Comments on: Big Fish, Big Funding — But For What?

By: Robin

Robin — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:46:11 +0000

I think you’re right that the growth of the casual market is going to level off soon, but what’s left after that adjustment will still be a very significant sector that will be carved up by a few large players. In that regard $83m to help improve the chances of Big Fish being one of those players doesn’t sound too excessive.

Your ‘Playcrafter’ angle is piffle, of course. Analogous to suggesting that toy manufacturers should just quit because you can build simulacra of anything with enough Lego bricks (if you ignore cost, time, practicality, etc.).

Anybody with a bit of money and skill can already develop a decent casual game (unless you’re going to seriously argue that gimpy Web 2.0 Game Construction Kits make professional development practices obsolete), but most don’t have the resources and expertise to market their games effectively, which is why a lot of the better ones hook up with publishers like Big Fish.

By: John Falconne

John Falconne — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:00:34 +0000

Big Fish equals big hype. I will never understand how they managed to convince these VCs to fund them for so much. Do they think they are going to take on the likes of Electronic Arts with their hidden object games? This company is ruthless in terms of how it treats developers and capitalizes on other people’s good ideas. They’re going to have to step up their game considerably in order to spend that money wisely.

By: Chris Sherman

Chris Sherman — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 03:47:24 +0000

I would have to agree with you Wagner. I can only suspect that the company will be branching out into other market areas with this type of capital. Look for them to enter the virtual worlds space, MMOG space, or some other market segment.

By: Nick Stamoulis

Nick Stamoulis — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:04:21 +0000

Honestly, I don’t understand 70% of funding choices. Some VC’s are just… ridiculous in their decision making.