Why do we in REAVES keep looking into investment?

Remember when the term “Creative and Cultural Industries” came up in the late 90s? Some were screaming “sell-out to capitalism!” while others were applauding it as “win-win” for economic recognition.

Nearly three decades later, where are we with the “win-win” situation for CCI? Creative cultural production has had a secure place in the European funding landscape – with the exception of the video games industry which has grown exponentially during that time, both in importance as entertainment asset (think of how much games helped overcome the social isolation during Covid) and as business factor (worldwide, games make 10x as much revenue as movies).

Why was it so difficult to integrate games into the funded CCI space? Okay, first it was the “shooter” image that relayed them to a type of entertainment that was widely perceived by decision-makers as “non-cultural” and “non-creative”. But even once this perception became outdated, young talents and start-ups kept struggling to find support for kicking off their business and bringing their product to the market.

The major problem was and remains their dual nature: being creative and tech at the same time, not split in two groups as with film and music, where tech has long been (or still is) conceived as a service provider to the artists, rather than a creative tool. So, it was funding for tech innovation where game developers could find support, which however is not their core business. Most game-makers are no different from filmmakers or musicians, only that computer, mouse and software are their tools of trade to create content and entertainment.

Even with investment into games, one can experience the same mindset. The few private investments into games for their content value either come from global monopolising players (Sony, Microsoft, Google, Netflix etc.) or from angel investors, game entrepreneurs reinvesting into the game industry. Non-game investors still favour the tech side of game making. Content is risk. And games are not ideal for new capitalism’s paradigm of quick profit.

Entertainment industries, and in particular the content industries, always were at the crossroads between art and economy. Today, games, film, music, animation are industry sectors that are at the crossroads between art, tech and economy. Which is why there is a clear road leading to the convergence of these four sectors. And this in turn will lead to new investment approaches and mechanism for new IPs and creative products.

Which is why, within the framework of the platform project REAVES, we continue to capitalise on the activities of the Interreg-BSR projects BSGI and BSG GO! and follow-up on their peer-to-peer discussions between investors (public and private). Private investors into film and music are not as common in Europe as into games – in all likelihood due to the limited public funding for games in the past decades versus extensive public funding playing a major role as financial source for the film industry.

On 13 February 2026, in the framework of the Berlinale and their B2B programme “European Film Market”, REAVES organised a round table with film and game investors and investment experts. On 25 August 2026, the eve of Gamescom, REAVES invited private game investors to meet with European officers in charge of the public investment instrument MediaInvest for film and games.

This is not an express highway but a long and winding road. People who give money (even if it’s not theirs but that of their organisation) tend to see themselves as do-gooders and therefore “in the right”. People who ask for money won’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. But change needs reflection, introspection, the understanding that change is necessary instead of sticking to old ways and perceptions. The most promising way is to bring together like-minded peers with an openness to change.

Programme Manual Online

Choose