakeholders had overwhelmingly positive impressions and experiences, noting that the fund was well-managed, the delivery team was knowledgeable, and that the UK Games Fund offers a valuable service and programme that is beneficial both to beneficiaries, but also the industry more broadly. In a similar way, several DunDev and Prototype beneficiaries called for a greater number of companies to be supported by UKGF funding.

Increasing the level of funding available to beneficiaries

Several industry professionals and beneficiaries felt that the level of funding needed to be increased to better support programme participants. One interviewee emphasised that DCMS and UKGTF should look to other European funding opportunities, such as Creative Europe, which provides awards of up to €150k. While some acknowledged the Content Fund fills some of these gaps, industry stakeholders also called for follow-on pots of funding to be developed to maximise the impacts of current programmes and fill gaps in the market for companies post-Prototype and Content Fund.

Increased programming and support for the Prototype Fund awardees

When Prototype beneficiaries were prompted for more suggestions on what could be done to improve the Fund, the most common answer was to provide more programming or opportunities for networking, such as talks, mentorship schemes, or more formal or regular meetups. One beneficiary noted that while the funding was important, it is easy for younger start-up studios to spend the funding in inefficient or incorrect ways, and additional guidance or check-ins from peers or industry professionals could help to remedy this. While a few beneficiaries thought that the current amount of engagement was either sufficient or too much (as they preferred to focus on development time), a larger number thought they could benefit from more support or engagement. A couple of beneficiaries suggested that any additional support could be ‘opt-in’ owing to the fact that some funded companies would likely not need the extra support.

When asked for ideas on what specific programming could be added, suggestions from beneficiaries included (i) a one-to-one mentorship element, (ii) regular talks with industry professionals, (iii) introductions to publishers, and (iv) a showcase event. While UKGTF does run online forums for beneficiaries to engage with one another, beneficiaries interviewed noted that only a minority of funded companies participate, and it could benefit from more activity.

Another suggestion from several Prototype-funded companies was to provide more guidance on next steps once their Prototype funding comes to an end, one beneficiary said this could come in the form of an ‘exit interview.’

Increased communication and feedback around the application process

A few Prototype beneficiaries suggested that the UKGF could be clearer in their communication of the funding criteria and would like to receive more communication and advance notice around when funding rounds open and close. This sentiment was echoed by some industry professionals as well. Beneficiaries (both successful and unsuccessful) would have also liked to receive more tailored or detailed feedback on their application. However, because UKGTF noted that providing feedback on all unsuccessful applications would require lots of resources, it may be more feasible to offer detailed feedback on those applicants who passed the EOI stage.

More tailored support for Tranzfuser teams

A few Tranzfuser participants spoke of a desire for more support during and after the programme, in terms of exposure to publishers, investors, or other industry professionals. Additionally, several beneficiaries noted that team mentors and facilitators should be more closely matched to the team’s needs, or teams should have a greater say in the mentors they receive. One beneficiary said that Tranzfuser teams are less likely to receive publisher deals because of a lack of experience, so exposure to other pathways, such as work placements or graduate schemes within other indie studios, could provide routes to stay in the industry.

Another point raised by a number of Tranzfuser applicants and one industry stakeholder is that Tranzfuser applications currently take place at the same time as final deadlines at university, which can make the process more onerous and stressful. To better support Tranzfuser applicants with high workloads, flexibility could be built into the application timelines to make the process more accessible.

Other stakeholder suggestions

Other recommendations made by stakeholders included expanding eligibility for the Prototype Fund to capture larger and more well-established companies, more support during and after DunDev and Tranzfuser programmes in terms of making connections with publishers and investors, formalising alumni networks of funded companies, promoting commercial skills and marketing, and UKGTF receiving confirmation of funding from government earlier and for a longer period of time to be able to provide grant recipients with more timely communication.

5. Findings from the impact evaluation of Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund

Summary of findings

• Our most robust quantitative estimates of the impact of the UKGF were produced through analysis of applicant survey data. Headline findings included:
  • UKGF support being associated with an eight-percentage-point increase in the probability of having developed a completed video game or prototype after one year of receiving support.
  • UKGF support being associated with an 11-percentage-point increase in the probability of generating reusable IP after one year of receiving support.
  • The UKGF supported games companies being estimated to have 0.2 extra video games after one year of receiving support compared with if they had not received support.
  • The UKGF supported games companies being estimated to have employed 0.3 extra full-time equivalent (FTE) employees after one year of receiving support, compared with if they had not received support.

Table 6. Summary of treatment effects

Impact area	Average treatment effect after 1year (per £10k funding)	Normalised to average award of £22.7k	Normalised to max award of £30k	Binary treatment equivalent
Increased likelihood of having made a prototype of a video game	3pp	6pp	8pp	8pp
Increased likelihood of having developed reusable code or assets	5pp***	10pp***	14pp***	11pp**
Increase in number of video games monetised	0.05*	0.1*	0.1*	0.2***
Increase in number of employees	0.2*	0.4	0.5	0.3

Source: Analysis of Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (Binary specification N=139, continuous specification N=136)

Note: ***significance at <5%; **significance at <10%, *significance at <20%. Revenue effects were explored but are not included as the results are highly sensitive to outliers based on the small sample.

This impact evaluation provides evidence on the scale and nature of the impacts that are anticipated to flow from the UKGF (as specified in the programme Theory of Change—see Chapter III). Key areas of impact that have been evaluated include business growth, generation of new intellectual property (IP), and skills and career development for emerging video game talent. This section draws on insights from interviews with beneficiaries and industry stakeholders, UK Games Fund monitoring data, and analysis of a survey of successful and unsuccessful applicants.

To estimate the impact of participation in the UK Games Fund, we used a difference-in-differences estimation. Difference-in-differences evaluates the effect of an intervention (in this case, being accepted into the UK Games Fund) by comparing the difference in outcomes between successful and unsuccessful applicants. The impact is measured by examining how the outcomes of interest (e.g., employment growth, games commercialised and monetised, having reusable assets) evolve differently for successful and unsuccessful applicants, taking into account the measure of the outcome before an individual entered onto the fund.

We include no controls in our regression model because within a difference-in-differences specification, we are interested in comparing the change in the two groups over time. Because of this, any difference in levels prior to treatment, which could be the result of factors we would control for in other specifications, is accounted for.

Detailed analysis of UKGF impacts

The sections below evaluate in detail the scale and nature of the impacts expected to flow from the UKGF support, with analysis structured thematically based on the impact being considered.

1. Business growth

1a. Business access to finance and investment

Insights from the Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

An intended outcome of the UKGF support is enabling companies to leverage additional funding for their projects through the application of the skills, knowledge, networks, and financial support gained. Thirty-seven survey respondents specified the amount of additional funding they had raised following the UKGF support, with amounts ranging from £10k to £4.1m. All other successful applicants indicated they had not raised any additional funding. Most of the beneficiaries (70%) had raised up to £500k in funding, with a minority having raised more than this. The average amount of total funding raised was approximately £506k. The total amount leveraged by those surveyed is approximately £18.2m, which exceeds the total value invested in the fund. This figure is also likely an underestimation, as only 15% of all applicants responded to the survey.

Figure 5. Additional funding leveraged by UKGF beneficiaries (£). Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=37, the vast majority of which were Prototype Fund beneficiaries).

Insights from interviews

Overall, industry stakeholders generally felt that the UKGF programmes had a positive effect on beneficiaries’ access to finance and investment. They spoke about many of the funded companies going on to great success and further investment, such as securing publisher deals and equity investment. Many industry stakeholders said that the programmes provide beneficiaries with the opportunity to learn about the business side of developing a game, take on more staff, practise and hone a pitch, and increase their IP standards. A few industry stakeholders also mentioned that even if beneficiaries did not go on to achieve further investment, they will have more experience, an improved network, and an increased ability to find a job in the games industry. However, a few industry stakeholders also said that the funding provided by the UKGF programmes would benefit from being increased, as well as that funded companies could be better matched to publishers and investors within the programmes.

1b. Understanding of financial options

Insights from the Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

Survey respondents generally felt that the UKGF increased their awareness of financial options available to them, with 75% of respondents agreeing that the UKGF increased their skills related to accessing funding and awareness of available funding options, while 14% felt neutral. Only 11% of respondents disagreed that the UKGF increased their skills and awareness of available funding options.

Figure 6. The UKGF-supported business skills regarding how to access funding and awareness of available funding options. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=100).

Insights from interviews

Most beneficiaries felt that participating in the funded programmes had a positive impact on their understanding of financial options. Some beneficiaries spoke about what they had learnt throughout their participation. For example, learning about marketability and sustainability, as well as various financial options available to them, such as publishers, investors, and other grants or funding opportunities. Other beneficiaries discussed the activities that led to their improved understanding, for example, (i) learning from the application process and claims forms (which had made financial documentation more accessible for them), (ii) working in the same space as other games developers at the same stage in their career and investors giving talks for DunDev, and (iii) relevant information being posted on “Trello” for Tranzfuser^{[footnote 6]}.

However, several beneficiaries expressed that taking part in the UKGF programmes had not improved their understanding of financial options. Some of these interviewees attributed this to having good knowledge of financial options before receiving the funding, but caveated that this information would be useful for less experienced teams. One beneficiary thought that while the UKGF provided good information about routes to funding through publishers, more weight should be given to non-traditional options and other types of investors. A few other beneficiaries said that if their understanding had been improved, it had been down to their own learning or connections with other games developers rather than the programme itself.

Many beneficiaries also spoke about their next steps as a company. The vast majority of these interviewees said that they had applied for, or were considering applying for, other UKGF funding opportunities—either as their only option for further funding or as part of applying for many other grants too. Many Prototype participants mentioned they had either looked into or applied for the new Content Fund. Other applicants who commented on further funding through the UKGF, but had chosen not to apply, said that the Prototype and Content Fund did not provide sufficient funding for their next steps. Some beneficiaries expressed that pursuing a publisher, investor, or self-publishing was the next step for their company. A few of these interviewees commented that participating in the UKGF programmes was a good stepping stone for securing publishers and investors, and that it was viewed highly amongst these groups. Other routes that fewer beneficiaries discussed included (i) having enough funding to be able to release their game and continue on its revenue, (ii) going on to get jobs elsewhere while developing their own game part-time, (iii) crowdfunding, and (iv) applying for other, non-specified funding opportunities. Overall, beneficiaries across all three strands described exploring a range of future financial options.

A few beneficiaries also mentioned games industry-wide issues that had prevented them from pursuing further funding. These included (i) their scale (e.g., not having enough revenue or annual turnover to be eligible to apply for other current funding sources), (ii) there being too much competition, and (iii) previously available funding options now being absent due to the UK leaving the European Union.

1c. Establishing and growing new businesses

Insights from the Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

Based on the binary diff-in-diff specification (with beneficiaries who received any UKGF support being considered as treated), UKGF funding was associated with generating 0.3 additional FTE employees after one year of receiving funding, compared with a situation in which no funding had been received. However, this finding was not statistically significant. Results from the continuous diff-in-diff specification provide evidence that each additional £10k of funding is associated with an increase of around 0.2 FTE employees after one year of funding, implying that the average award value (£22.7k) is associated with an increase of around 0.4 FTE employees, and the maximum award value (£30k) is associated with an increase of around 0.5 FTE employees. For context, the average number of employees of survey respondents was 2.5.

Table 7. Summary of treatment effects related to the increase in FTE employees

Impact area	Average treatment effect after 1 year (per £10k funding)	Normalised to average award of £22.7k	Normalised to max award of £30k	Binary treatment equivalent
Increase in number of employees	0.2	0.4	0.5	0.3

Source: Analysis of Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (Binary specification N=139, continuous specification N=136)

Note: ***significance at <5%; **significance at <10%, *significance at <20%.

Note: 74% of survey respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that UKGF support enabled a larger team of professionals (either employed by the company or contracted) to work on the project, with 13% of applicants disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.

Figure 7. Beneficiary agreement with UKGF support, having enabled a larger team of professionals (either employed by the company or contracted) to work on the project. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=92).

Insights from monitoring data

Monitoring data on Prototype companies provided by UKGTF broadly supports our findings from the survey of applicants. On average, companies reported that they had 3.4 PAYE employees when they received funding, were able to hire an additional 0.7 PAYE posts as a result of the project, and planned to hire an additional 1.8 PAYE posts in the following 12 months. Aggregating these estimates to the total cohort of UKGF beneficiaries, this equates to around 250 additional PAYE posts in year one, and around an additional 650 in the following 12 months (approximately 900 additional PAYE posts in total). Estimates derived from the survey were slightly lower, as they include Tranzfuser and DunDev participants, who are likely at an earlier stage of their careers and so less likely to be hiring additional PAYE employees.

Figure 8. Number of PAYE employees at start, as a result of the project, and planned in the next 12 months, Prototype beneficiaries. Source: UKGF Monitoring Data.

The final claim survey distributed by the UK Games Fund also asked beneficiaries if they had hired or were planning to hire any graduates as part of the project. 23% of Prototype Fund final claimants reported having hired graduates, while 19% responded that they were planning to hire graduates in the future. The majority of companies (59%) had neither hired any graduates nor had plans to do so in the future.

Figure 9. Share of UKGF funding recipients having employed graduates at the point of final claim. Source: UKGF Prototype Final Claims Survey (N=270), covering beneficiaries submitting final claims between 2016 and 2024.

Insights from interviews

When asked about the impact of the UKGF on financial performance, including turnover and profit, beneficiaries mostly said that this had increased after taking part in the funded programmes. Though one beneficiary mentioned that turnover varies each year, and a couple found it difficult to answer, as they had not commercially released a game yet.

When discussing whether the UKGF programmes have been successful in creating new start-ups, industry stakeholders were largely positive and often brought up Tranzfuser in particular. For example, one industry stakeholder said that Tranzfuser directly leads to a new “generation” of companies created by graduates every year. This thought was echoed by many Tranzfuser applicants who expressed that their businesses had grown since creating them specifically for UKGF. Broader comments from several industry stakeholders included that the UKGF programmes focusing on earlier-stage companies are beneficial for the creation of new start-ups, and that even if funded companies do not produce the next hit game, they all come out as better companies.

Despite a desire from some beneficiaries for more networking opportunities, many beneficiaries (particularly from Tranzfuser) highlighted the networks and connections they had made throughout the programme, both with fellow beneficiaries and wider industry professionals, as the main reason that their business had grown. These connections were said to have been made through attending events as well as networking with other games developers on the programme in formal and informal meetups. Some beneficiaries expressed that it was beneficial to say you have taken part in a UKGF-funded programme, given that this was viewed to increase a company’s credibility and indicate a high potential. Increased awareness of their business also meant that some beneficiaries had experienced other games developers directly expressing interest in joining their company.

Other beneficiaries also explained business growth in terms of having been able (or not able) to commercially release a game. Those who had not experienced much business growth since completing their UKGF-funded programme felt that the reason was that they had not released a game yet. Others who had not released a game but still felt their business had grown said that this was because they now had a prototype or demo that they could present to publishers, funders, and venture capitalists. Several of these companies explicitly mentioned that while their game had not been released, they had started conversations with publishers. Six of the beneficiaries interviewed stated that they had released a game following their participation in a UKGF programme.

Beneficiaries who talked about changes in the number of employees were mixed in whether this had increased, decreased, or stayed the same. Some beneficiaries’ companies had grown considerably in terms of the number of employees since having received funding (e.g., increasing by six people since the programme finished in the year and a half since Tranzfuser), whilst several others had hired just one more employee. Some funded companies had remained at the same number of employees, or decreased, but had said this was for the better and that they had not needed more employees yet, due to not having released a game yet. One beneficiary felt that the UKGF funding was not at a sufficient level to create jobs (for example, a developer would expect a higher salary per year than what the Prototype Fund provides). They called for an explicit “wage subsidy,” where the fund would subsidise the wages of employees for a certain amount of time to facilitate employment growth, rather than increasing the lump sum available to beneficiaries.

1d. Business sustainability (risk profile and survival rates)

Insights from the Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

Beneficiaries were asked whether they viewed that UKGF support had reduced the risk level of their team or company’s video game project. The primary risks highlighted by beneficiaries related to insolvency and illiquidity, with some beneficiaries discussing the risk of reaching a “cash cliff,” whereby they would run out of funding before their game project was fully developed. A large majority (80%) of beneficiaries either agreed or strongly agreed that UKGF support had reduced the risk level of the video game project, with a small minority (7%) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with this statement.

Figure 10. Beneficiary agreement with UKGF support, having reduced the risk level of the video game project. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=92).

Insights from interviews

The majority of industry stakeholders viewed that the UKGF programmes reduce company risk and increase business survival. A few interviewees shared that while their companies were successful in the long run, their short-term survival was dependent on taking on contract work while developing their own IP on the side.

Several industry stakeholders provided a number of examples of how the UKGF programmes help achieve this, for example, educating funded companies on being self-sufficient, understanding the components of building a company, and learning business skills (e.g., setting end goals, delegating tasks, and leading a team). This was said to be especially useful for Tranzfuser as participants tend to come from more creative rather than business backgrounds, and the programme goes beyond what they are taught during university. One industry stakeholder also commented that the UKGF programmes can help funded companies get a “foot in the door” with publishers and investors, which can be integral for some companies to survive.

However, some industry stakeholders felt that there is both a UKGF-specific and industry-wide gap in funding to move from a developed prototype to digital publishing. These interviewees said that the Prototype Fund is not currently sufficient on its own to lead to the development of a full game and that follow-on funding is necessary for companies to survive. A handful of beneficiaries also mentioned that greater sums being offered through the Content Fund were a welcome development. One industry stakeholder explained that funded companies may have great ideas but cannot obtain this follow-on funding, and so team members end up being hired by other companies. They said that whilst this still strengthens the workforce as a whole, it is a shame when funded companies do not survive. Another industry stakeholder commented that despite the possibility of the funded company not surviving, the UKGF programmes help them to survive long enough to produce something that can demonstrate their capabilities to funders, publishers, investors, and other games companies.

2. Generation of new IP

2a. Development of new IP

Insights from the Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

Our difference-in-difference analysis of survey responses indicates that the UKGF has a statistically significant impact on the generation of new IP. Results from the binary diff-in-diff specification (significant at the 20% level) indicated that receiving UKGF support was associated with an eight-percentage-point increase in the probability of having developed a prototype or video game after one year of funding, compared with a situation in which no support had been received. Based on the continuous diff-in-diff specification, every £10k of UKGF funding is associated with a three-percentage-point increase in the likelihood of having made a prototype or video game after one year, with the average award value (£22.7k) being associated with a six-percentage-point increase, and the maximum award value (£30k) being associated with an eight-percentage-point increase. The continuous diff-in-diff results were not statistically significant at the 20% level.

Table 8. Summary of treatment effects for the likelihood of having made a prototype or video game

Impact area	Average treatment effect after 1 year (per £10k funding)	Normalised to average award of £22.7k	Normalised to max award of £30k	Binary treatment equivalent
Increased likelihood of having made a prototype of a video game	3pp	6pp	8pp	8pp*

Source: Analysis of Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (Binary specification N=139, Continuous specification N=136)

Note: ***significance at <5%; **significance at <10%, *significance at <20%.

Survey respondents were also asked if UKGF support increased how quickly their video game or prototype was able to be developed, and whether the video game would have been built without UK Games Fund support.

A large majority of beneficiaries (85%) either agreed or strongly agreed that UKGF support had increased how quickly their complete or prototype game was developed. A large majority of beneficiaries (74%) also either agreed or strongly agreed that their prototype or complete video game would not have been built without UKGF support, with 18% of respondents disagreeing that this was the case.

Figure 11. Beneficiary agreement with UKGF support impacting the development of the game. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=92).

Insights from interviews

Industry stakeholders were mostly positive that the UKGF programmes had led to the development of innovative and high-standard IP. The most common explanation for this was simply that programmes allowed funded companies to dedicate the time, money, and space to developing their own IP, rather than having to do contract work on the side. It was also said that the funding reduces risk for companies creating or continuing with projects they normally would not be able to.

Having said this, some industry stakeholders also caveated that successful marketing is equally as important as developing innovative and high-standard IP. These interviewees said that while it is true that funded companies are able to create innovative IP, there is not always a market for it and that this “route to market” needs to also be demonstrated within applications. Another industry stakeholder stated that there is an industry-wide issue of companies not reusing IP and assets enough, and that this should be encouraged more than “innovation for innovation’s sake.”

A few industry stakeholders also commented that they found this impact more difficult to measure, that there is no hard data to go on, or that this impact can vary year by year.

2b. Quality of games and IP developed

Insights from the Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

Survey respondents were asked whether or not they had developed reusable code or assets before or after their UKGF application to proxy the quality of IP. Based on the continuous diff-in-diff specification, every £10k of funding is associated with a five-percentage-point increase in the probability of generating reusable assets or code after one year of receiving funding, with the average funding award value (£22.7k) associated with a ten-percentage-point increase in the probability of generating reusable assets or code, and the maximum award value (£30k) associated with a 14-percentage-point increase (the continuous treatment effects are statistically significant at the 5% level).

Based on the binary diff-in-diff specification (considering whether or not an individual received any UKGF funding), receiving UKGF funding was associated with a 11-percentage-point increase in the probability of generating reusable assets or code after one year, compared with a situation in which they had not received UKGF support, with this estimate significant at the 10% level.

Table 9. Summary of treatment effects associated with developing reusable code or assets

Impact area	Average treatment effect after 1 year (per £10k funding)	Normalised to average award of £22.7k	Normalised to max award of £30k	Binary treatment equivalent
Increased likelihood of having developed reusable code or assets	5pp***	10pp***	14pp***	11pp**

Source: Analysis of Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=139 (binary specification), N=136 (continuous specification)

Note: ***significance at <5%; **significance at <10%, *significance at <20%.

Beneficiaries were also asked whether they agreed that UKGF support increased the quality of the video game or prototype. A large majority (78%) of beneficiaries either agreed or strongly agreed that UKGF support had increased the quality of the prototype or complete game, echoing findings from engagement with applicants and sector stakeholders. Only a small number of those surveyed (15%) disagreed that UKGF support had increased the quality of their prototype or complete game.

Figure 12. Beneficiary agreement that UKGF support increased the quality of the prototype or complete video game. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=92).

When examining strand-specific responses, a higher number of Prototype beneficiaries (60%) strongly agreed that UKGF support increased the quality of the prototype or video game, as compared to Tranzfuser beneficiaries (34%). In addition, a much higher number of Tranzfuser beneficiaries disagreed with the statement than Prototype beneficiaries, 22% and 4% respectively. While the survey did not specifically elicit what elements of each programme led to an increase in quality, it could be that the larger Prototype Fund grant enabled teams to dedicate more time to working on the game or hiring additional contractors. Insights from the interviews (see below) provided additional information on the elements that beneficiaries felt contributed to the quality of their game, across all strands.

Figure 13. Beneficiary agreement that UKGF support increased the quality of the prototype or complete video game, Prototype versus Tranzfuser and DunDev. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=92).

Insights from interviews

Beneficiaries widely viewed that participating in the UKGF programmes had increased the quality of the game they were able to create as a result. Several beneficiaries attributed the funding to being able to fully focus on creating the game, where, without it, they would have had to take on part-time jobs or contract work, detracting focus from game development. Others noted that the funding extended their development runway and sped up the time taken to reach a polished product, and some said that without it, they would have had to abandon the game altogether.

Specific elements many beneficiaries discussed as improving the quality of their game included (i) having funding to hire contract workers to develop specialist elements of their game, (ii) having the opportunity to participate in playtest sessions to get feedback from the public and industry professionals, (iii) having to submit regular progress updates to the UKGF, which ensured consistent development work throughout the programme period, and (iv) for Tranzfuser and DunDev fostering an environment for learning more generally.

2c. Monetisation and commercialisation of games

Insights from the Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

Survey respondents were asked if they had ever commercialised or monetised a game before and after their UKGF application. Based on the binary treatment specification, funding recipients developed an estimated 0.2 additional commercial games after one year of funding, compared with if they had not received funding, significant at the 10% level^{[footnote 7]}.

Aggregating this estimate to the full cohort of UKGF beneficiaries, this indicates that around an additional 115 games were commercialised or monetised by teams supported by the UKGF after one year of support, compared to those teams that did not receive support.

On average, based on the binary diff-in-diff specification, UKGF funding recipients were estimated to have monetised 0.2 additional games after one year compared with if they had not received funding. Based on the continuous diff-in-diff specification, every £10k of funding is associated with an additional 0.05 video games being monetised after one year of receiving funding. When normalised to the average award, this increases to 0.1 games. Binary treatment effects were statistically significant at the 5% level. For context, the average number of games that survey respondents reported they had monetised one year after their application was 2.9.

Table 10. Summary of treatment effects associated with monetisation and commercialisation of video games

Impact area	Average treatment effect after 1 year (per £10k funding)	Normalised to average award of £22.7k	Normalised to max award of £30k	Binary treatment equivalent
Increased number of video games monetised	0.05	0.1*	0.1*	0.2***

Source: Analysis of Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (Binary specification N=139, Continuous specification N=136)

Note: ***significance at <5%; **significance at <10%, *significance at <20%.

Insights from interviews

Most industry stakeholders felt that the UKGF-funded programmes provided a clear pathway for companies from development to commercialisation. Several industry stakeholders said that whilst the funding is important, it is also the mentoring, support, skill-building, and creation of a cohort of funded companies that are equally important to achieve commercialisation. One industry stakeholder said anecdotally that around a third of companies go on to have their games published, whereas others would self-publish, receive further funding, or sell their IP.

Some industry stakeholders felt that whilst the majority of games do get released in some way, they thought that due to the volatile nature of the games industry, most of them do not end up being huge successes, but that the studios are taught to become more sustainable. Two other stakeholders also stated that there are industry-wide issues that decrease the likelihood of funded companies being able to commercialise their games through publishers. These include (i) the model of publisher funding being “hit-driven,” (ii) all power and control being in the hands of the publisher, and (iii) the diminishing number of games getting published in the industry overall.

3. Skills and career development

3a. Skills development

Insights from the Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

Beneficiaries held mixed views on the extent to which UKGF supported the development of their business, technical, and soft skills. With respect to skills regarding managing IP, 79% of Tranzfuser participants agreed or strongly agreed that the UKGF had supported the development of these skills, while only 60% of Prototype Fund beneficiaries agreed or strongly agreed.

Figure 14. Beneficiary agreement that UKGF supported skills regarding managing intellectual property. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=100).

Regarding marketing skills, a larger proportion of Tranzfuser participants agreed that the UKGF had helped them develop these skills. While 71% of Tranzfuser beneficiaries agreed or strongly agreed that the UKGF had supported skills specifically regarding marketing of their game, only 48% of Prototype Fund beneficiaries agreed or strongly agreed.

Figure 15. Beneficiary agreement that UKGF supported the development of skills related to marketing their game. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=100).

There was stronger agreement that the UKGF programmes had contributed to the development of soft skills and technical skills, with 67% and 62% respectively either agreeing or strongly agreeing that skills were developed in these areas.

Figure 16. Beneficiary agreement that UKGF supported the development of soft skills and technical skills. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=100).

Insights from interviews

Beneficiaries widely thought that participating in the UKGF programmes had helped them develop their skills. Many specifically noted the role of the UKGF programmes in helping them develop soft skills and business skills, including improving pitching, communication, confidence, and understanding finance and managing budgets. These skills were commonly said to be developed through pitching events, showcases, and learning from industry professionals and other programme participants. For Tranzfuser in particular, teams were often reaching milestones for the first time, especially on the business side, with one beneficiary describing the programme as “eye-opening.”

In terms of technical skills, while not many beneficiaries cited specific technical support they received during the programme (and some noted they would have liked to receive more), most thought that having time and funding to experiment and take risks with a project had helped their teams develop skills. One beneficiary noted that “every second is an improvement.” Another beneficiary spoke about the benefit of working in a small team, noting that in a larger studio, they would work in one specific area, but within Tranzfuser, they gained a breadth of experience.

Whilst impacts on skills development were felt less by Prototype beneficiaries who were already more experienced, a few Prototype-funded companies said that they had moved towards new engines or markets and thus developed new skills, or that having time to dedicate to the project allowed for experimenting, which had developed new skills.

A few industry stakeholders also touched on technical skills developed throughout the programmes. These interviewees said that this was less of a focus as participants would often come to the programmes with a high level of technical skill already, but that the programmes did allow the time and space for these technical skills to be practised, which indirectly improves them.

Some industry stakeholders discussed the value of the UKGF programmes in developing skills, even if funded companies do not go on to produce successful games or if the company or project later fails. These interviewees said that even if the games do not get commercialised, individuals can use the skills they learned to apply for other sources of funding or get a job within the sector. Another stakeholder commented that beneficiaries learn widely applicable skills, such as pitching and business management, and technical skills, including user experience design, that are widely applicable outside the games industry. The same stakeholder noted that with those skills, beneficiaries apply for jobs they would not have considered previously, both within and outside the games sector.

Most industry stakeholders spoke about the development of business skills as a key impact of the UKGF-funded programmes. While beneficiaries surveyed felt that the UK Games Fund had a largely neutral impact on marketing their games, many interviewees described programmes as focusing efforts on building managerial, founder, and entrepreneurial skills within participants and that this is “baked in” to all programmes from the application process itself. One industry stakeholder commented that for Tranzfuser, this gives participants their first opportunity to explore and develop the business side of their company, which is not always a focus during university. Overall, industry stakeholders agreed that the UKGF programmes ensure participants are more workplace-ready, whether that be in their own company or working for others.

One industry stakeholder also emphasised that leadership and confidence are key skills the UKGF programmes can help participants develop. Another stakeholder involved in Tranzfuser highlighted that even students who do not take part in Tranzfuser benefit from the programme due to knowledge-sharing from university staff and students in the programme (such as learnings around entrepreneurialism).

3b. Reducing skills gaps

Insights from the Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

Beneficiary views were mixed on whether UKGF satisfactorily addresses a gap in education and training for video game development and design. Whilst 49% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this was the case, a sizeable proportion of respondents (34%) were neutral to the statement, with a further 17% disagreeing in some form.

Figure 17. Beneficiary agreement that the UKGF-supported project has addressed a gap in education and training for video game development and design. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=100).

When examining responses by strand, a greater number of Tranzfuser and DunDev participants (60%) agreed that UKGF support has addressed a gap in education and training, as compared to Prototype beneficiaries (50%). This could reflect Tranzfuser participants being at an earlier stage in their video game development career, or a greater focus on skills in Tranzfuser.

Figure 18. Beneficiary agreement that the UKGF-supported project has addressed a gap in education and training for video game development and design, by funding strand. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=92).

Insights from interviews

Industry stakeholders spoke about different aspects of the UKGF programmes helping to reduce skills gaps. This included where the programmes help teams understand and identify where they have skills gaps, as well as the funding, and then giving them the ability to hire people to fill these gaps. One industry stakeholder mentioned that there is a ‘team board’ accessible to all participants, which allows them to connect with other teams, and sometimes teams who successfully go on to DunDev will use this resource to take on members from unsuccessful teams where they feel they can fill skills gaps. Finally, one industry stakeholder (speaking in February 2024 in the midst of a market downturn) spoke about skills gaps seen within the games industry more broadly. They said that there are not enough employees with technical skills (such as artists, coders, graphic designers), but that this is not a UKGF-specific issue.

3c. Developing creative portfolios

Insights from interviews

Some beneficiaries spoke about developing the creative portfolios of themselves and their team members in terms of honing, diversifying, and improving their skills. For example, many beneficiaries explained that while each team member had a preferred discipline, the funded programme had also allowed them to try out new disciplines, which has helped them grow both individually and as a business. This included where studios had used the funding to expand into new platforms or audiences. A couple of beneficiaries spoke about the funding allowing them to hire contractors to fill skills gaps, which contributed to the team’s wider portfolio.

Many beneficiaries also discussed the prototypes, demos, or games they were able to create during the funded programmes, which directly improved their creative portfolios. This occurred even when the funded company decided to go down a different route in the future. Several beneficiaries expressed that the UKGF programmes provide the structure and space to experiment with and polish a prototype, which can then be included within portfolios. Playtesting as well as sharing the same physical space as team members during DunDev were said to be very useful for this. Another beneficiary spoke about receiving numerous awards of recognition for their funded game, which has strengthened their portfolio by validating the quality and originality of their game. However, a couple of beneficiaries said that they had not been able to release a game or that they are still only working on one title, meaning their portfolios have not developed as much as they had expected.

Finally, beneficiaries also spoke about the positive impacts they had experienced as a result of their developed creative portfolios. For example, a few beneficiaries provided specific examples of where team members had gone on to find further work as a direct result of improved portfolios or spoke hypothetically about it now being easier to find jobs should team members want to. Other beneficiaries mentioned how having a UKGF-funded game on their portfolio or simply taking part in the funded programme holds weight in the industry and demonstrates to publishers and investors that their company is a “solid bet.”

3d. Relationship building

Insights from the Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

When asked if the UKGF supported the development of networks with video games publishers, platforms, or investors, around half of Prototype Fund beneficiaries and 66% of Tranzfuser beneficiaries agreed or strongly agreed.

Figure 19. Beneficiary agreement that networking activities were supported by UKGF, specifically relating to publishers, platforms, and investors. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=100).

84% of Tranzfuser beneficiaries and 74% of Prototype Fund beneficiaries agreed or strongly agreed that UKGF supported networking connections with other video games developers. Further, no beneficiaries in either group strongly disagreed with the statement, with only a small number disagreeing across both strands.

Figure 20. Beneficiary agreement that networking activities were supported by UKGF, specifically relating to other video games developers. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=100).

Insights from interviews

Development of relationships with peers

Beneficiaries generally felt that UKGF had a positive impact on fostering relationships with other games developers, which could lead to collaborations further down the line. With regards to Tranzfuser, many beneficiaries spoke of the importance of meeting others through pitching sessions and showcase events, and more ad-hoc virtual and in-person meet-ups. While many Tranzfuser beneficiaries referenced the Discord server as being useful for building relationships with other teams, some viewed that there was not as much participation as there could have been on the channel. Beneficiaries who participated in DunDev generally felt that they had formed lasting relationships through DunDev, noting the importance of everyone being in the same physical space and a greater sense of collaboration between teams compared to Tranzfuser, which had at times felt very competitive. A couple of beneficiaries did add that while they had made good connections during DunDev, it might be difficult to maintain these relationships since returning to different bases across the UK.

Beneficiaries had more mixed views on the role of the Prototype programme in fostering relationships with other games developers, with a few beneficiaries mentioning that they would have liked the programme to facilitate more interaction with other teams. Positives noted by these beneficiaries included bonding and information-sharing through the Discord server and in-person events, confidence gained through being “in the same boat” as other teams after getting the funding, and being able to share information about the fund with other companies and teams. One beneficiary also added that they liked the mentorship element of the Prototype programme.

Development of relationships with industry professionals

While beneficiaries of the Prototype Fund did not necessarily make connections with industry professionals through the programme directly, many spoke of the importance being associated with the Fund had in increasing their credibility with potential investors and publishers. These beneficiaries often noted that the Prototype Fund afforded them the time and funding to develop a prototype game, which put them in a better position to be able to get in front of publishers and investors, which may not have been possible without funding.

A few Tranzfuser participants thought that while they were given good opportunities to network with industry professionals and publishers during the programme, they were unable to capitalise on these introductions due to not being at the stage in development where they were ready to seek out a publishing deal, or publishers and investors not being willing to invest in student teams because of their lack of experience. However, beneficiaries also commonly noted that getting the opportunity to meet and pitch to investors and publishers gave their team a better understanding of what potential investors were looking for, and many teams felt better prepared for future conversations as a result. One Tranzfuser beneficiary stated, “Tranzfuser has opened the doors, and we’ve stepped through the ones we could.” Some Tranzfuser and DunDev teams proactively collected contact details (e.g., on LinkedIn) and have since contacted industry professionals involved in the programmes.

Across all programmes, beneficiaries generally felt that there is scope for more in-depth involvement from industry professionals.

Case studies

A selection of notable case studies illustrating the wide-ranging impacts of the UKGF is summarised below.

Dink – Tranzfuser and DunDev alumni

Dink started life as three friends from Teesside University working on their own indie title in their spare time. At the time of our interview, the studio was made up of six people. Dink currently offers work for hire, specialising in Unreal Engine projects, as well as creating their own IP video games.

Following on from their final year project at university, Dink took part in Tranzfuser with their single-player, parkour game “Dutch Maximus: Out of the Toy Box.” After Tranzfuser, they were identified as a high-potential studio by the UKGF team and were invited to take part in DunDev with their multiplayer, battle game “HamStarz.” The studio developed their games and took part in activities and events (such as talks by industry professionals, pitching practice with publishers, and showcase events) across both programmes.

The studio viewed that Dink would not be here today without the experience and learnings from the UKGF programmes. We spoke to the Creative Director of Dink, who told us that through developing his business skills and networking as part of UKGF, he had found his calling in a role he did not know existed before being involved in the programmes. The studio is still in contact with the funded companies and industry professionals they connected with during Tranzfuser and DunDev, and it has grown in the number of employees and income. This demonstrates where UKGF has supported a brand-new studio in establishing itself in the industry, through learning business survival and growth skills and expanding professional networks.

Sketchbook Games – Prototype Fund alumni

Sketchbook Games is a small games studio (six people at the time of our interview) focused on storytelling through video games and creating unique, moving experiences.

The studio received Prototype funding for their first game, “Lost Words: Beyond the Page.” Featuring a story by renowned games writer Rhianna Pratchett, the game ties the narrative into the gameplay in an unusual way, by having the player run on and interact with words to solve puzzles. The funding came at an early stage of development and was “exactly what they needed” at that time. They utilised the funding to develop a polished vertical slice, which they used to generate interest from publishers. The studio noted that having a polished vertical slice is integral to starting conversations with publishers, and UKGF directly supported them in this by providing a longer development runway.

Sketchbook Games took their vertical slice to Gamescom with Ukie and were awarded Ukie’s ‘Game of the Show.’ This led to them being interviewed by a games publication and having an article published, which then led to a publisher reaching out and a deal being secured. Since UKGF, Lost Words has won a number of high-profile awards. This case study demonstrates how UKGF funding can boost the awareness and profile of games studios, which can allow companies to leverage new investment.

Nosebleed Interactive – Prototype Fund alumni

Nosebleed Interactive was set up 14 years ago and is based in Newcastle upon Tyne, with a focus on crafting unique, fun, and inclusive experiences. The studio was around eight people (with additional freelancers) at the time of the interview.

Nosebleed Interactive received Prototype funding for their game “Vostok Inc” and, again, more recently, for a new, unannounced project. The studio was young at the time of receiving their first round of Prototype funding, and they described its impact as “huge.” They used the grant to develop a demo that was then shown at Gamescom and led to securing a publisher deal. Vostok Inc. was described by the studio as a “critical success” for them, which allowed them to sustain the company to go on to develop their multi-award-winning, biggest game to date, “Arcade Paradise.” Following on from Arcade Paradise, Nosebleed Interactive received Prototype funding for a new, unannounced project. As an established studio now, the more recent funding supported them in reaching a demo more quickly and with “all the bells and whistles.”

Nosebleed Interactive were able to secure funding at an early stage to create a successful game and sustain their company to go on to create their multi-award-winning, biggest game to date. They were then able to access funding again later as a more established studio. This demonstrates where UKGF has supported both business survivability and the ability to develop high-quality and innovative IP, as well as demonstrating that the funding can support games studios at different stages of life.

FuturLab – Prototype Fund alumni

FuturLab is a games studio of over 100 people with more than 20 years of experience in developing video games. The studio started as just a few people with a passion for making games and has since gone on to success.

The studio received Prototype funding for the first time in Round 1 (2015) and for a second time in Round 4 (2018). After receiving the two rounds of Prototype funding, the studio went on to develop their game “PowerWash Simulator.” The game was released on Steam Early Access in 2021, when a publisher picked up the project. The studio has since hired over 70 employees, substantially increased revenues, worked with other major entertainment IPs, and moved towards a self-publishing model. The studio’s profile has “skyrocketed,” and there is a global community of dedicated fans. FuturLab have since collaborated with the University of Oxford on a study assessing the mental health benefits of video games. The studio is now working on two unannounced projects off the back of PowerWash Simulator’s success.

UKGF funded FuturLab at an early stage, and the studio was able to achieve commercial success in the years following. This has led to a variety of positive impacts and new opportunities for FuturLab. This case study demonstrates how UKGF can help studios improve awareness and profile, commercialise video games, and generate substantial business growth.

6. Findings from process and impact evaluation of the Content Fund

Summary of findings

Overall, funded companies are very satisfied with the Content Fund, both the amount on offer and the support from the UKGTF team.

Process evaluation

• Application process: The application process consists of two stages: (i) an Expression of Interest and (ii) the full application. Funded companies were overall satisfied with the process, viewing it as straightforward and proportionate to the level of funding.
• Information and awareness: Both the UKGTF team and funded companies felt there was good awareness of the Content Fund overall. Funded companies typically found out about the grant through word-of-mouth and mailing lists, forums, and events. Information was shared during the programme through regular reporting and catch-ups, and the UKGTF team were said to be responsive to ad-hoc queries.
• Support offered: The support offered consists of non-repayable grants of £50,000 to £150,000, as well as opportunistic events that bring together funded companies, publishers, and investors (e.g., Develop in Brighton). Funded companies overall felt this amount was sufficient and reflective of their target audience, and they typically did not seek out further support as they are more established studios.
• Operational delivery: Funded companies felt that the UKGTF team had the right skills and expertise to deliver the Content Fund.
• Monitoring and evaluation: The Content Fund has been in a pilot stage, and so the only iterations of processes have come from the application process.

Impact evaluation

• Attraction of staff and remuneration: Many funded companies made full-time hires using the funding. Remuneration and staff benefits were less directly impacted.
• Business creation and growth: Most businesses had grown, or were expected to grow, in terms of revenue and headcount as a result of the Content Fund. Some had released their games, and others had signed deals with publishers because of the funding. Awareness and profile were less directly impacted, as most funded companies were already established within the industry.
• Investability and generating IP: Around half of the interviewees felt that the funding had been instrumental in moving conversations along with publishers and investors. The quality of the game was improved for most, and some expressed that their game would not have gotten to launch without the funding.
• Collaborations and relationships: There was typically no impact on collaborations with other games developers, owing to the fact that funded companies were not seeking this out. There was also little impact on new relationships with publishers and investors, but existing investors viewed the funding as positive.
• Skills development: Technical skills were said to be developed due to funding allowing for new features and engines to be used as well as more detailed artwork. Other skills developed were managerial, production, and marketing.

Areas for improvement

• Overall, interviewees called for the Content Fund to continue, stating that it is important for the UK games industry.
• The level of funding was described as sufficient, but funded companies wanted more studios to be funded in each round.
• It was also suggested to include more guidance around next steps for funded companies following on from the Content Fund.

We interviewed 15 Content Fund funded companies, with the first five interviewed across July and August 2024 and the next ten interviewed across December 2024 to February 2025. We also interviewed three members of the UKGTF Content Fund delivery team in July 2024. All interviews took place remotely and lasted up to one hour.

The interviewed companies were mostly based in England, with a few being based in Scotland. They ranged from having been established only a few years ago to having been running for over 15 years. The funded games of interviewees were varied in nature, ranging across different genres, platforms, and technologies. The majority of studios had not been involved with UKGF previously, but five had previously received Prototype funding and one had unsuccessfully applied to the Prototype Fund with a different project.

Process evaluation

Summary of the Content Fund

The Content Fund, launched in September 2023, is a £5 million uplift to the UKGF, providing high-potential companies with grants for video game content development of between £50k-£150k. This funding is designated for paying UK PAYE employees and (to a lesser extent) contractors for hands-on development activity. Through this support, it is expected that the Content Fund will allow companies to develop new intellectual property (IP), improving the likelihood of securing private investment and further content development funding. Its strategic objectives include:

• Helping early-stage games businesses and entrepreneurs by supporting pathways to content development funding, private investment from publishers, and private 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 funding is administered on a rolling basis, with assessment panels meeting roughly once a month to review and approve applications. To apply to the Content Fund, any company can submit an Expression of Interest (EOI), which is then reviewed by UKGTF, who proceed to invite companies with good cases for support to submit a full application. Across all Content Fund rounds, 302 EOIs were submitted in total.

Applicants to the Content Fund must comply with a series of financial and operational requirements to be eligible for funding, including the need for (i) the company to be UK registered with PAYE employees engaged in games development work in the UK, (ii) a prototype to already be in place, and (iii) overall project costs at least double the requested grant^{[footnote 8]}.

Table 11. Content Fund applications, award rate, and funding awarded between September 2023 and March 2025

Round	Number of EOIs	Number of full applications	Number of applicants successful	Success rate for full applications (%)
2023/24	251	50	17	34%
2024/25	51	27	12	44%
Total	301	77	20	38%

Source: UKGTF monitoring data

Application process

Members of the UKGTF team explained that the application process for the Content Fund is split into an initial Expression of Interest (EOI) followed by a full application, a similar process to that for applications to the Prototype Fund. The filtering process is intended to ensure that a more substantial, full application is only completed by companies with a good chance of success. Overall, funded companies were satisfied with the application process, saying that it was clear, straightforward, and proportionate to the level of funding received. Most companies stated that any queries or issues were responded to quickly, and there was good communication with the UKGTF team throughout. A couple of companies noted that they found the eligibility criteria confusing at times, particularly around the target audience and ‘edge cases’ where applicants do not fit neatly into the requirements. These companies did, however, express that the UKGTF team were responsive to their queries about this. Another couple felt that the match-funding criteria serve to fund the “publisher ecosystem,” which is not always most beneficial to studios.

Some companies noted that they had applied for funding from other sources before and so had materials ready to repackage for the Content Fund application, making it less onerous. Funded companies indicated that they were asked clarification questions on their applications, but had not received feedback beyond confirmation of being successful. The UKGTF team said that feedback was “difficult to do well” given the substantial time and resources required, although they currently offer a feedback discussion to unsuccessful applicants who are close to being successful but not yet ready.

Information and awareness

All interviewees viewed there to be good awareness of the Content Fund within the UK games industry, with the UKGTF team describing having received hundreds of EOIs from companies within the first six months. Funded companies explained they first heard about the Content Fund mostly through word of mouth and sometimes through mailing lists, forums, and attending events. Funded companies particularly noted the work of the Content Fund Portfolio Manager in promoting the Fund, referring to them as a good ambassador. A few of the studios also spoke directly to members of the UKGTF team before applying. One funded company said that the UKGF “shout it from the rooftops.” The UKGTF team referenced their existing relationships with trade bodies Ukie and TIGA, being used to promote the UKGF programmes as well as collaborating on industry events.

Members of the UKGTF team described introductory calls, monthly reporting, three-monthly catchups, and support at the end of the funding as channels for funded companies to receive information. Most funded companies felt that information was communicated clearly throughout and said that the UKGTF team were readily available and responsive. A couple of funded companies felt there was a delay in receiving confirmation that they had been successful after their application.

Support offered

The Content Fund consists of non-repayable grants of £50,000 to £150,000. The UKGTF team also described, where possible, opportunistic events with publishers and investors being made available to funded companies, though the events are not formally built into the Content Fund offering. There is also a private Discord server made available to funded companies to foster discussion and networking. All the funded companies interviewed had received grants of between £100,000 and £150,000. The funded companies all viewed the amount of funding on offer to be “reflective of its target audience” and sufficient to meet their objectives (such as developing a playable^{[footnote 9]} to demonstrate their video game concept to investors and using the funding as leverage to advance conversations with interested publishers).

These companies generally were not looking for further support from UKGTF due to already being established within the industry, but mentioned a few areas where support was appreciated. This included regular progress catchups with the Grant Monitor for the Content Fund and an active Discord server for funded companies. Companies also described being invited to several events, including the London Games Festival and Develop in Brighton. Some companies had not been able to attend due to other commitments. The few interviewed who did attend Develop said that it was useful for networking as well as practising and refining pitches. A couple of companies also talked about enjoying the community contribution scheme, whereby funded Content Fund companies give back by providing talks and workshops for UKGF-funded companies at earlier stages.

Operational delivery

Funded companies all stated that they viewed the UKGTF team as having the right skills and expertise to administer the Content Fund. Specifically, a few funded companies expressed their appreciation for experienced games industry “veterans” being a part of assessing applications. One funded company viewed that the Content Fund was truly “by games people, for games people.” When asked about other industry professionals who may have been involved, funded companies either spoke about events promoted by UKGF or stated that no other industry professionals had been involved. The UKGTF team echoed these points, mentioning Develop in Brighton as a useful event bringing together funded companies, publishers, and investors. The UKGTF team also mentioned industry professionals being on the panel of application assessors.

Monitoring and evaluation

Members of the UKGTF team were asked for their thoughts on monitoring and evaluation of the Content Fund. They stated that as the Content Fund has been in pilot stage, there have only been iterations of the application process so far (e.g., additional questions added). They did, however, emphasise the importance of learning and iteration in other UKGF programmes.

Impact evaluation

Attraction of staff and remuneration

The majority of funded companies that were interviewed all referenced full-time hires made as a direct result of the Content Fund funding, which usually consisted of two additional staff members. The sense was that these hires had all come from within the video game industry, though only one company stated this explicitly. Most of the time, these hires were of people the studios had previously worked with, for example, converting freelance employees to PAYE employees. Several of the funded companies also referenced an indirect impact on staffing from the Content Fund support. For example, the funding sometimes freed up resources in other parts of the company to allow for hiring or allowed studios to hire new staff more quickly than they would have otherwise. This was echoed by the UKGTF team, who stated that there was limited data due to the Content Fund being in its early stages, but that anecdotally, funded companies had been making the hires they had planned to.

Staff remuneration and other benefits were viewed as less directly related to the Content Fund but were impacted in some ways. For example, several companies were able to maintain current staff numbers and commit current staff to working on the Content Fund project. Two funded companies claimed the funding allowed them to offer more competitive salaries, whilst another was able to promote two of its staff members when they moved onto the funded project. Other benefits discussed included one company partly using the funding for their remote team to meet in person. Another company stated that new hires made through the Content Fund meant workload across the team was better balanced, leading to mental health benefits.

Business creation and growth

Most of the funded companies said that their business had grown or is expected to grow, in terms of revenue and headcount, since receiving their Content Fund grant. In terms of revenue, four interviewed companies had released their game to date (including one on early access). Of these, one company stated that they had seen ten times higher revenues compared to the previous year, and another said that at the time of the interview, they were having their second biggest year in terms of turnover. Another studio’s funded game was said to generate an income of over £600,000 each year, and a different studio’s funded game had sold 15,000 copies in its first month on early access.

A number of funded companies expressed that they had not yet seen business growth as a result of the Content Fund support, but associated this lack of progress with their funded project not officially being announced yet. Some companies expected business growth to come from expanding their IP once their funded game is released (e.g., in sequels, updates, and new formats and platforms).

Reasons for overall business growth that funded companies attributed to the Content Fund included increased business confidence, increased ability to take risks, more time spent on their funded project, and support with the marketing required to launch the game. The UKGTF team also spoke anecdotally about publisher deals being signed and pre-arranged investments going through as a result of the funding. They also said that the target audience for the Content Fund meant that start-ups were very unlikely to be funded.

In terms of awareness and profile of businesses, the majority of interviewed companies stated that while UKGTF did promote their games on social media and the website, the impact was either little or difficult to measure. Some companies felt they were already well-established within the industry, so they did not expect awareness of their studio to increase. Others stated that simply being funded by UKGF was prestigious and raised the profile of their business. A couple of studios described difficulties with capitalising on UKGTF’s ability to promote their game as it was unannounced at the time.

Investability and generating IP

Of the funded companies interviewed, around half said that receiving the Content Fund funding had been instrumental as leverage to move conversations along with interested investors and publishers, with six having secured deals or match funding (an additional company secured a deal for it later to fall through due to external factors). One of these deals was with Meta and was valued at over $1 million. These funded companies said that the Content Fund had allowed them to create a more developed playable, which had derisked and made the project more attractive for investors and publishers. A number of companies that had not yet secured a publisher deal had only just finished development using the funds, but these studios felt that the Content Fund would help them secure a deal in the future for the same reason (i.e., developing a polished demo) and because of the prestige of being UKGF-funded. A few of those that had not yet secured a publisher or investor deal stated that they did not intend to follow this route, instead aiming to self-publish.

The majority of the funded companies also described working for hire alongside developing their own IP. Most of these funded companies did not view that they could phase out their work-for-hire entirely (although this was the ultimate goal), but a couple felt that the Content Fund had allowed them to better balance their work-for-hire with working on their own IP. A few companies had only ever worked on their own IP but stated that the Content Fund had allowed them to maintain this for longer.

In respect of supporting the commercialisation of the funded projects, the majority of funded companies said that the Content Fund had directly improved the quality of their game, as well as accelerating the development process. Of those that had been able to launch their game, a large proportion stated this would not have happened without the Content Fund, with all stages of commercialisation impacted (e.g., development, opening conversations with publishers and investors, and marketing). The UKGTF team echoed these points anecdotally and also mentioned that, as new IP is inherently risky, the criteria to have a letter of intent from a publisher at the application stage provided them with useful external validation for the game’s commercial potential.

Collaborations and relationships

The UKGTF team described several ways in which the Content Fund promotes the development of collaborations and networking amongst the Content Fund beneficiaries. These included the private Discord server made available to funded companies, opportunistic events, and a community contribution scheme where funded companies support other UKGF programmes (e.g., mentoring Tranzfuser teams). Improving funded companies’ networks was viewed by the UKGTF team as less of a direct aim of the Content Fund, given that funded companies are usually already established within the industry, and this was echoed by a few companies in their interviews.

The majority of funded companies interviewed said that the Content Fund had not had significant impacts on their collaborations with other games developers, attributing this to not actively looking to collaborate with other games developers or being restricted in their ability to hire contractors using the grant. One funded company expressed, however, that they were able to work again with a smaller studio they had worked with previously as a result of the Content Fund. Some funded companies mentioned that while new relationships with investors or publishers were not formed, the funding and association with UKGF had been seen as positive by existing investors. A few others said that attending Develop in Brighton had expanded their networks “a little.”

Skills development

The majority of interviewed funded companies spoke about a variety of skills their team had developed as a direct result of the Content Fund. The skills referenced were often technical skills, where the funding meant the funded project could involve more advanced features, a new engine, more detailed artwork, etc. These funded companies agreed that their teams’ creative portfolios had been enhanced as a result. Other skills that were mentioned as having been developed by a few funded companies included managerial, production, and marketing skills, as well as soft skills, like confidence. A couple of funded companies also stated that the upskilling enabled by the funding had been more evident for their less experienced staff, such as recent graduates. These points were echoed by the UKGTF team. Some funded companies felt that they had not developed managerial or business skills as much, but attributed this to already being highly skilled in these areas.

Areas for improvement

Studios we interviewed that had been funded by the Content Fund described generally positive experiences, with many calling for the continuation of the programme into the future. Several companies put this in the context of the games industry being in a particularly difficult place at the moment, and no other video game funds in the UK offering this level of support. Overall, the Content Fund was described as important for the industry, with one company stating that it allows for “meaningful and impactful stories” to be told.

Despite funded companies describing the amount of funding they received as sufficient, a couple expressed that they would like to see a greater scale of funding, firstly in terms of amount of funding per company. This was explained in the sense that a larger amount of funding available would always be desirable to growing games companies. Many interviewees also wanted a greater number of companies to be funded in each round, although these companies also generally appreciated the restrictions around government spending. The UKGTF team called for more certainty over the longevity of the Content Fund, expressing that more long-term certainty would be beneficial for funded companies and planning for the future.

Several companies also spoke about more guidance around ‘next steps’ following on from the Content Fund, and one company thought that there could be benefits in UKGTF partnering with other organisations (such as trade bodies) specifically to promote follow-on opportunities.

Other less commonly mentioned areas to improve included a few Content Fund companies calling for a greater focus on funding diverse studios and games, for example, tracking and publishing diversity data. Some companies also asked for additional support, either in the form of clarifications and more guidance on eligibility criteria when applying, or in the form of additional activities and events (such as a showcase or pitching event).

One of the funded companies interviewed also wished that UKGTF would partner with more companies to offer services and products at discounted rates or with other ‘perks’ (e.g., Unity engine licences and Slack subscriptions). Another funded company asked for more clarity around the process of how funded companies are paid the grant.

7. Key findings from the economic evaluation

Summary of findings

• Our value-for-money assessment provides evidence that the current three-year iteration of the UKGF programme (including the Prototype Fund, Tranzfuser, and DunDev) generates social returns in the range of £3.80 to £7.30 for every £1 of public funds invested, with a central estimate of £4.80 per £1 of funding.
• Estimated benefits primarily relate to increased labour productivity flowing from increased employment in the games sector, reflecting evidence that the games sector is a highly productive sector compared with alternative employment options for supported developers.
• To a lesser extent, UKGF is also estimated to generate benefits relating to (i) increased consumer welfare for video gamers from consumption of supported game titles, and (ii) increased welfare for UKGF participants, reflecting the training elements of DunDev and Tranzfuser.

Table 12. UKGF benefits and costs summary

Benefits/ costs (Present value terms, 2023 base year)	Central estimate	Lower bound estimate	Upper bound estimate
Total benefits (£m)	38.8	30.3	58.9
Costs (£m)	(8.1)	(8.1)	(8.1)
Net social benefit (£m)	30.7	22.0	50.8
Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (BCR)	4.8x	3.8x	7.3x

Source: Alma Economics analysis

Note: The scenarios presented in the table above vary as follows: (i) our central scenario assumes productivity benefits will persist for ten years and a displacement effect on productivity benefits of 10%, (ii) our lower bound scenario assumes productivity benefits will persist for ten years and a displacement effect on productivity benefits of 30%, and (iii) our upper bound scenario assumes productivity benefits will persist for 15 years and a displacement effect on productivity benefits of 6%. See Appendix B for more detail.

This section provides estimates of the value-for-money of the latest three-year iteration of the UKGF, covering the period 2022/23 to 2024/25 and incorporating three UKGF strands: Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund (the new Content Fund was out of scope). Our approach is underpinned by HM Treasury Green Book guidance relating to best practice for appraisal of policies, projects, and programmes^{[footnote 10]}.

In line with this best practice, we have conducted a Social Cost-Benefit Analysis to estimate the expected benefits of the UKGF programme, weighing these against its costs of delivery. The assumptions underpinning the economic modelling, which feeds into the Cost-Benefit Analysis, are summarised in Appendix B of this report, and include data gathered through a range of sources, including (i) analysis of responses to the Alma Economics survey of UKGF beneficiaries, (ii) data provided by the programme delivery partner (UKGTF), (iii) data from major statistical publications, and (iv) estimates from the academic literature.

Programme benefits

The benefits included within the Cost-Benefit Analysis primarily relate to the estimated uplift in productivity driven by increased employment in the video games sector, a sector that the economic data indicates is relatively high productivity compared with the wider UK economy. This has been supplemented by estimates of increased wellbeing for beneficiaries related to the training element of DunDev and Tranzfuser, and estimates of increased consumer welfare for video gamers derived from UKGF-supported games. Based on fieldwork conducted as part of this evaluation, the UKGF programme is also understood to be contributing to a wide range of other social benefits, including spillovers associated with generation of new intellectual property (IP) (e.g., the contribution of video game technology to other sectors), an impact that has not been deemed feasible to measure robustly due to data limitations.

Analysis of employment and productivity impacts

In line with HM Treasury’s Green Book guidance, our approach to measuring the economic benefits of UKGF has focused on understanding the impact of the programme on productivity, with employment in the video games sector being relatively high-productivity compared to employment in the wider UK economy.

The productivity impacts of UKGF have been estimated by combining assumptions on (i) the expected productivity uplift from being employed in the UK video game sector, (ii) the additional employment generated by the UKGF programme, and (iii) the persistence of these productivity impacts. More specifically, to estimate the total productivity uplift attributable to UKGF, the assumed productivity uplift per role was multiplied by the number of teams supported by UKGF, and then the estimated additional jobs created per team (drawing on evidence from the impact evaluation). This was then adjusted by an additionality factor and the assumed persistence of these benefits, to derive an estimate of the additional productivity benefit per year^{[footnote 11]}.

Based on the analysis of responses to the Alma Economics survey of beneficiaries, the current three-year iteration of the UKGF was estimated to contribute around 430 additional FTE jobs in the video games sector. Our central estimate for additional employee productivity is around £38m over a ten-year time horizon. Our sensitivity analysis, which accounts for uncertainty in the true level of persistence of the productivity benefits and displacement effects, estimates a range of between £29m and £58m in productivity benefits for the UK economy (in Present Value terms) over a ten- to 15-year time horizon^{[footnote 12]}.

Increased welfare for gamers

It can also be estimated that the development of new video games by UKGF-supported teams or companies will yield benefits to gamers in the form of increased wellbeing. The value of video games developed through UKGF support to gamers is partially elicited by the amount they are willing to pay to access and enjoy each game (i.e., the price to download or purchase a physical copy of the game), but individuals typically also experience additional wellbeing enhancement over and above the value of their outlay on access to the game (this is commonly referred to as “consumer surplus” in economics terminology)^{[footnote 13]}.

A study by Olsberg SPI (2015) estimated a social welfare benefit of £2.66 per hour per gamer for time spent playing video games, equivalent to about £18.5bn of social welfare across all UK gamers for all time spent playing games^{[footnote 14]}](#_ftn14). Utilising this estimate and making conservative assumptions about the level of displacement from other gaming activities, we estimate an increase in consumer welfare from UKGF-supported games of around £0.3m (in Present Value terms). Appendix B provides further detail on the assumptions and methods underpinning this estimate.

Wellbeing effects for supported video game developers

The fieldwork conducted during this evaluation highlighted the value that beneficiaries place on the contribution of the UKGF to their skills development and career progression. Such benefits can be expected to be welfare-enhancing for game developers, with a 2012 contingent valuation study finding that individuals had an average willingness to pay £1,070 for a course that helped them progress their career, and £847 for a course that improved their knowledge and skills^{[footnote 15]}. It can also be estimated that there would be further wellbeing benefits for beneficiaries to the extent that they derive enhanced wellbeing from being employed in the video games sector, compared with other employment alternatives. Evidence from Gallup suggests that the quality of work has a 2.5 times greater impact on wellbeing than the total number of days or hours worked^{[footnote 16]}. Applying these estimates to Tranzfuser and DunDev beneficiaries, both programmes of which include a training element, we estimate a total of £0.3m in wellbeing benefits of this nature (in Present Value terms).

Other likely benefits

The following benefits have not been included in the Cost-Benefit Analysis calculations due to a lack of data or evidence, which would enable their quantification, but have been acknowledged nonetheless in line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance.

Technology and IP spillovers

Insights from the Alma Economics survey of beneficiaries and subsequent interviews have indicated that UKGF is successfully supporting video games studios in developing valuable intellectual property, which is being reused across subsequent projects. Whilst the spillover benefits associated with new technology and IP are challenging to value and will vary significantly from project to project, we expect this will yield at least some additional benefits from UKGF support over and above the productivity benefits quantified above.

The existence of technological spillovers in the UK, more generally—measured in terms of the contribution of video game technology to sectors outside of the game industry―was recently evidenced in a report by FTI Consulting and Ukie in 2023, which found that^{[footnote 17]}:

Sectors such as healthcare, audiovisual media, manufacturing, and real estate have adopted and applied innovations from game developers to enhance their products and improve their business operations. These technologies include game engines, virtual reality (“VR”), augmented reality (“AR”), rendering software, controllers and input devices, and haptic feedback. This game technology is developed globally, but “spills over” into non-game sectors of local economies, which benefit through higher productivity and output.

The report proceeded to estimate that in 2021, 10,000 jobs were supported by game technology spillovers relative to the 71,400 jobs supported by the whole sector, and that these same spillovers contributed £760m to the UK’s GDP.

In addition to technology spillovers, there are also merchandising and events spillovers from the video games sector, where toys and other physical products, movies, and books are created using IP originally sourced from video games. Ukie estimated that in 2019, £146.4m in revenue was generated from games-related merchandise sales and events. While there may be additional benefits driven by merchandise and events spillovers, these are likely to be small, as merchandise and other sales come primarily from larger, recognisable franchises, as opposed to smaller indie games.

Programme costs

Cost data provided by UKGTF indicated that £8.4m of public funding has been spent on delivering the three UKGF strands, including Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund (this excludes funding for the new Content Fund). This expenditure has been spread on a broadly equal basis across the three years of the current programme (2022/23 to 2024/25). The costs of delivering UK Games Fund programmes are broadly split into three categories:

• Non-recoupable grant awards: around £5.4m (65%) of UKGF funding has been allocated toward the provision of grants to beneficiaries of the three UKGF strands, with the vast majority of this being allocated to Prototype Fund participants.
• Other programme-specific costs: around £2.1m (25%) of UKGF funding is estimated to cover non-grant expenditure on the UKGF programmes, consisting of (but not limited to) staff costs, marketing expenditure, and event costs, such as those incurred in the delivery of the Tranzfuser and DunDev programmes.
• Non-programme admin costs: around £0.9m (10%) of UKGF funding is estimated to cover operating costs incurred by UKGTF in delivering the programme that cannot be attributed to specific funding strands, including (but not limited to) overhead expenditure (offices, equipment, facilities) and staff costs.

More detail on programme costs is provided in Appendix B of this report.

Time and financial costs not covered by UKGF

Whilst not explicitly captured within the social cost-benefit analysis, we understand in some instances that UKGF participants make substantial personal contributions to supported video game projects. These contributions may reflect the costs incurred to get the project to the point of being eligible for UKGF funding, or alternatively, be a necessary supplement to any UKGF funding received. Such contributions can come in different forms, including any unpaid time devoted or personal financial or non-financial resources (e.g., materials, office space, computers, and other infrastructure) committed to the project. Some of the benefits experienced by beneficiaries who receive UKGF funding may at least partially be attributable to these contributions. Insights provided by respondents to the second wave of our survey, which included questions related to this topic, provide insights into the prevalence and nature of such contributions.

The most prevalent self-funded items that teams reported in their responses included team member wages and subcontractor costs (73%), software and tools (79%), and hardware and physical equipment (64%). Fewer respondents self-funded the costs of marketing and distributing the video game (33%) and artwork and game design (3%). Nearly all of the respondents who answered the survey question selected more than one option, indicating that most teams are self-funding multiple items. Respondents also varied in the amount of self-funding they invested in their video game project, with reported investments ranging from £1,000 to as high as £100,000.

Respondents varied in the number of unpaid hours they were contributing to their video game project. The greatest number of respondents answered that most or all of the time committed to the project has been unpaid (39%), while the fewest responded that little to none of the time dedicated to the project has been unpaid (24%).

Figure 21. Share of teams dedicating unpaid hours to their video game project. Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants (N=33).

Further, Prototype Fund beneficiaries in particular may also use UKGF funding to leverage additional private funding, which may supplement the cost of developing the game. While this impact is explored in the Impact Evaluation, we have not included this in the CBA, as many beneficiaries did not provide a figure for how much additional funding they had raised.

Value-for-money assessment

We estimate that the current three-year iteration of UKGF (including Tranzfuser, DunDev, and the Prototype Fund) will generate combined benefits in the range of £30m to £58m (in Present Value terms) over a ten- to 15-year time horizon, with a central estimate of around £38m. When set against the costs of delivery, this represents a ratio of Benefits-to-Cost (BCR) of between 3.8x and 7.3x, with a central estimate of 4.8x. These results are summarised in the table below.

Table 13. UKGF benefits and costs summary

Benefits/ costs (Present value terms, 2023 base year)	Central estimate	Lower bound estimate	Upper bound estimate
Labour productivity benefits (£m)	38.4	29.9	58.5
Wellbeing benefits for adult learners (£m)	0.3	0.3	0.3
Increased consumer welfare for video gamers (£m)	0.2	0.2	0.2
Total benefits (£m)	38.8	30.3	58.9
Costs (£m)	(8.1)	(8.1)	(8.1)
Net social benefit (£m)	30.7	22.2	50.8
Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (BCR)	4.8x	3.8x	7.3x

Source: Alma Economics analysis

Note: The scenarios presented in the table above vary as follows: (i) our central scenario assumes productivity benefits will persist for ten years and a displacement effect on productivity benefits of 10%, (ii) our lower bound scenario assumes productivity benefits will persist for ten years and a displacement effect on productivity benefits of 30%, and (iii) our upper bound scenario assumes productivity benefits will persist for 15 years and a displacement effect on productivity benefits of 6%. See Appendix B for more detail.

Illustrative economic evaluation and framework for the Content Fund

Given the relatively early stage of the Content Fund at the point of delivering this evaluation, which provided no opportunity to evidence the medium- to long-term impact of funding, it was not deemed feasible to deliver a full economic evaluation at this stage. Despite this, we were able to deliver an early-stage economic evaluation, which provides illustrative estimates of the potential economic impact of the Content Fund, including illustrative projections of the net benefit and overall value-for-money of the funding. Based on this analysis, we anticipate that the true level of economic impact delivered by the Content Fund will be highly dependent on the commercial success of the supported video games and companies, as well as the extent to which the Content Fund was responsible for unlocking this success (“additionality”). We suggest the methods below for measuring and monitoring these impacts.

Overarching economic evaluation framework

The Content Fund’s closest comparator amongst the other UKGF strands is the Prototype fund in that it is also primarily a grant-based investment in video game development as opposed to the more education-focused Tranzfuser and DunDev strands. A key difference between these two programmes, however, is that the Content Fund supports what are typically more mature video game companies.

Given that the video game projects supported by the Content Fund are, by nature, more likely to be closer to delivering commercial returns, it is expected that the commercial success of the supported video games will be measurable in future (we suggest some methods for doing this below). In comparison to the Prototype Fund, we also anticipate that the founders and employees supported by the Content Fund are more likely to be established in the video game sector already, making the programme more about developing thriving and sustainable UK video game businesses than launching early-stage talent. On this basis, we recommend that the primary benefit stream to be measured as part of future Content Fund economic evaluation efforts is increased business productivity (as opposed to the labour productivity uplift measured for the other UKGF strands), with a suggested method for quantifying this being summarised below. Other benefits can be layered on top of this, such as increased consumer welfare for video gamers, although based on our similar analysis in relation to the Prototype Fund, we would expect such benefits to be relatively small in magnitude.

The benefits and costs of the Content Fund should be collated and summarised as part of a social cost-benefit analysis, where streams of benefits and costs are profiled and discounted over time, culminating in an estimate of the Net Present Value of the programme and a Benefit-Cost Ratio, which can be used by policymakers to benchmark the impact of the programme.

Measuring additional business productivity

The main steps for developing a monetary estimate for the additional business productivity generated by the Content Fund are summarised below.

Step 1: Estimate revenue generated by Content Fund-supported video game projects

Given the early stage at which this evaluation was conducted, we understand that only a few supported businesses have yet been able to monetise their games, and as such, tangible evidence of revenue generated was not available to feed into this evaluation. We recommend that monitoring of the commercial success of Content Fund beneficiaries forms a core part of future evaluation efforts. Revenue data can be collected at various stages of the award lifecycle via a range of different means:

1. Company revenue projections for supported projects could be collected at the application stage as part of routine monitoring by UKGTF.

2. Actual and projected revenue for supported projects could be collected once the final grant amount has been fully drawn as part of routine monitoring by UKGTF.

3. Follow-up surveys or interviews could be used by a future programme evaluator to collect data on the medium- and long-term revenue realised by the supported projects.

There are relative benefits and risks to each option. Whilst incorporating revenue projections into the application or routine monitoring processes (as is suggested in Options 1 and 2) should achieve relatively high response rates, the reliance on arbitrary projections may mean input data is not reflective of reality. Whilst follow-up surveys (as suggested in Option 3) would provide data on an actual basis rather than a projection basis, we anticipate response rates could be lower due to data provision happening on a voluntary basis and there being a higher likelihood of respondent attrition, whilst issues of data quality may persist if beneficiaries do not provide data in the required format.

Numbers of Content Fund beneficiaries

All relevant benefits should be scaled based on the actual or projected numbers of successful teams or companies applying for Content Fund funding. We understand that 29 companies were provided with Content Fund grants between September 2023 and March 2025, representing around 19 supported companies on a pro-rata annualised basis if funding levels remain the same.

Step 2: Adjust revenue to reflect levels of additionality

In line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance, video game commercial revenue should be adjusted to reflect additionality, displacement, and leakage. Methods for deriving estimates of these are summarised below.

Additionality

Content Fund impacts should be measured relative to the scenario in which funding was not received (the “counterfactual”), and as such should be revised downwards to reflect a suitable additionality factor. We anticipate that additionality can be quantified in two different ways for the Content Fund:

• Eliciting these directly from beneficiaries by asking them for their perception of the extent to which the Content Fund grant contributed to the impacts experienced (i.e., improved game quality, revenue potential, employment) using a suitable scale (i.e., a scale of 1 to 10 representing “no contribution” to “full contribution”). While there is a risk that scales can be interpreted differently by different beneficiaries, this risk can be mitigated by clear phrasing and instructions provided alongside the question.
• Comparing beneficiary outcomes with those of unsuccessful applicants (i.e., those who failed at the EOI stage), potentially via a survey of applicants administered in subsequent years or alternatively by comparing revenue projections at the point of application for successful and unsuccessful applicants (the latter method we expect would be less robust).

The analysis presented below assumes an illustrative additionality rate of 75%, reflecting early evidence provided by interviewed Content Fund beneficiaries that the additionality of funding is relatively high due to its ability to leverage additional private funding and contribute to the successful commercialisation of supported video game titles. This estimate should be interrogated and evidenced further through follow-ups with beneficiaries over time as benefits materialise in the medium- to long-term.

Displacement

Revenue estimates should be adjusted downwards based on the extent to which it is expected to displace existing UK video game development activity, or the extent to which Content Fund beneficiaries displace investment in other comparable video game companies. Given the global nature of the video game sector and prevalence of digital sales, we anticipate displacement to be very low for activity generated by Content Fund-supported companies. The analysis presented below assumes a displacement rate of zero, although this should be tested as part of future evaluation efforts.

Leakage

Given that the Content Fund is targeted toward UK-registered companies with UK PAYE employees, we would anticipate leakage to be relatively low, perhaps in line with the 6% rate assumed for the wider UKGF, although this should be further evidenced as part of future evaluation efforts.

Step 3: Convert revenue to GVA

Additional revenue should be converted to GVA using an appropriate ratio. Our analysis below uses a conversion factor of 0.55, which was derived from estimates of the total company turnover and GVA for SIC Code 62.01 “Computer programming activities” included within the results of the Annual Business Survey 2022^{[footnote 18]}. Additional sensitivity analyses could be conducted using other relevant SIC Codes, including “Publishing of computer games,” “Other software publishing,” or “Computer consultancy activities.”

Step 4: Project benefits over a suitable timeframe

It is reasonable to expect that supporting the launch of a commercially successful video game will generate benefits that persist beyond the year the grant was received and spent, as future revenue streams and employment are realised. Despite this, it is also reasonable to expect that benefits will not persist indefinitely: some games may become more or less successful over time, whilst there is a risk that some companies may cease to exist altogether due to changes in circumstances. The longevity of Content Fund benefits should be monitored by a future programme evaluator to understand the extent to which benefits grow or diminish over time. To project future business productivity benefits, we have used an assumption for average survival of video game development businesses, which was derived from Cabras et al. (2017), who found that UK video game development companies survived for 7.96 years on average between 2009 and 2014^{[footnote 19]}.

Step 5: Estimate the costs of delivery

The costs of administering the Content Fund should be measured as part of a future economic evaluation. The table below summarises the delivery costs associated with administration of the Content Fund between the launch of the Content Fund in September 2023 and March 2025, using data provided by UKGTF. Of the £5.0m of costs incurred in this period, £4.6m (91%) relates to the financial value of the grants awarded to successful Content Fund applicants, with a further £0.4m (9%) reflecting staff costs and other overheads associated with administering these grants―some of this relates to establishment costs. Costs of delivery should ideally also factor in the private costs of game development, subject to the quality of the data.

Table 14. Content Fund delivery costs (2023/24 to 2024/25)

Cost area	Pro rata annual cost (£m)	2023/24 to 2024/25 programme cost (£m)	Share of total (%)
Grants	3.0	4.6	91%
Administrative costs	0.3	0.4	9%
Total	3.3	5.0

Source: UKGTF cost data

Step 6: Compare benefits with costs (with illustrative scenarios)

The benefits and costs of the Content Fund should be collated and summarised as part of a social cost-benefit analysis, where streams of benefits and costs are profiled and discounted over time, culminating in an estimate of the Net Present Value of the programme and a Benefit-Cost Ratio that can be used by policymakers to benchmark the impact of the programme.

In the absence of actual revenue data for Content Fund beneficiaries, due to the early stage of the programme, we present below a set of estimated benefits and costs for three illustrative scenarios reflecting different levels of beneficiary commercial performance (considering a revenue range of £100k to £300k per project per annum).

Table 15. Illustrative example of potential Content Fund benefits and costs

Benefits/ costs (Present value terms, 2024 base year)	Scenario 1: £100k revenue per project pa	Scenario 2: £200k revenue per project pa	Scenario 3: £300k revenue per project pa
Additional business productivity (£m)	7.5	15.1	22.6
Delivery costs (£m)	(4.9)	(4.9)	(4.9)
Net social benefit (£m)	2.8	10.3	17.9
Benefit-to-Cost Ratio (BCR)	1.5	3.1	4.6

Source: Alma Economics analysis

General assumptions

The following general assumptions should also be built into the analysis:

• Inflation. All benefits and costs should be presented in real terms (i.e., with the effects of general inflation removed), with the first year of funding used as a base year.
• Discounting of benefits and costs. In line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance, future benefits and costs attributed to the Content Fund should be discounted and presented as present values. This discounting will adjust future benefits and costs to reflect social time preference, capturing the higher value society attaches to consumption now compared with in the future. Our analysis has used the Green Book discount rate, known as the Social Time Preference Rate, which is set at 3.5% in real terms.
• Adjusting for optimism bias. All benefits should be presented alongside adjustments for optimism bias, accounting for potential overestimates of benefit streams.
• Accounting for uncertainty. Where assumptions are based on uncertain evidence, we recommend using sensitivity analysis to illustrate how results vary based on a range of inputs.

Appendix A: Evaluation questions

A key element of evaluation planning involved scoping and prioritising the questions the evaluation of UKGF will be designed to answer. The scope of the evaluation of the main UKGF (the Prototype Fund, Tranzfuser, and DunDev) encompasses three types of evaluation, each of which is focused on answering different types of evaluation questions:

• Impact evaluation – developing an understanding of whether UKGF has resulted in the desired outcomes and impacts, as well as if any unintended (positive or negative) consequences have materialised. Impact typically refers to the key outcomes of an intervention, monetised or non-monetised, and is expected to be a key input for the economic evaluation.
• Process evaluation – providing a review of how UKGF has been implemented, and what support mechanisms have worked (and why). The process evaluation will also seek to identify possible opportunities for improvement in terms of administering UKGF.
• Economic evaluation – involving measurement and monetisation of UKGF’s impacts (if feasible) relative to its costs to assess the extent to which it represents value-for-money. Cost-Benefit Analysis is expected to be the primary economic evaluation tool in the context of a UKGF evaluation.

The evaluation questions for this research are summarised below, mapped to the research methodology we used to assess progress.

Impact evaluation

Evaluation question	UKGF Strand
How and to what extent has the programme been successful in increasing business access to finance and level of investment?	All
Has the business grown as a result of the programme, in terms of employment, turnover and profits?	All
Has productivity increased for those participating in the programme compared to other businesses?	All
How and to what extent has the programme affected employee wages?	All
How and to what extent has Tranzfuser been successful in improving businesses’ understanding of financial options available to increase investment and enhance growth?	Tranzfuser
How and to what extent has the programme led to the development of new prototype games?	All
How and to what extent has the programme led to the creation of new, innovative, and high-standard IP?	All
How and to what extent has the programme led to the commercialisation and exploitation of new video games?	All
How and to what extent has the programme supported the development of new collaborations with games developers?	All
How and to what extent has the programme supported the funding of new startups?	All
How and to what extent has the programme increased the awareness and profile of the companies supported?	All
How and to what extent has the programme led to the development of technical, managerial, business/entrepreneurial and founder skills?	All
How and to what extent has the programme developed the creative portfolios of team members in both funded companies and associated freelancers/contractors, and how does that contribute to the growth and productivity impacts?	All
How and to what extent has the programme led to a reduction in skills gaps in the funded companies?	All
How and to what extent has the programme supported participants in expanding their network connections with peers, investors, publishers, and platforms? If so, have the increased network connections led to the acquisition of new skills?	All
How and to what extent does Tranzfuser address a gap in games graduate education and training?	Tranzfuser

Process evaluation questions

Evaluation question	Process	UKGF Strand
Were programme beneficiaries satisfied with the application process?	Applications	All
Were queries adequately addressed by UKGTF?	Applications	All
Was adequate feedback provided by UKGTF given the available resources?	Applications	All
Is the intensity of the application process proportionate to the level of funding available?	Applications	All
Was the application process effective in selecting the highest-quality applicants?	Assessment	All
Do application forms collect sufficient information to assess applications?	Assessment	All
Is there awareness of the programs amongst their target audiences?	Information and awareness	All
Did participants receive adequate information through the course of the programme?	Information and awareness	All
Did the delivery partner have the right skills and expertise to meet the programme needs and to deliver the specific programme strands?	Operational delivery	All
Did the industry professionals involved in programme delivery have the right skills and expertise to meet the programme needs and to deliver the specific programme strands?	Operational delivery	All
Were the investors, publishers, and platforms effectively involved in the programme’s activities and productively interacting with programme participants?	Operational delivery	All
Were trade organisations and national and regional cluster organisations involved in the programme’s activities and productively interacting with programme participants?	Operational delivery	All
What were the positive and negative effects of iterative learning and changes deployed to the delivery of the UKGF?	Program design	All
How effective were the different activities organised by the UK Games in delivering the programme objectives? This includes organised events, such as conferences, live streams, local awards, pitching and network events.	Program design	Tranzfuser, DunDev
[Questions to industry professionals involved in the events: investors, game publishers, and platforms, trade organisations and national and regional cluster organisations] How useful did you find these events? How could these be improved? Do you think programme participants were appropriately targeted (high potential talent/game developer, etc.)?	Program design	Tranzfuser, DunDev
Is sufficient information collected to monitor the program’s performance? Is data collection proportionate?	Monitoring and evaluation	All
How could the programme be further improved to deliver its intended benefits and maximise value-for-money in how it is run?	Monitoring and evaluation	All
What types of support would be beneficial to companies in the future?	Monitoring and evaluation	All
How effectively are learnings and improvements identified and acted upon?	Monitoring and evaluation	All

Economic evaluation

Evaluation question	UKGF Strand
Does the UKGF represent value-for-money, a net benefit for the exchequer and industry?	All
What is the estimated monetary value of the benefits generated through UKGF-funded activities?	All
What are the costs of the programme?	All
What is the overall net benefit of the programme? What evidence is there for additionality and displacement (for each strand)?	All
What is the value-for-money of each strand? How are the benefits, costs, and value-for-money influenced by different programme strands?	All
Where impacts are non-monetised, what evidence can be used to monetise these?	All
What uncertainty exists around the costs and benefits estimated?	All

Appendix B: Technical appendix

The following provides additional detail on the methods underpinning the impact and economic evaluation of the main UKGF funding, including the Prototype Fund, Tranzfuser, and DunDev.

Approach to difference in difference analysis

Our primary approach to quantitatively measuring the impact of UKGF was a Difference-in-Difference approach, an HM Treasury Magenta Book-endorsed quasi-experimental impact evaluation approach. Our research design involved measuring pre-intervention and post-intervention outcomes for beneficiaries of UKGF through a survey of applicants, comparing the changes in outcomes over time with the changes experienced by unsuccessful applicants. In this way, unsuccessful applicants formed an artificial ‘control group,’ which acted as a proxy for the UKGF’s counterfactual (i.e., programme beneficiary outcomes if they had not received UKGF support).

In short, the difference in outcomes before and after receipt of UKGF support for successful applicants is compared to the difference in outcomes before and after application to the fund for unsuccessful applicants. Two main Difference-in-Difference specifications were implemented in our analysis:

Binary treatment effect: diff-in-diff and matching

For difference-in-difference to be valid, it is important that the control group appears sufficiently similar to the treated group pre-intervention to enable the parallel trends assumption to be valid, i.e., the expectation is that changes in outcomes for the treated and untreated group should be the same in the absence of treatment. If this is true for all of the treated and untreated, it is possible to recover the Average Treatment Effect (ATE) from difference-in-differences (“diff-in-diff”).

Note: Although the textbook form is typically presented initially in levels, moving to the differenced form and including covariates produces a specification along the lines of^{[footnote 20]}:

Where is the outcome of interest for potential funding recipient , it is observed at least once before and after the intervention (noting that with just one observation before and after the intervention, the time dimension drops away). is a binary treatment effect that takes the value of 1 for the treated and 0 for the untreated (control group).

Continuous Treatment Effect diff-in-diff

This evaluation is very highly suited to employing diff-in-diff with a Continuous Treatment Effect, i.e., using a treatment effect for estimation that is based on funding received rather than a binary treatment effect of a 1 for the treated and 0 for the control group. This technique has various other names in the literature and can be referred to as “non-binary treatment,” “variable treatment,” “varying-intensity treatment,” and “dose-response,” all of which would be the same approach in this case. As a class of diff-in-diff that exploits quasi-randomness in treatment intensity, this technique is also a 4 on the Maryland Scale. Adapting the equation above, the binary treatment dummy is replaced by a new treatment variable, e.g., funding received in £, so that estimates the percentage improvement in the outcome indicator per £1 of funding received (and, for simplicity, including just one pooled treatment effect).

The Continuous Treatment Effect has allowed us to provide insight into the impact of different levels of funding awards on beneficiary outcomes. To understand the effect of a £10k funding, as well as the average award in our sample of £22.7k, and the maximum Prototype grant of £30k, we multiplied the relevant funding amount by the average treatment effect.

Summary of survey sample

Table 16. Summary statistics of survey respondents (first wave)^{[footnote 21]}

	All applicants	Successful applicants
Prototype	83	51
Tranzfuser	18	12
DunDev	4	3
Total[footnote 22]	111	66

Source: Alma Economics Survey of Applicants

Table 17. Summary statistics of survey respondents (second wave)

	All applicants	Successful applicants
Prototype	53	29
Tranzfuser	10	8
DunDev	4	0
Total[footnote 23]	58	33

Approach to cost-benefit analysis

General assumptions

Inflation

All benefits and costs in our analysis have been presented in real terms (i.e., with the effects of general inflation removed, as per HM Treasury Green Book guidance) with 2023/24 as a base year.

Discounting of benefits and costs

In line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance, future benefits and costs attributed to the UKGF have been discounted and presented as present values. This discounting adjusts future benefits and costs to reflect social time preference, capturing the higher value society attaches to consumption now compared with in the future. Our analysis has used the Green Book discount rate, known as the Social Time Preference Rate, which is set at 3.5% in real terms.

Numbers of beneficiaries

Our productivity benefit estimates have been scaled based on the expected number of successful teams or companies applying for UKGF funding. The figures presented below are based on expected final numbers of beneficiaries provided by UKGTF, with approximately 250 teams or companies expected to benefit from funding across all three UKGF strands over the current three-year iteration of the programme.

Table 18. Number of UKGF beneficiaries

UKGF strand	Average number of teams/companies supported (annual)	Total number of teams/companies supported (3-year programme)	Share of total (%)
Prototype	58	173	71%
Tranzfuser	20	61	24%
DunDev	4	11	5%
Total	82	245	100%

Source: UKGTF data

Programme cost assumptions

Our analysis of the UKGF’s costs of delivery is based on data provided by UKGTF on planned and actual expenditure incurred to run the UKGF through the three-year period 2022/23 to 2024/25. UKGTF projects this expenditure to be approximately £2.7m per annum across the three years of the current programme, equating to approximately £8.4m in total (excluding the Content Fund, which was out of scope of the economic evaluation in this report)^{[footnote 24]}. The majority of this spend (65%) has been committed toward grant funding for beneficiaries, with a further 25% covering non-grant programme costs and around 10% covering administrative costs, which cannot be allocated to a specific programme.

Table 19. UKGF programme costs

Cost area	Annual cost (£m)	3-year programme cost (£m)	Share of total (%)
Grants	1.8	5.4	65%
Other programme-specific costs	0.7	2.1	25%
Administrative costs	0.3	0.9	10%
Total	2.7	8.4	100%

Source: UKGTF cost data

Programme benefit assumptions

Additionality of impacts measured

In line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance, our analysis of the net impact of the UKGF has focused on estimating the additional impacts of the programme, with due consideration of the programme’s counterfactual (what would have materialised in the event beneficiaries had not received UKGF support). This analysis includes evidence-informed assumptions around the deadweight, leakage, and displacement effects associated with the outcomes observed, which combine to form a measure of the additionality of the outcomes observed.

Deadweight, a measure of the outcomes that would have been realised in the absence of the UKGF, is assumed to be implicitly accounted for in our estimates of the additional employment supported by the UKGF programmes (see table below). These estimates are derived from an analysis of responses to the Alma Economics survey of beneficiaries, which provides estimates for the additional employment per beneficiary, relative to unsuccessful applicants, after one year and four years of having received an award. Four-year estimates for employment are not presented in the impact evaluation, but are derived using the same methodology as one-year estimates, using the sample of beneficiaries who received UKGF funding in 2020 or earlier.

Table 20. Additional employment per team or company supported

Timeframe from support being received	Additional employment per beneficiary (FTEs)
1-year	0.3
2-years	1.0
3-years	1.3
4-years +	1.7

Source: Alma Economics analysis (using data from the Alma Economics survey of beneficiaries)

Assumptions for leakage and displacement were also derived from an analysis of responses to the Alma Economics survey of programme beneficiaries:

• Leakage accounts for the share of programme benefits that are expected to be realised outside of the UK, with an estimate of 6% being derived from responses to a survey question asking beneficiaries to specify the share of their staff who are based outside of the UK. This is supported by anecdotal evidence provided during beneficiary interviews that the vast majority of team or company members or employees are based in the UK.
• Displacement accounts for the share of programme benefits that are expected to displace existing economic activity (for example, the extent to which new job roles created by UKGF support displace existing jobs at UK competitors, which are not receiving support). We arrived at a central estimate for displacement of 10% following triangulation of evidence from different sources, including: (i) the 5% displacement effect estimated by EKOS during their evaluation of UKGF in 2019 (unpublished), (ii) a 30% displacement effect derived from analysis of responses to a survey question asking respondents to specify the share of direct competitors they perceive to be based outside of the UK^{[footnote 25]}, and (iii) anecdotal evidence provided by interviewed stakeholders that displacement effects are likely to be very low due to the global nature of the video game market and prevalence of digital activity. Given uncertainty around the true amount of displacement, we have conducted a sensitivity analysis to explore the impact of different levels of displacement, reflecting the range of values discussed above.

Table 21. Leakage and displacement assumptions

Assumption type	Central estimate	Low value	High value
Leakage	6%	6%	6%
Displacement	10%	6%	30%

Source: Alma Economics analysis (based on data from the survey of beneficiaries), EKOS 2019

Productivity uplift

HM Treasury Green Book guidance advises that productivity uplifts should be used as the measure of impact of any new employment, as opposed to the full value of supported employment, with this guidance assuming the UK is at full employment and thus any new jobs would be displacing existing jobs. Our estimates of the productivity impact of UKGF were derived from the difference in the average earnings for the “video games sector” compared with the wider “information and communications” sector. The latter category represents an assumed counterfactual for this analysis, indicating the potential incomes of video game developers were they not to have been supported to work in the video game sector and instead ended up working in adjacent sectors. The estimated uplift in earnings reflects anecdotal evidence provided in interviews that the video game sector is a relatively high-productivity sector compared with other sectors, which might hire individuals with similar skillsets.

Table 22. Labour productivity assumptions

Employment sector	Average annual earnings (£000s)
Information and communications sector	60.8
Video game sector	76.6
Assumed productivity uplift	15.8

Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (2023) for the information and communications sector, Screen Business (BFI, 2021) for the video games sector.

Note: Video games sector average earnings have been estimated by applying a GVA to earnings ratio of 1.8x, using data on total GVA and earnings in each sector from the 2024 Annual Business Survey, to the estimated average £121,000 GVA per FTE for video games sector employees estimated as part of Screen Business (BFI, 2021).

To estimate the total productivity uplift attributable to UKGF, the assumed productivity uplift per role was multiplied by the number of teams supported by the UKGF, and then the estimated additional jobs created per team (drawing on evidence from the impact evaluation). This was then adjusted by an additionality factor and the assumed persistence of these benefits to derive an estimate of the additional productivity benefit per year.

Persistence of labour market impacts

A key assumption captured in our economic modelling is the number of years for which the estimated productivity impacts persist. Given the relatively short lifespan of the UKGF, it is not possible to observe the true level of persistence of the expected productivity impacts across an extended timeframe, although it is likely that launching new video game talent will deliver relatively long-term productivity impacts as supported individuals forge a medium- to long-term career in the sector.

Given uncertainties around the true persistence of the productivity impacts delivered by the UKGF, our analysis provides a range of impacts with ten-year persistence used as the lower bound for estimates and 15-year persistence used as the upper bound for estimates. These estimates are based on recent published research that found that initial labour market conditions can have impacts on an employee’s productivity, which persist for ten to 15 years^{[footnote 26]}.

Increase in consumer welfare assumptions

The value of increased consumer welfare associated with UKGF-supported titles was estimated by combining an estimate of consumer surplus per hour per game with assumptions on the volumes of consumption of these games. It should be noted that consumption assumptions are illustrative only, as we did not have access to commercial data for UKGF-supported video games.

Table 23. Assumptions underpinning estimated impacts on consumer welfare

Assumption	Value
Additional games commercially developed	0.2
Consumer surplus per hour per gamer	£3.42 (£2.66 in 2015 prices)
Hours played per title per gamer*	5 hours
Average number of downloads per title*	2,000 downloads [footnote 27]
Share of consumer surplus assumed as additional (i.e., net of displacement)*	10%

Source: Alma Economics Survey of Beneficiaries, Cultural and Audience Contributions of the UK’s Film, High-End TV, Video Games, and Animation Programming Sectors (Olsberg SPI and Nordicity, 2015).

Note: The assumptions marked with asterisks represent conservative estimates of the performance of an indicative commercialised indie video game in the absence of data on the commercial performance of video games supported by UKGF.

Wellbeing benefits associated with programme training elements

Evidence from the literature finds that adult learning programmes with training and educational elements are associated with a positive impact on participants’ wellbeing (as measured by life satisfaction). Our estimate of these wellbeing benefits has been derived by scaling an estimate of the value of this benefit to learners by the number of individuals enrolled on Tranzfuser and DunDev, the two UKGF programmes with training elements.

Assumption	Value per learner per annum (£, 2023 prices)
Wellbeing benefits associated with a part-time course for work	£1,010 (£734 in 2012 prices)

Source: Valuing adult learning: Comparing wellbeing valuation to contingent valuation (BIS, 2012)

1. The maximum grant amount for the Prototype Fund recently increased to £30,000, but has previously been capped at lower levels (i.e., £25,000). ↩

2. A full list of eligibility criteria for each UKGF funding strand can be found on UKGTF’s website. See: https://ukgamesfund.com/ ↩

3. The Community Advisory Group is a group of industry professionals who meet periodically to act as a sounding board for issues and opportunities and offer additional industry perspectives. ↩

4. Local Hubs are organisations (typically universities) that act as a base for Tranzfuser teams, and provide them with a range of support, including meeting space and access to technical equipment and support. ↩

5. Most DunDev applicants previously participated in Tranzfuser, meaning that there is a smaller potential pool of applicants compared to other strands. ↩

6. Trello is an online resource available to Tranzfuser teams, wherein they can access resources including videos, blogs, and masterclasses to assist them in their game development and their pitch to UKGF. ↩

7. Regressions were run on the impact of each £1,000 of funding on additional games commercialised, but the results were not found to be meaningful. ↩

8. A full list of eligibility criteria for each UKGF funding strand can be found on UKGTF’s website. See: https://ukgamesfund.com/ ↩

9. A playable is an early-stage version of a video game incorporating visual elements with core mechanics to represent how the video game will look and play when finished. ↩

10. HM Treasury Green Book (2023). See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government/the-green-book-2020 ↩

11. See Appendix B for a more detailed summary of our assumptions and methodology. ↩

12. The assumed productivity uplift per role is £15k. ↩

13. Quantifying and Valuing the Wellbeing Impacts of Culture and Sport (DCMS, 2014). See: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304899/Quantifying_and_valuing_the_wellbeing_impacts_of_sport_and_culture.pdf ↩

14. Cultural and Audience Contributions of the UK’s Film, High-End TV, Video Games, and Animation Programming Sectors (Olsberg SPI, 2015). See: https://www.nordicity.com/de/cache/work/33/20151211uchkufgw.pdf ↩

15. Valuing Adult Learning: Comparing Wellbeing Valuation to Contingent Valuation (BIS, 2012). See: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34598/12-1127-valuing-adult-learning-comparing-wellbeing-to-contingent.pdf ↩

16. Employee Wellbeing Starts at Work (Gallup, 2022). See: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/394871/employee-wellbeing-starts-work.aspx ↩

17. The Economic Impacts of Video Game Technology Spillover (FTI Consulting and Ukie, 2023). See:https://ukie.org.uk/publications/the-economic-impacts-of-video-game-technology-spillover ↩

18. Annual Business Survey results, 2022. See: https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/business/businessservices/datasets/uknonfinancialbusinesseconomyannualbusinesssurveysectionsas ↩

19. Exploring survival rates of companies in the UK video-games industry: An empirical study (Cabras et al, 2017). See: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162516306722?via%3Dihub ↩

20. In all cases the difference in outcomes would be for a consistent period, but with pooling funding applicants from different time periods. ↩

21. Following the first wave of the survey, a second shortened survey was also sent out to applicants. These responses are not included in the table. ↩

22. Some applicants who responded to the survey did not indicate which programme they took part in, making the total number of applicants different to the sum of all programmes. ↩

23. Many applicants applied to more than one programme, meaning the sum of strands is greater than the total number of applicants. ↩

24. Estimated costs for the respective years were provided by UKGTF as of February of 2025, meaning they are likely to be very close to the actual cost figures for the time period evaluated. ↩

25. Those surveyed generally responded that approximately 70% of their direct competitors were located outside the UK, suggesting that 30% of UKGF funded activity is displacing other UK businesses. ↩

26. The Persistent Effects of Initial Labor Market Conditions for Young Adults and Their Sources (von Wachter, 2020). See: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.34.4.168 ↩

27. This was estimated based on a desk-based review of Steam download data on UKGF titles. This estimate is conservative and likely to vary depending on the video game title, with some funded games having over 1m downloads. ↩