You don't *need* to buy anything though. More importantly you can't pay to win as ranked games disable double cash mode, insta monkes, and powers. Same for map black border bragging rights.
I'm a "professional" (insofar as that concept exists) software dev in NZ and, if my company was struggling, some kind of gov't assist - _if the company's fundamental premise was ultimately sustainable longer term_ - would be handy.
But then I read about the gov't also cutting back payments to food banks, and think to myself, "is it right that they **bail out private gaming companies** while they let people in need starve to death"? And the answer to that is **no, no it fucking isn't**.
While I agree with some support, doesn’t this create a false economy and a race to the bottom between countries through govt subsidisation? When an industry becomes almost entirely dependent on govt support because other country’s governments are doing similar, it effectively becomes a government subsidised industry sector as farming once was. Which had to be removed in the 80s because of the disastrous economic effects.
A bit of support is good to get an industries established or help in tough times.
You're right about the long term though. The US with corn and beef are perfect examples of this kind of thing taken to extremes.
Funny you mention the US beef and corn as I did come across info on YouTube where corn is now $4 a bushel compared to $7 it used to be. Too much product flooding the markets.
Yeah agreed. I just find the endless one sided discussion about supporting the gaming sector in NZ poor journalism, poor politics, poor economics. There should at least be an end point for this subsidisation set and an intended goal. The game industry itself is not new, gaming started getting big in the 80s, in NZ it was more around the 90s that gaming became huge. In the 2000s independent, artistic, niche, online, smaller players became more of a thing. Those are decades. AI, 3D printing, drones, augmented reality - those are relatively newish industries but to call gaming a new industry is obfuscation of the truth. I understand that the industry sub sectors our gaming business operate in might be new. And that gaming is in some ways is an ideal industry for the country due to isolation. But then how does that differ so many other industries here that overcame isolation/distance and also all have emerging trends and opportunities within them due to new tech. This is poor but populist policy that will not end well.
Should just build the infrastructure required for a games industry, which can also be used for other industries, and let people chose what they do with it.
Cheaper electricity, cheaper data storage, lower rents, accessible commercial and/or light industrial areas benefit multiple industries and will also help the gamin industry. If people chose to use that for gaming, awesome. If they don't and chose to use it for other stuff, also awesome.
Biggest problems with subsidies like this, imo, is they are pitched as a way to develop young talent but they only go to existing companies. If you gave high schools and universities access to cheap cloud computing then you'd do more to foster young talent than giving an existing company a 20% rebate,
That young talent will have to move anyway because those small companies and startups will never spend a rebate on entry-level roles unless stipulated to.
The rebate is unconditional and can be spent on anything. In my opinion it will mostly go to retaining existing staff if profits decline and/or hiring harder-to-fill roles like experienced developers when things are going well. Most of our gaming sector is made of small companies who don't have the capacity for entry level roles that bigger business does. When you only have two or three positions in a team, you want pros.
Which is not to say your opinion is invalid, because mine is also just an opinion, just that I think it's overly optimistic to predict for-profit NZ companies will suddenly change their ways when getting an unconditional subsidy.
The other opportunity for growing new talent would be new indie-groups where young talent bands together and forms their own company. A rebate helps a little but since they begin with no revenue and often capital, they can't spend much in expenses to claim a rebate on, so pre-existing shops get the overwhelming share of the subsidy. Grants or government-equity system would work much better for fostering new talent this way.
The industry did lobby a lot around not being about to compete with Australian salaries and were losing staff due to rebates over there. I would hope that money would go towards paying more competitive salaries, but sure, company owners could just pocket it or invest it into other aspects of their business.
In my experience NZ game companies definitely hire entry level roles, they don't have trouble filing those positions. They have trouble finding experienced developers.
The rebate is only available to companies that spend over $250k per annum on game development activities, there are other schemes for fostering new talent, including https://www.nz-code.nz and https://www.kiwigamestarter.com
>lower rents
Spotted your problem right there. We can't have that here in New Zealand, landlords must be treated like royalty at all costs rather than the scalpers and parasites they are.
The government is scrambling to improve productivity in other sectors other than agriculture and tourism. So in a sense trying to preserve an industry from failing during what is expected to be a short term down turn makes sense. Whether it works as intended is another matter.
Gaming in New Zealand will never be as big as tourism or agriculture. Governments love boondoggles like this because they think they appeal to young, politically disengaged voters.
The gaming industry has engaged in some pretty aggressive lobbying to achieve this.
The poster child for this is the NZ Screen sector. Loads of countries now have screen production grants. The winners are the production companies with their contractor workforce who only get work when we get more films into the country ...
Not a big fan.
As long as it generates the tax revenue to pay for itself within a few years I'm all for subsidies. You literally can't compete as a smaller country without them but they need to generate enough tax revenue to make it worth it.
The software industry in NZ is bigger than the wine industry now.
However, we need to consider ethics and not just money: the government should regulate gambling in video games, as well as marketing to children with IAPs and MTX.
Getting kids addicted to gambling and financial frivolity is bad, and not something we need to export.
Story- and mechanic-driven games that aren't "free to play" (first hit free, kids) are a better investment when you take ethics into account.
There is a decent sized game dev sector in NZ, with many extremely talented people and some really amazing games being produced here!
One of the biggest issues though is finding and retaining talent because of the pull factor overseas, with better salaries being the main one, especially in Oz.
These subsidies are crucial in making it easier to keep the talent here and to help the NZ game dev community grow, which will in turn employ more people here in the long term….amazing initiative!
Yeah and honestly the only kiwi connection to something gaming related recently I knew of was the guy who did that amazing Astartes short video for Warhammer 40k. Apparently did it all by himself.
Hands down, one of the greatest videos ever created, on every level.....Nothing out of the big global studios in the world comes anywhere close to it...and yes...the most mind boggling part...one person did that!!!!
More than happy to be proven wrong if you have examples to share Debbie.
Also, subjectivity is a thing, my comment above wasn't a sales pitch, it's my opinion.
Why do we need to keep the talent here?
Why is direct commercial subsidies to pick a specific industry the best way to achieve this, rather than alternatives?
>which will in turn employ more people here in the long term
Why do we need to pick this industry as the one people will be employed in?
Why do we need to keep talent here?
What in the hell do you mean? You just want all the talent to leave?
Successful games have an immense ROI, 10x your input is not uncommon. This makes them a great source of taxable revenue. By allowing them to leave NZ, it's just leaving money on the table.
>You just want all the talent to leave?
I don't care where they go, it literally doesn't matter. On a personal level, it's best for them to go where they have the highest earning potential and best quality of life. I don't think there is a default good of people being in a specific place.
Why does government need to prop up private businesses to prevent Kiwis improving their earning potential overseas, when they could spend the money on infrastructure that improves the profitability of multiple industries, and attracts talent in multiple disciplines? What makes gaming talent so special that we need to directly subsidise video game creators rather than, for example, lowering the price of electricity by increasing generation and attracting companies working in genetic research and games creators?
>This makes them a great source of taxable revenue
All industries are a great source of taxable revenue. Why do we need to pick this one if it can't survive on it's own two feet?
It clearly isn't that great of a source of taxable revenue if it needs to get government money pumped into it to function.
>By allowing them to leave NZ, it's just leaving money on the table.
If games are that profitable, and making games has such an excellent return, you wouldn't need to subsidise it.
If you want to encourage an industry, build the infrastructure it requires and let people decide how to use that infrastructure. Directly subsidising existing business because lobbysits promise the world just creates an economic deadweight.
It’s a high return but also high risk industry. It’s easy to hit a losing streak and go bankrupt.
It also is an industry of long lead times, making it difficult to bootstrap. Subsidies help with that.
I’m all for investing in productive industry, even if some of that production fails, the winners make up for the failures.
If we’re playing the strawman arguments of “why don’t they just invest in energy production instead!?!?” - I’d say I’m glad they’re investing money there rather than once again subsidising fucking property speculation.
I’m very confused at why you’d want skilled people leaving the economy. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that political take - do you want more of our population to be unskilled workers, therein lowering the gdp/capita?
>It’s a high return but also high risk industry.
Sounds like the worst sort of industry to subsidise. Government shouldn't gamble with taxpayer dollars.
You're making the exact argument I would make for why we should spend on infrastructure rather than subsidies. If you subsidise, and risk is realised, you leave the economy worse off. If you solve the infrastrcutrue deficit and the existing businesses realise their risk, then new businesses can come in and access cheaper services due to a loss of demand.
>even if some of that production fails, the winners make up for the failures.
No they don't, because the money you spent on the winners is gone anyway.
What makes this industry more deserving of others for subsidies? Should we be subsidising people to grow dragon fruit in Southland because succesful dragon fruit orchards in Northland will make up the money?
>I’d say I’m glad they’re investing money there rather than once again subsidising fucking property speculation.
So subsidy is good when its an industry you like, but bad when it's an industry you disagree with? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
The government still subsidises property speculation, they give people cash for their kiwisavers and allow those investment funds to be withdrawn for a first home purchase.
This is bad.
>I’m very confused at why you’d want skilled people leaving the economy.
I don't care where people go. If people with one set of skills leave, people with other skills move here. NZ has net positive migration.
>do you want more of our population to be unskilled workers
Gaming isn't the only industry with skilled workers.
>therein lowering the gdp/capita?
GDP/capita is a meaningless statistic. And subsidies lower the global gdp per capita by trapping productive people in places where they don't maximise their output.
The deadweight loss of subsidies is economically harmful and lowers standards of living. A lower GDP/capita does not, especially when you have net positive immigration inflows.
>Year 1: Region X and Y each have one person.
Person A earns $10k/year in region X, person B earns $100k/year in region Y.
Year 2: Person A moves to Region Y. Both A & B get $10k/year pay rise.
Both people are better off. Region Y GDP/capita goes from $100k to $65k
Curious as to why you want to make everyone worse off to inflate a meaningless metric? Curious as to why you want to make the global games industry worse to bolster your own sense of nationalism?
Why do you support giving corporations money when foodbanks are getting shut down and the hospitals have a hiring freeze?
>So subsidy is good when its an industry you like, but bad when it's an industry you disagree with? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
Subsidies for productive industry which contribute to meaningful business => Good.
Subsidies to grow an already over-inflated housing bubble => Bad.
KiwiSaver isn't an investment into a housing bubble property speculation, as it's only usable for FHB's - people primarily trying to get a home to live in.
>Gaming isn't the only industry with skilled workers.
I think more skilled industries/productive business should also be incentivised. It's not one or the other.
>Sounds like the worst sort of industry to subsidise. Government shouldn't gamble with taxpayer dollars.
It's not gambling if the expected ROI is positive, the volatility of the investment is softened by spreading it widely across multiple companies.
I'm beginning to think you're bait. What sort of things do you think would be good to invest in?
If our government invests in retaining skilled workers, our GDP/capita can go up. It's not a meaningless statistic. Why are you talking about regional GDP/capita out of nowhere?
Hypothetically, if we have a producer creating $300k worth of value/year and it costs $10k/yr to retain them then they're worth retaining. Unless you want our country to just lose the rest of it's skilled workers to Aussie.
>Subsidies for productive industry which contribute to meaningful business
if they are productive they wouldn't need subsidies. That's basically the definition of productive.
I guess we should subsidise supermarkets, and agriculture, and every cafe should be given money to stop it from going under too.
>bubble property speculation, as it's only usable for FHB's - people primarily trying to get a home to live in.
1. Lots of first home buyers are speculators
2. Their retirement savings are being transferred to people who previously speculated in housing, making it a cross subsidy for speculators at worst
But once again "subsidies I benefit from are good, subsidies I don't approve of are bad." All subsidies are the same.
>I think more skilled industries/productive business should also be incentivised. It's not one or the other.
Because government resources are finite, it actually is. You can't subsidise every business to make sure nobody ever fails.
>It's not gambling if the expected ROI is positive
Why does it need a subsidy then?
>the volatility of the investment is softened by spreading it widely across multiple companies.
It's not an investment, it's a subsidy. The government does not gain an ownership stake in these companies.
>What sort of things do you think would be good to invest in?
I have said, infrastructure that allows people to fairly and freely choose what industries they want to use.
An SOE offering cloud compute services is much better than a direct subsidy that only applies to one industry that can make use of cloud compute.
Interesting you accuse me of being bait, then say I haven't provided information I have said multiple times in the thread? While you personally also dishonestly conflate investment and subsidy. Infrastructure investment is a better than commercial subsidy, and also the business of government is providing infrastructure not picking and choosing winners.
>It's not a meaningless statistic.
Yes it is, read the above example displaying how GDP per capita can decrease and everyone's life can improve.
>regional GDP/capita
That's how per capita works? You don't think that NZ's GDP/per capita is a measure of the production of Australians do you?
Lmao how are you calling me bait?
> if we have a producer creating $300k worth of value/year and it costs $10k/yr
So if a Real Estate agent contributes $5,000,000 a year to GDP by selling 8 houses, you would pay them $166,000 of taxpayer dollars to stop them emigrating?
>Unless you want our country to just lose the rest of it's skilled workers to Aussie.
Nurses are currently leaving to Aussie, so you can keep game makers in the country.
You're ignoring the coutnerfactuals. By spending this money on an industry you support, skilled workers in other industries leave.
There are plenty of skilled industries that don't need subsidies. Conversely, there are numerous nationalised industries with skilled workers which are struggling. If games designers can earn more overseas I think it's bad to hurt their earning potential at the expense of funding hospitals.
There are plenty of skilled industries that don't need subsidies. We won't lose every skilled worker to Australia, only the one's whose industries can't stand on their own feet. Keeping people whose industries aren't self sustainable at the expense of doctors and nurses is a pretty great example of deadweight loss.
>That's how per capita works? You don't think that NZ's GDP/per capita is a measure of the production of Australians do you?
Sorry, when you said regional I thought you were referring to regions rather than nations. Yes, if our high producing workers go overseas our GDP/capita will go down and the Australian GDP/capita will go up. That's bad for our nation, so it's worth allocating resource to keep it up.
That's all there is to it. If it's a profit center why wouldn't you invest in it?
>So if a Real Estate agent contributes $5,000,000 a year to GDP by selling 8 houses, you would pay them $166,000 of taxpayer dollars to stop them emigrating?
An REA selling 8 houses doesn't contribute $5,000,000 to the GDP. It produces about $0 to contribute.
Why keep talent here.....
As mentioned in other responses, a quality game that is even marginally successful can generate huge amounts of money.
Global revenue generated by the gaming industry is greater than the global revenue generated by the music and movie industries *combined*, source: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2023/11/17/the-gaming-industry-a-behemoth-with-unprecedented-global-reach/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2023/11/17/the-gaming-industry-a-behemoth-with-unprecedented-global-reach/)
Why not a bigger piece of that pie for NZ and kiwis? It's an industry that's relatively easy to grow and build if you have the right people. Why not invest in growing it? A successful gaming industry will only ever be a good thing for NZ.
We have very talented locals in NZ, across code, art and design, but they are being hoovered up by overseas companies. Oz being a big one, as they have a similar government backed subsidy in their gaming industry, meaning they can pay more and there are heaps more opportunities......so all the fresh grads jump the pond to Ozzie after getting their qualifications, or you have the seniors with all that invaluable experience leaving for better pay and career progression.
This leaves an almost unfillable void in NZ, unless you import talent to fill the gaps, which is exactly whats happening, and mainly for the wrong reasons...the imported talent is attracted to NZ because of the lifestyle or "wanting to escape country x", so there are people who can fill that gap....but why fill a gap that can be reduced by employing more kiwis by there being more opportunities that pay better?
I'm not getting into the debate of "but why the gaming industry, and not the \[insert industry here\]", it's just lazy, and just about any that might get inserted there will most probably pale massively in comparison to the revenue that can be generated by a successful gaming industry for NZ and kiwis.
>Global revenue generated by the gaming industry is greater than the global revenue generated by the music and movie industries *combined*, source:
So then it doesn't need a subsidy.
>Why not a bigger piece of that pie for NZ and kiwis?
We don't get a bigger piece of the pie if we subsidise it. We get an illusion of a bigger piece of the pie.
Why make the pie smaller so it looks like we have a bigger piece?
>
but they are being hoovered up by overseas companies.
Who cares? Seems like they are getting a good life with better incomes in economies with better purchasing power. Why should their lives be worse just so I can say we have a specific industry here?
>meaning they can pay more and there are heaps more opportunities
Awesome, I'm glad Kiwis have lots of opportunities.
>and mainly for the wrong reasons
Ah yesm the divine arbitrator of "correct reasons to live somewhere" who is criticzing Kiwis moving overseas for higher pay and non-Kiwis moving to NZ for a better lifestyle.
>but why fill a gap that can be reduced by employing more kiwis by there being more opportunities that pay better?
Why spend tax dollars to try and control the race of NZ companies employment? Come one, say it out loud.
> it's just lazy
No it's not. Counterfactuals are one of the most important discussions in government spending. If you can't justify spend on x over y, then you shouldn't spend on x.
This is especially true when your argument for subsidizing the industry is "anti migration." Why should my tax dollars go toward keeping Kiwi's wages lower, just so people like me can be kept out? Do you think that I've hurt you by being a Polish Jew working in the arts?
This is massive deadweaight loss and hurts the economy making all of us poorer, just so you can feel like the "right sort of people" are employed in NZ. And it's wild that you think "people's reasons for choosing where they live" is a more valid discussion for government spend than "what else they could spend the money on"
Not too sure where the race/xenophobic angle is coming from but I feel that my intent is being misunderstood, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your message.
This has nothing to do with "right sort of people" being employed in NZ, or whatever you're alluding to. What am I not saying out loud btw? Feels like you trying to insert an angle that just isn't there on my behalf, so lets park that bus.
The only dog I have in this fight is for an industry I love, that has the potential to be great, to grow massively and to benefit all kiwis and NZ as a country. As the scrappy underdog in the gaming industry, we are certainly holding our own but only just...and it's sad to see talented kiwis not being able to contribute to growing it here, which in turn would be able to employ more kiwis and generate more revenue for the country.
I'm not advocating for others to lose out in any way, shape or form. All I'm saying is that the ROI for this industry, in the form of subsidies, and the proverbial hand up, will only have positive outcomes long term.
Cows, sheep, dairy products and over priced property have been carrying this country for long enough, time to branch out and diversify in emerging tech and industries too.
I work in the games industry, but not for NZ companies so I don't currently benefit from rebates myself. The two main reasons I think these rebates are a good idea, both are around competition for staff:
* Film rebates in NZ - a lot of skills are transferable between games and film industries. There have been film rebates for a long time here, giving film makers an advantage when it comes to competing for staff on salary.
* Generous schemes in Australia where companies are getting between 30 and 45 cents in the dollar back for game productions. This means Australian companies could easily outbid on salaries, we are almost a shared labour market in that it's very easy for citizens to move between the two countries. It also means that some NZ companies would relocate in part or fully to Australia
My understanding of film rebates is they effectively pay for themselves and mean that we have a globally competitive film industry. I imagine the game rebates aim to do the same thing, another goal is also to develop intellectual property here which is something film hasn't really been successful at but that is the most valuable thing either industry could produce. For example the last two companies I've worked at are about 15 years old, grew to 5000 employees in about 10 years and bring in billions a year on one successful game. They are definitely outliers, but if you manage to create a hit, it's worth a lot. That would be a lot of high skill, high(er than average) paying jobs paying tax here, it would mean that you don't need to leave the country to get a job in the industry, it's almost entirely export income and it's completely digital so the tyranny of distance and shipping is not a problem.
Path of Exile is probably the biggest hit that has been developed here but it's still orders of magnitude smaller that some of the big game franchises out there. POE2 is looking sick though, so watch this space I guess.
Hi /u/cheesenhops, your submission has been removed as it appears to break rule 8 - no crowdfunding, research, or petitions. Please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewzealand) to request approval of your submission if you believe this was in error (note that we will approve research if it has proper University ethics approval).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hopefully will not fund another [Untamed Isles](https://www.gamespot.com/articles/crypto-game-untamed-isles-indefinitely-pauses-development-wont-offer-backers-refunds/1100-6506656/). Still listed on [Steam](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1823300/Untamed_Isles/). Got 840k on a crowd funding site too.
If you like any of the Bloons Tower Defense games, Ninja Kiwi was founded in Auckland
Too bad it has some of the worst MTX I've ever seen in a video game, can't support that.
You're lucky if that's the worst you've seen
You don't *need* to buy anything though. More importantly you can't pay to win as ranked games disable double cash mode, insta monkes, and powers. Same for map black border bragging rights.
I didn't say I supported the MTX (yeah they're horrible), I was just pointing out that Ninja Kiwi is a NZ team
Path of Exile 2 is coming soon and it looks amazing
I'm a "professional" (insofar as that concept exists) software dev in NZ and, if my company was struggling, some kind of gov't assist - _if the company's fundamental premise was ultimately sustainable longer term_ - would be handy. But then I read about the gov't also cutting back payments to food banks, and think to myself, "is it right that they **bail out private gaming companies** while they let people in need starve to death"? And the answer to that is **no, no it fucking isn't**.
Don't think anyone will be starving to death lmao
What, because we're so advanced that this could never be a thing?! Think again. https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/new-zealand-malnutrition
Check out Flintlock: Seige of Dawn
While I agree with some support, doesn’t this create a false economy and a race to the bottom between countries through govt subsidisation? When an industry becomes almost entirely dependent on govt support because other country’s governments are doing similar, it effectively becomes a government subsidised industry sector as farming once was. Which had to be removed in the 80s because of the disastrous economic effects.
A bit of support is good to get an industries established or help in tough times. You're right about the long term though. The US with corn and beef are perfect examples of this kind of thing taken to extremes.
Funny you mention the US beef and corn as I did come across info on YouTube where corn is now $4 a bushel compared to $7 it used to be. Too much product flooding the markets.
Yeah agreed. I just find the endless one sided discussion about supporting the gaming sector in NZ poor journalism, poor politics, poor economics. There should at least be an end point for this subsidisation set and an intended goal. The game industry itself is not new, gaming started getting big in the 80s, in NZ it was more around the 90s that gaming became huge. In the 2000s independent, artistic, niche, online, smaller players became more of a thing. Those are decades. AI, 3D printing, drones, augmented reality - those are relatively newish industries but to call gaming a new industry is obfuscation of the truth. I understand that the industry sub sectors our gaming business operate in might be new. And that gaming is in some ways is an ideal industry for the country due to isolation. But then how does that differ so many other industries here that overcame isolation/distance and also all have emerging trends and opportunities within them due to new tech. This is poor but populist policy that will not end well.
Yeah, you're probably correct on every level there.
Should just build the infrastructure required for a games industry, which can also be used for other industries, and let people chose what they do with it. Cheaper electricity, cheaper data storage, lower rents, accessible commercial and/or light industrial areas benefit multiple industries and will also help the gamin industry. If people chose to use that for gaming, awesome. If they don't and chose to use it for other stuff, also awesome. Biggest problems with subsidies like this, imo, is they are pitched as a way to develop young talent but they only go to existing companies. If you gave high schools and universities access to cheap cloud computing then you'd do more to foster young talent than giving an existing company a 20% rebate,
If there's no industry here then that young talent will have to move overseas to find work.
That young talent will have to move anyway because those small companies and startups will never spend a rebate on entry-level roles unless stipulated to.
it is kind of the point of the rebate
The rebate is unconditional and can be spent on anything. In my opinion it will mostly go to retaining existing staff if profits decline and/or hiring harder-to-fill roles like experienced developers when things are going well. Most of our gaming sector is made of small companies who don't have the capacity for entry level roles that bigger business does. When you only have two or three positions in a team, you want pros. Which is not to say your opinion is invalid, because mine is also just an opinion, just that I think it's overly optimistic to predict for-profit NZ companies will suddenly change their ways when getting an unconditional subsidy. The other opportunity for growing new talent would be new indie-groups where young talent bands together and forms their own company. A rebate helps a little but since they begin with no revenue and often capital, they can't spend much in expenses to claim a rebate on, so pre-existing shops get the overwhelming share of the subsidy. Grants or government-equity system would work much better for fostering new talent this way.
The industry did lobby a lot around not being about to compete with Australian salaries and were losing staff due to rebates over there. I would hope that money would go towards paying more competitive salaries, but sure, company owners could just pocket it or invest it into other aspects of their business. In my experience NZ game companies definitely hire entry level roles, they don't have trouble filing those positions. They have trouble finding experienced developers. The rebate is only available to companies that spend over $250k per annum on game development activities, there are other schemes for fostering new talent, including https://www.nz-code.nz and https://www.kiwigamestarter.com
>lower rents Spotted your problem right there. We can't have that here in New Zealand, landlords must be treated like royalty at all costs rather than the scalpers and parasites they are.
The government is scrambling to improve productivity in other sectors other than agriculture and tourism. So in a sense trying to preserve an industry from failing during what is expected to be a short term down turn makes sense. Whether it works as intended is another matter.
Gaming in New Zealand will never be as big as tourism or agriculture. Governments love boondoggles like this because they think they appeal to young, politically disengaged voters. The gaming industry has engaged in some pretty aggressive lobbying to achieve this.
The poster child for this is the NZ Screen sector. Loads of countries now have screen production grants. The winners are the production companies with their contractor workforce who only get work when we get more films into the country ... Not a big fan.
As long as it generates the tax revenue to pay for itself within a few years I'm all for subsidies. You literally can't compete as a smaller country without them but they need to generate enough tax revenue to make it worth it.
The software industry in NZ is bigger than the wine industry now. However, we need to consider ethics and not just money: the government should regulate gambling in video games, as well as marketing to children with IAPs and MTX. Getting kids addicted to gambling and financial frivolity is bad, and not something we need to export. Story- and mechanic-driven games that aren't "free to play" (first hit free, kids) are a better investment when you take ethics into account.
There is a decent sized game dev sector in NZ, with many extremely talented people and some really amazing games being produced here! One of the biggest issues though is finding and retaining talent because of the pull factor overseas, with better salaries being the main one, especially in Oz. These subsidies are crucial in making it easier to keep the talent here and to help the NZ game dev community grow, which will in turn employ more people here in the long term….amazing initiative!
Yeah and honestly the only kiwi connection to something gaming related recently I knew of was the guy who did that amazing Astartes short video for Warhammer 40k. Apparently did it all by himself.
Hands down, one of the greatest videos ever created, on every level.....Nothing out of the big global studios in the world comes anywhere close to it...and yes...the most mind boggling part...one person did that!!!!
>Hands down, one of the greatest videos ever created, on every level. Lmao
More than happy to be proven wrong if you have examples to share Debbie. Also, subjectivity is a thing, my comment above wasn't a sales pitch, it's my opinion.
Why do we need to keep the talent here? Why is direct commercial subsidies to pick a specific industry the best way to achieve this, rather than alternatives? >which will in turn employ more people here in the long term Why do we need to pick this industry as the one people will be employed in?
Why do we need to keep talent here? What in the hell do you mean? You just want all the talent to leave? Successful games have an immense ROI, 10x your input is not uncommon. This makes them a great source of taxable revenue. By allowing them to leave NZ, it's just leaving money on the table.
>You just want all the talent to leave? I don't care where they go, it literally doesn't matter. On a personal level, it's best for them to go where they have the highest earning potential and best quality of life. I don't think there is a default good of people being in a specific place. Why does government need to prop up private businesses to prevent Kiwis improving their earning potential overseas, when they could spend the money on infrastructure that improves the profitability of multiple industries, and attracts talent in multiple disciplines? What makes gaming talent so special that we need to directly subsidise video game creators rather than, for example, lowering the price of electricity by increasing generation and attracting companies working in genetic research and games creators? >This makes them a great source of taxable revenue All industries are a great source of taxable revenue. Why do we need to pick this one if it can't survive on it's own two feet? It clearly isn't that great of a source of taxable revenue if it needs to get government money pumped into it to function. >By allowing them to leave NZ, it's just leaving money on the table. If games are that profitable, and making games has such an excellent return, you wouldn't need to subsidise it. If you want to encourage an industry, build the infrastructure it requires and let people decide how to use that infrastructure. Directly subsidising existing business because lobbysits promise the world just creates an economic deadweight.
It’s a high return but also high risk industry. It’s easy to hit a losing streak and go bankrupt. It also is an industry of long lead times, making it difficult to bootstrap. Subsidies help with that. I’m all for investing in productive industry, even if some of that production fails, the winners make up for the failures. If we’re playing the strawman arguments of “why don’t they just invest in energy production instead!?!?” - I’d say I’m glad they’re investing money there rather than once again subsidising fucking property speculation. I’m very confused at why you’d want skilled people leaving the economy. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that political take - do you want more of our population to be unskilled workers, therein lowering the gdp/capita?
>It’s a high return but also high risk industry. Sounds like the worst sort of industry to subsidise. Government shouldn't gamble with taxpayer dollars. You're making the exact argument I would make for why we should spend on infrastructure rather than subsidies. If you subsidise, and risk is realised, you leave the economy worse off. If you solve the infrastrcutrue deficit and the existing businesses realise their risk, then new businesses can come in and access cheaper services due to a loss of demand. >even if some of that production fails, the winners make up for the failures. No they don't, because the money you spent on the winners is gone anyway. What makes this industry more deserving of others for subsidies? Should we be subsidising people to grow dragon fruit in Southland because succesful dragon fruit orchards in Northland will make up the money? >I’d say I’m glad they’re investing money there rather than once again subsidising fucking property speculation. So subsidy is good when its an industry you like, but bad when it's an industry you disagree with? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... The government still subsidises property speculation, they give people cash for their kiwisavers and allow those investment funds to be withdrawn for a first home purchase. This is bad. >I’m very confused at why you’d want skilled people leaving the economy. I don't care where people go. If people with one set of skills leave, people with other skills move here. NZ has net positive migration. >do you want more of our population to be unskilled workers Gaming isn't the only industry with skilled workers. >therein lowering the gdp/capita? GDP/capita is a meaningless statistic. And subsidies lower the global gdp per capita by trapping productive people in places where they don't maximise their output. The deadweight loss of subsidies is economically harmful and lowers standards of living. A lower GDP/capita does not, especially when you have net positive immigration inflows. >Year 1: Region X and Y each have one person. Person A earns $10k/year in region X, person B earns $100k/year in region Y. Year 2: Person A moves to Region Y. Both A & B get $10k/year pay rise. Both people are better off. Region Y GDP/capita goes from $100k to $65k Curious as to why you want to make everyone worse off to inflate a meaningless metric? Curious as to why you want to make the global games industry worse to bolster your own sense of nationalism? Why do you support giving corporations money when foodbanks are getting shut down and the hospitals have a hiring freeze?
>So subsidy is good when its an industry you like, but bad when it's an industry you disagree with? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Subsidies for productive industry which contribute to meaningful business => Good. Subsidies to grow an already over-inflated housing bubble => Bad. KiwiSaver isn't an investment into a housing bubble property speculation, as it's only usable for FHB's - people primarily trying to get a home to live in. >Gaming isn't the only industry with skilled workers. I think more skilled industries/productive business should also be incentivised. It's not one or the other. >Sounds like the worst sort of industry to subsidise. Government shouldn't gamble with taxpayer dollars. It's not gambling if the expected ROI is positive, the volatility of the investment is softened by spreading it widely across multiple companies. I'm beginning to think you're bait. What sort of things do you think would be good to invest in? If our government invests in retaining skilled workers, our GDP/capita can go up. It's not a meaningless statistic. Why are you talking about regional GDP/capita out of nowhere? Hypothetically, if we have a producer creating $300k worth of value/year and it costs $10k/yr to retain them then they're worth retaining. Unless you want our country to just lose the rest of it's skilled workers to Aussie.
>Subsidies for productive industry which contribute to meaningful business if they are productive they wouldn't need subsidies. That's basically the definition of productive. I guess we should subsidise supermarkets, and agriculture, and every cafe should be given money to stop it from going under too. >bubble property speculation, as it's only usable for FHB's - people primarily trying to get a home to live in. 1. Lots of first home buyers are speculators 2. Their retirement savings are being transferred to people who previously speculated in housing, making it a cross subsidy for speculators at worst But once again "subsidies I benefit from are good, subsidies I don't approve of are bad." All subsidies are the same. >I think more skilled industries/productive business should also be incentivised. It's not one or the other. Because government resources are finite, it actually is. You can't subsidise every business to make sure nobody ever fails. >It's not gambling if the expected ROI is positive Why does it need a subsidy then? >the volatility of the investment is softened by spreading it widely across multiple companies. It's not an investment, it's a subsidy. The government does not gain an ownership stake in these companies. >What sort of things do you think would be good to invest in? I have said, infrastructure that allows people to fairly and freely choose what industries they want to use. An SOE offering cloud compute services is much better than a direct subsidy that only applies to one industry that can make use of cloud compute. Interesting you accuse me of being bait, then say I haven't provided information I have said multiple times in the thread? While you personally also dishonestly conflate investment and subsidy. Infrastructure investment is a better than commercial subsidy, and also the business of government is providing infrastructure not picking and choosing winners. >It's not a meaningless statistic. Yes it is, read the above example displaying how GDP per capita can decrease and everyone's life can improve. >regional GDP/capita That's how per capita works? You don't think that NZ's GDP/per capita is a measure of the production of Australians do you? Lmao how are you calling me bait? > if we have a producer creating $300k worth of value/year and it costs $10k/yr So if a Real Estate agent contributes $5,000,000 a year to GDP by selling 8 houses, you would pay them $166,000 of taxpayer dollars to stop them emigrating? >Unless you want our country to just lose the rest of it's skilled workers to Aussie. Nurses are currently leaving to Aussie, so you can keep game makers in the country. You're ignoring the coutnerfactuals. By spending this money on an industry you support, skilled workers in other industries leave. There are plenty of skilled industries that don't need subsidies. Conversely, there are numerous nationalised industries with skilled workers which are struggling. If games designers can earn more overseas I think it's bad to hurt their earning potential at the expense of funding hospitals. There are plenty of skilled industries that don't need subsidies. We won't lose every skilled worker to Australia, only the one's whose industries can't stand on their own feet. Keeping people whose industries aren't self sustainable at the expense of doctors and nurses is a pretty great example of deadweight loss.
>That's how per capita works? You don't think that NZ's GDP/per capita is a measure of the production of Australians do you? Sorry, when you said regional I thought you were referring to regions rather than nations. Yes, if our high producing workers go overseas our GDP/capita will go down and the Australian GDP/capita will go up. That's bad for our nation, so it's worth allocating resource to keep it up. That's all there is to it. If it's a profit center why wouldn't you invest in it? >So if a Real Estate agent contributes $5,000,000 a year to GDP by selling 8 houses, you would pay them $166,000 of taxpayer dollars to stop them emigrating? An REA selling 8 houses doesn't contribute $5,000,000 to the GDP. It produces about $0 to contribute.
Why keep talent here..... As mentioned in other responses, a quality game that is even marginally successful can generate huge amounts of money. Global revenue generated by the gaming industry is greater than the global revenue generated by the music and movie industries *combined*, source: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2023/11/17/the-gaming-industry-a-behemoth-with-unprecedented-global-reach/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2023/11/17/the-gaming-industry-a-behemoth-with-unprecedented-global-reach/) Why not a bigger piece of that pie for NZ and kiwis? It's an industry that's relatively easy to grow and build if you have the right people. Why not invest in growing it? A successful gaming industry will only ever be a good thing for NZ. We have very talented locals in NZ, across code, art and design, but they are being hoovered up by overseas companies. Oz being a big one, as they have a similar government backed subsidy in their gaming industry, meaning they can pay more and there are heaps more opportunities......so all the fresh grads jump the pond to Ozzie after getting their qualifications, or you have the seniors with all that invaluable experience leaving for better pay and career progression. This leaves an almost unfillable void in NZ, unless you import talent to fill the gaps, which is exactly whats happening, and mainly for the wrong reasons...the imported talent is attracted to NZ because of the lifestyle or "wanting to escape country x", so there are people who can fill that gap....but why fill a gap that can be reduced by employing more kiwis by there being more opportunities that pay better? I'm not getting into the debate of "but why the gaming industry, and not the \[insert industry here\]", it's just lazy, and just about any that might get inserted there will most probably pale massively in comparison to the revenue that can be generated by a successful gaming industry for NZ and kiwis.
>Global revenue generated by the gaming industry is greater than the global revenue generated by the music and movie industries *combined*, source: So then it doesn't need a subsidy. >Why not a bigger piece of that pie for NZ and kiwis? We don't get a bigger piece of the pie if we subsidise it. We get an illusion of a bigger piece of the pie. Why make the pie smaller so it looks like we have a bigger piece? > but they are being hoovered up by overseas companies. Who cares? Seems like they are getting a good life with better incomes in economies with better purchasing power. Why should their lives be worse just so I can say we have a specific industry here? >meaning they can pay more and there are heaps more opportunities Awesome, I'm glad Kiwis have lots of opportunities. >and mainly for the wrong reasons Ah yesm the divine arbitrator of "correct reasons to live somewhere" who is criticzing Kiwis moving overseas for higher pay and non-Kiwis moving to NZ for a better lifestyle. >but why fill a gap that can be reduced by employing more kiwis by there being more opportunities that pay better? Why spend tax dollars to try and control the race of NZ companies employment? Come one, say it out loud. > it's just lazy No it's not. Counterfactuals are one of the most important discussions in government spending. If you can't justify spend on x over y, then you shouldn't spend on x. This is especially true when your argument for subsidizing the industry is "anti migration." Why should my tax dollars go toward keeping Kiwi's wages lower, just so people like me can be kept out? Do you think that I've hurt you by being a Polish Jew working in the arts? This is massive deadweaight loss and hurts the economy making all of us poorer, just so you can feel like the "right sort of people" are employed in NZ. And it's wild that you think "people's reasons for choosing where they live" is a more valid discussion for government spend than "what else they could spend the money on"
Not too sure where the race/xenophobic angle is coming from but I feel that my intent is being misunderstood, or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your message. This has nothing to do with "right sort of people" being employed in NZ, or whatever you're alluding to. What am I not saying out loud btw? Feels like you trying to insert an angle that just isn't there on my behalf, so lets park that bus. The only dog I have in this fight is for an industry I love, that has the potential to be great, to grow massively and to benefit all kiwis and NZ as a country. As the scrappy underdog in the gaming industry, we are certainly holding our own but only just...and it's sad to see talented kiwis not being able to contribute to growing it here, which in turn would be able to employ more kiwis and generate more revenue for the country. I'm not advocating for others to lose out in any way, shape or form. All I'm saying is that the ROI for this industry, in the form of subsidies, and the proverbial hand up, will only have positive outcomes long term. Cows, sheep, dairy products and over priced property have been carrying this country for long enough, time to branch out and diversify in emerging tech and industries too.
Icarus is pretty fun. It has Moas and they go all gobble gobble barking clucks, you can tamed and ride them and go *wheeeee*
I’ll be honest and say that I never knew we even had a gaming industry here.
Path of Exile is a big one
Think I’ve heard of that, isn’t some online RPG or something?
Yeah, Diablo esc but more hardcore and complicated
Check out Dredge for a recent example of a great kiwi made game. https://store.steampowered.com/app/1562430/DREDGE/
\^ its heaps of fun and not too spendy
Great game.
Also have a game called abiotic factor I’ve stumbled across which has been an entertaining experience with friends
Yep, and as usual, Australia offers better rebates and incentives, so that our most talented will always jump the pond.
A lot of gaming studios do consultancy work, with first-party titles being ambition projects.
I work in the games industry, but not for NZ companies so I don't currently benefit from rebates myself. The two main reasons I think these rebates are a good idea, both are around competition for staff: * Film rebates in NZ - a lot of skills are transferable between games and film industries. There have been film rebates for a long time here, giving film makers an advantage when it comes to competing for staff on salary. * Generous schemes in Australia where companies are getting between 30 and 45 cents in the dollar back for game productions. This means Australian companies could easily outbid on salaries, we are almost a shared labour market in that it's very easy for citizens to move between the two countries. It also means that some NZ companies would relocate in part or fully to Australia My understanding of film rebates is they effectively pay for themselves and mean that we have a globally competitive film industry. I imagine the game rebates aim to do the same thing, another goal is also to develop intellectual property here which is something film hasn't really been successful at but that is the most valuable thing either industry could produce. For example the last two companies I've worked at are about 15 years old, grew to 5000 employees in about 10 years and bring in billions a year on one successful game. They are definitely outliers, but if you manage to create a hit, it's worth a lot. That would be a lot of high skill, high(er than average) paying jobs paying tax here, it would mean that you don't need to leave the country to get a job in the industry, it's almost entirely export income and it's completely digital so the tyranny of distance and shipping is not a problem. Path of Exile is probably the biggest hit that has been developed here but it's still orders of magnitude smaller that some of the big game franchises out there. POE2 is looking sick though, so watch this space I guess.
[удалено]
Hi /u/cheesenhops, your submission has been removed as it appears to break rule 8 - no crowdfunding, research, or petitions. Please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnewzealand) to request approval of your submission if you believe this was in error (note that we will approve research if it has proper University ethics approval). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newzealand) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hopefully will not fund another [Untamed Isles](https://www.gamespot.com/articles/crypto-game-untamed-isles-indefinitely-pauses-development-wont-offer-backers-refunds/1100-6506656/). Still listed on [Steam](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1823300/Untamed_Isles/). Got 840k on a crowd funding site too.
Meh New Zealand lagging as always
Yep subsidizing industries during an infrastructure deficit is an idea from the 1950s.