[It has always been a battle between the Crazies wanting go to the church of passion and art, while the Bean Counters head straight for the bank]

Now the bean counters are calling the shots, how can crazies respond?

In recent reviews of investor sentiment this has been the recurring theme: you have to have the data on your game, you have to know your market, your competitors and your positioning - and you have to build your IP.

How can developers navigate the risk averse mindset and pre-prescribed commercial standards whilst working on projects that they believe in passionately? Can an awareness of the market actually work with the passion and creativity to build a better and more beloved experience?

Can we go to both the church and the bank at the same time?

[The stupid deals and crazy valuation days are over. Investors are asking for more. What will this mean for how games are conceived and developed?]

In essence: Investors are keen to back great games, and the outlook is positive, but the level of risk aversion has increased dramatically.

Even for AAs, this is no longer just about making games - it is about the business of making great games.

[This has become a recurring conversation: not everyone on the team is making the same game!]

In essence: having a shared vision for the experience you want to make seems logical, but not many developers invest in developing a North Star for their game.

Why is that? Does developing a vision early hamper creative freedom? Or is it just that this thinking is new to game developers?

[Artistic Intent. It is the core of everything. It means everything, but can you articulate it?]

In essence: the holy grail for building IP & Brands with true potential is to understand and amplify artistic intent.Yet very few game developers have this nailed.

Artistic intent often is hidden in the mind of the creator, often not fully understood, resulting in a process of stumbling towards the end game.

[Game developers are struggling to survive just making games. They need to think beyond a single hit to a more sustainable model.]

This is the no 1 Game changer, rethinking the games market from games to entertainment. To reverse the erosion of great games companies, to make the sector less volatile, more enduring, exciting and creatively expansive.

This is the mental shift for games companies to consider. That what they provide is entertainment, as opposed to games. If that can be achieved, then the game changes.

[Brands strive to define their purpose, to build emotional connection. Game brands however by contrast are latent with opportunity.]

In essence: Organisational brands and indeed product brands have to work hard to build brand value beyond features and benefits, often resulting in tenuous and unsustainable emotional appeal.

Game brands, although similarly founded on (gameplay) features and benefits have the opportunity to connect more meaningfully by integrating gameplay with IP, through story, characters and worlds.

[In the race to be politically correct, game developer brands have neutered their ability to express why they make games. It is time for a rethink.]

In essence: game company brands have become good employer brands in a knee-jerk reaction to negative industry press. No argument for the need for a clean-up; well overdue. But what has been lost in this is the spirit of why people make games.

The result is a bland corporatisation of a passion driven industry, and an opportunity.