Are video games art or products? This tension lies at the heart of Australia’s gaming industry
- Written by Zainab Darbas, PhD Candidate, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University
In 2004, a largely anonymous team of Australian video game developers released a prototype video game titled Escape from Woomera.
In this 3D adventure, the player takes on the role of Mustafa, an Iranian refugee fleeing violent repression who is being held in a virtual re-creation of the (now-shut) Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre.
Mustafa is facing deportation back to Iran – which will mean almost certain death. He and the player must escape.
Escape from Woomera was one of the first Australian video games ever to receive government funding to support its development. In 2003, the creators received a A$25,000 grant from the national arts body, the Australia Council for the Arts (now Creative Australia).
The game itself, and the fact it was awarded public funding, were highly controversial. They sparked conversations about what kind of art the government should fund, and why. Should the goal be to nurture new artistic talent? Or to preserve Australian-made content? Or build profitable industries?
More than two decades on, Australia has a robust ecosystem of video game development supported by grant programs across the country. My research looked at the scope and structure of these programs and examined how they affect game developers.
My findings reveal that the structures of funding programs emphasise generating profit and growing the video game industry. This is at odds with the approach taken by many game developers, who view themselves as artists, and their games as a cultural form.
This fundamental mismatch is a source of tension for game developers who rely on public funding to support their work.
Competing priorities of public funding
I read through more than 50 annual reports, strategic documents and other materials from Australian arts funding bodies to analyse funding policies for Australian video games.
The documents emphasised the economic potential of the video game industry, frequently citing growth rates, expenditure figures and returns on investment as justification for continuing to fund game development. However, they also promoted Australian video games as complex, experimental and culturally valuable.
This shows how funding agencies juggle competing priorities. While they value games with artistic merit that contribute to the cultural landscape, agencies must also demonstrate that their public funding programs generate financial returns.
These agencies’ economic priorities heavily influence how public funding programs are structured – which can make them seem highly formal and business-like.
Company or community?
This formality creates difficulties for game developers, whose work practices are often artistic, informal and adaptive. I interviewed 11 game developers to understand their experiences with public funding.
They generally held positive sentiment towards the funding available to them, describing it as a “lifeline”, “fantastic” and “awesome”. Several developers spoke highly of the range of funding programs available for projects of various scope.
At the same time, they had criticisms. They found the application processes for public funding overly formal, forcing them to adapt their artistic practices to a rigid, business-like structure. As one interviewee explained:
If you want to go for funding, you’re talking about needing to start a company. You need to get a lawyer. People don’t know that.
Tensions were particularly acute around providing diversity information. Most funding applications ask applicants to submit information about diversity, equity and inclusion in a highly formalised format.
The developers I spoke to felt “icky”, “gross”, “weird” and “uncomfortable” while completing these forms, describing them as “tokenising”, “dehumanising” and “impersonal”. As one interviewee said:
The language it asks you to use is so corporate, you know, and it’s like, who is this talking to? Who is this for? And the answer is always a company. I’m not a company, I’m a person.
More than just products
The interviewees recommended several changes funding agencies could make to improve their application processes. They could, for instance:
provide example funding applications and information sessions to help guide applicants
provide more feedback on both successful and unsuccessful applications
allow more flexible formats for submitting the required documentation, especially for diversity information
provide venue space and smaller, more accessible funding options for developers to run events for skill-sharing and community support.
These changes would signal to game developers and the wider public that our public institutions value video games as more than just money-making products.
Australian-made games such as Untitled Goose Game and Cult of the Lamb – which have achieved international critical success in recent years – wouldn’t exist without public funding.
Yet many video game developers struggle to find options for secure public funding. And when it isn’t available, they are forced to take a chance on over-saturated crowdfunding platforms such as Kickstarter.
It’s important that public funding programs work to support game developers on their own terms, so they can keep creating excellent games that enrich our cultural landscape.
Authors: Zainab Darbas, PhD Candidate, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University
