As we continue selectively exploring opportunities across the video game IP ecosystem, we've been wondering why games and film, which share so much economically (heavy upfront costs, uncertain demand, long-lived IP), have developed such different financing markets. Independent film has an established market for lending against minimum guarantees and tax credits, while project-level debt plays a much smaller role in PC and console gaming. In a 2026 industry survey, only 20% of developers cited publisher or project financing as the primary source of capital for new game development.
In film, lenders rely on a distributor's promise to pay on delivery, backed by a completion guarantor's insurance that delivery will happen. Game development doesn’t typically follow this pattern. If a publishing deal is even in place, advances arrive in installments tied to milestones, with each payment dependent on the publisher accepting a build. Funding can therefore often be withheld or terminated if development slips. Completion bonds have been tried (e.g. Film Finances, the largest guarantor of independent films, reportedly took on about 25 game projects through an interactive division), but never became standard. A film bonder underwrites a locked script, budget and schedule, and can step in if production goes wrong. Games have no "locked picture" as a game’s scope can shift throughout production and it's far harder for an outsider to finish someone else's game.
The closest equivalent to a presale is a platform deal. Microsoft has at times paid a game's full production cost for Game Pass rights and Epic's store exclusives occasionally come with minimum guarantees. These can in theory be financed, but are getting increasingly rare for independent studios as platforms and publishers prioritize larger franchises. Part of the reason is also structural: film presales exist because rights are sold territory by territory and window by window, creating many B2B buyers who commit before release. Games are mostly sold worldwide D2C through a handful of digital storefronts, leaving few buyers to presell to.
Where games most resemble film is in tax incentives. The UK's Video Games Expenditure Credit pays 34% (taxable) on qualifying expenditure, capped at 80% of core costs, and a few lenders advance against it, much as they do in film. However, most small and mid-sized American independent studios are reluctant to shift development resources to the UK simply to capture the tax credit.
Taken together, these factors make game development far harder to lend against than film. But the parts that are financeable - accepted milestones, platform guarantees, tax credits and, above all, released catalogs with real sales history - get less attention by credit investors as a result and can create opportunities.