Interview with the team behind Gamevestor, the new crowdfunding platform for video games

At the crossroads of video games, finance, and profound changes in the industry, Gamevestor presents itself as an attempt to respond to a now widely shared concern: solid projects, led by experienced teams, are struggling to find suitable financing at the right time and on sustainable terms. Founded by Ivan Marchand and Arthur Van Clap Ceulen, both of whom have complementary backgrounds in major video game companies and studio production, the platform was born out of first-hand experience, at the precise moment when the post-Covid economic environment came to an abrupt end. In this interview, the founders look back on their careers, the genesis of Gamevestor, the structural choices of their model, revenue sharing, community involvement, rigorous project selection, and offer a lucid assessment of the state of the market. The discussion goes beyond Gamevestor to examine, more broadly, how video games are financed, produced, and shared today.

Point’n Think: What were the key stages in your respective careers before Gamevestor, and what did each of you learn about production and business?

Ivan Marchand: I worked at Google and Electronic Arts in positions combining marketing, sales, and product development—always in gaming.

Arthur Van Clap Ceulen: I’m a software engineer by training, and I worked at Ubisoft and Amplitude Studios as a lead developer, so I was at the heart of video game production.

These careers gave us a very concrete view of the entire chain: on the one hand, marketing, perceived value, and business constraints; on the other, the reality of production, teams, and deadlines.

We started working together in the summer of 2023 with a simple goal: to create our own video game studio. Once the concept was established and the team was formed, we went looking for funding, inspired by several former colleagues who, a few years earlier, had raised significant amounts of money—sometimes with just a simple pitch deck.

But very quickly, we were met with numerous rejections. Several people even told us, “Two years ago, you would have already walked away with your funding.” That’s when we realized that it wasn’t a problem with the project or the team, but rather a sudden and poorly anticipated change in the video game financing landscape. And that’s when the idea for Gamevestor began to emerge.

PnT: Your journey has brought you to a specific point: what structural problem in video game financing did you identify as “irrational” or poorly addressed to the point of justifying the creation of Gamevestor?

The starting point for all this was the Covid crisis, which we experienced firsthand in our respective companies. We saw an explosion in recruitment and spending, driven by a massive increase in the number of players and engagement in video games. This phase led to widespread risk-taking—particularly by VCs and publishers—which was then abruptly corrected a few months later when people returned to work.

The correction was so severe that it still hasn’t been fully absorbed. Many financiers took too many risks over too short a period of time, and today they are unwilling or unable to take any more.

As a result, even very promising projects can only find funding once they already have a lot of traction. And when funding does come, the terms are often very unfavorable to studios. It is this disconnect that we find irrational: funding comes too late, and at the wrong price. This is precisely the gap that Gamevestor fills, and the reason why studios immediately embraced it.

PnT: Why launch Gamevestor now: what concrete signals convinced you that the market was shifting (and that it wasn’t just a cycle)?

Several very concrete signals convinced us that this was not just a cycle. First, on the supply side, there was massive and immediate interest from studios. As soon as Gamevestor was announced, more than a hundred studios of all sizes contacted us. This spontaneous influx shows that the need is real and widely shared.

At the same time, on the player side, we are seeing a very clear resurgence of interest in crowdfunding. In 2024, 441 video game campaigns were successfully funded on Kickstarter, a historic record according to the platform itself. This shows that demand still exists, but that it is no longer being met by traditional channels. Another example is Star Citizen, which has raised nearly $1 billion from more than six million contributors (source).

Finally, more broadly, retail investment has become much more widespread in Europe (source). More and more individuals are now comfortable with new forms of investment that are closer to the products and worlds they love. When the supply of financing becomes more rigid (see previous question), demand becomes more mature, and intermediate models are lacking, it is no longer a cycle. It is a sign that a new tool is needed.

PnT: In one sentence: what does Gamevestor allow a studio to do that it couldn’t do using traditional options?

Finance a game through revenue sharing, directly with its community, without giving up shares in its studio or its IP.

PnT: Why a revenue-sharing model rather than equity, debt, or “reward-based” crowdfunding? In what cases is this model least relevant?

Platforms offering equity or debt models already exist, but these approaches are often ill-suited to the video game economy, especially for individuals. Specialized video game financing has always been predominantly revenue sharing, whether among publishers or even recently among VCs, who are usually attached to equity.

It is also the most natural model for a community. As players, we are first and foremost attached to a game, a universe, a creative vision, much more than to the structure of the studio that develops it.

It should be noted, however, that we also offer contribution-based crowdfunding campaigns on the platform. These are aimed in particular at people outside the European Union (investments are currently reserved for European citizens) and those who wish to support a project without financial considerations.

PnT: How would you simply explain the difference between contribution and investment, and how do you avoid unrealistic expectations?

Contributing means supporting a project that is close to our hearts, often in exchange for access or content, but without expecting a financial return. Investing means participating more actively in the potential revenue of a game.

In both cases, there is an inherent risk: that the game may never be completed and that some or all of the money invested may be lost. To avoid any unrealistic expectations, and for regulatory reasons, we strictly separate the two paths on the platform, clearly explain the risks in both cases, and cannot promise any return whatsoever.

PnT: The entry ticket (starting at €100): what investor profile are you really targeting and what level of education are you imposing on yourself?

We are primarily targeting core and hardcore gamers, who represent around 20% of the player base today. These are highly engaged profiles, capable of spending up to €1,600 per year on average on gaming, and for whom video games are much more than just a hobby.

They are also the most likely to understand a game’s commercial potential, positioning, audience, and risks. We believe they are in the best position to make an informed decision to share the commercial risk directly with a studio.

This requires us to provide a high level of education. We make as much information as possible available about each project: production, budget, marketing, risks, milestones. Studios often have to provide more details than they did in their previous interactions with traditional publishers or financiers.

Finally, the deliberately accessible entry ticket, especially when compared to other crowdinvesting platforms, allows as many community members as possible to participate in sharing the value created by the video game industry—without lowering the level of requirements or transparency.

PnT: What are your non-negotiable criteria that would cause you to reject a project even if the pitch is very appealing?

We exclude anything that is remotely related to crypto or UGC-centric models. These are ecosystems with very specific economic, regulatory, and risk dynamics that are not aligned with what we want to build today.

We remain deliberately focused on PC and console games, where the production, monetization, and revenue-sharing models are more transparent, better understood by communities, and, above all, aligned with our expertise gained from our past experiences. However, we do not rule out the possibility of eventually opening up to mobile gaming.

PnT: How do you define a robust and verifiable milestone in a production environment where uncertainty is constant?

In an environment where uncertainty is constant, a robust milestone must above all be based on tangible and verifiable elements, not on intentions. In concrete terms, this means observable deliverables: a playable vertical slice, the launch of an alpha, or an early access release.

These are steps that can be tested, evaluated, and understood by both our teams and investors.

The closer a milestone is to the actual product, the less room there is for interpretation. It is this objectivity that allows us to manage risk, even in creative production.

PnT: How do you position yourself in relation to publishers: as a complement, an alternative, or a bridge, and what red lines do you set for yourself?

A little bit of all three, depending on the situation.

Today, the publishers we meet fall quite clearly into two categories. On the one hand, there are those for whom revenue sharing is not an option and who naturally see us as a competitor. On the other hand, there are those who see Gamevestor as a complementary tool, capable of reducing their exposure to risk.

Historically, publishers captured a significant share of the revenue because they bore most of the financial risk. With Gamevestor, part of that risk can be shared with the community. This paves the way for more balanced deal structures, where everyone assumes a risk proportional to their contribution.

We are also seeing a third scenario emerge: established studios that could easily sign with a publisher, but who contact us to directly activate their existing community and strengthen their position in the discussion. In this scenario, Gamevestor clearly plays a bridging role.

For our part, we are open to working with the vast majority of industry players, as long as interests are aligned. Our red lines are simple: no disguised editorial pressure, no conflicts of interest, and no model that would deprive the studio of its ability to decide and create.

PnT: How do you divide up roles today, and what recurring disagreements force you to refine your decisions?

We actually have very few disagreements on a daily basis. When they do arise, they mainly concern the selection of games during selection committee meetings. The committee is made up of five members with very different profiles—production, tech, business, marketing—but who are very complementary. This sometimes leads to lively discussions, as we are all passionate about what we do, but it is precisely this diversity of viewpoints that enhances the quality of our decisions. As for the division of roles, it is quite clear:

Ivan: I handle everything related to communication, marketing, business development, relations with studios and partners, as well as the overall structuring of the model.

Arthur: I am responsible for legal aspects (setup, contracts, financial regulation with the AMF, etc.), financial aspects (transactions on the platform, internal cash flow, etc.), and technical aspects (web applications, internal tools, etc.).

PnT: How do you see the industry today: what deteriorated first? Financing, visibility, production costs, consolidation, and why?

It was a combination of several factors that created a real “perfect storm.” First, production costs rose steadily for several years, particularly as a result of the obsession with live service. At the same time, visibility has deteriorated significantly: the number of titles available has exploded, particularly on Steam, with very mixed levels of quality, making it increasingly difficult to reach audiences, even for very good projects.

Added to this is a profound change in usage patterns. The younger generations are largely captivated by platform games such as Fortnite and Roblox, which concentrates attention, playing time, and spending on a small number of ecosystems.

The catalyst for these tensions was the post-COVID funding crisis. It did not create the problems, but it brutally revealed weaknesses that were already present in the industry’s economic model. That said, after several difficult years, the market is now normalizing and stabilizing. Despite the shocks, video games continued to grow between 2020 and 2025. The problem today is therefore not demand, but the way in which value is financed, produced, and distributed.

PnT: You are particularly targeting mid-size studios: what is their current blind spot, and why is this segment the most exposed?

Mid-size studios are currently the most exposed because they fall exactly between two models that continue to function. On the one hand, highly ambitious projects, led by recognized teams or existing IPs, are perceived as less risky. They therefore find it easier to secure funding, despite their high budgets. On the other hand, small projects can often self-finance, exist as side projects, or rely on very lean structures.

Between the two, there is a whole range of studios that want to produce ambitious games with structured teams, but without established IP or excessive budgets. It is precisely these studios that are suffering the most today from the tightening of financing.

Yet it is this segment that often offers the best risk/return ratio. When chosen wisely, these projects can have controlled budgets, experienced teams, and games that are able to quickly find their audience. Their blind spot is the lack of financing solutions tailored to this intermediate zone—and that’s where Gamevestor comes in.

PnT: In three years’ time: what indicators will define your success (volume, project success rate, studio recurrence, contractual standardization) and what scenario could cause the model to fail?

Our success over the next few years will be measured by several fairly standard key indicators: revenue volume, number of active members, and the success rate of funded projects.

In the shorter term, our priority is obviously our launch. We want to be able to finance around 20 projects as early as this year and ensure that the games actually reach the market quickly. It is essential to demonstrate that this new model works from start to finish in order to create value for the entire industry.

The main scenario for failure would be a lack of community momentum. For the model to work, players and studios need to get actively involved today: create an account, learn about the projects, understand them, get involved, and spread the word about us. That’s why we encourage all your readers to come and create their account today at Gamevestor.co.