Get Funded 2026: Funding Opportunities, Experiences from Game Companies and Changing Game Markets

1. Funding is not the starting point – what kind of game company are you building?

Suvi Latva, Neogames Finland + Dias

Suvi Latva from Neogames Finland opened the event by encouraging prospective founders to consider what kind of company they want to build before looking for funding.

A growth-oriented studio aiming for substantial international expansion needs a different business and funding model from a small company seeking sustainable profitability or an indie studio prioritising creative independence. None of these ambitions is inherently better than another, and a company’s direction does not have to remain fixed.

However, these choices affect which funding options are suitable. Venture capital investors, for example, generally expect significant growth potential, while a company may also build its business around client revenue, publishing agreements and other sources of funding.

Funding is not simply a way to carry out an existing plan. It can also affect ownership, decision-making, risk and the company’s future opportunities.

Latva referred participants to Neogames’ Finnish Game Industry Entrepreneurship Paths study and its online resources on starting a game company, which help teams consider these questions before establishing a business.

2. Business Finland: Sprint and research and development funding

Robin Tiivola, Business Finland

Watch the presentation and Q&A (18:15)

Robin Tiivola from Business Finland presented funding options relevant to early-stage game companies and explained their main requirements.

Business Finland funds companies’ research, development and innovation projects through grants and loans. It does not acquire ownership in the company, but its funding only covers part of the eligible project costs. Companies must have sufficient resources of their own to carry out their projects.

Funding decisions take into account not only the project plan but also the company’s team, expertise, the novelty of the proposed solution, competitive advantage, international growth potential and financial capacity.

Sprint – early development and validation of innovations

Sprint is a funding instrument designed particularly for small companies developing and testing innovative solutions before making larger R&D investments.

Main Sprint funding conditions	Information presented at the event
Grant amount	€75,000–€100,000
Funding rate	75% of eligible costs
Project duration	6–12 months
Equity financing	At least €50,000 on the company’s balance sheet
Team	At least two people working full-time for the company
Other conditions	Sufficient financial resources, de minimis rules and restrictions related to previous Business Finland funding

At least two-thirds of a Sprint project must consist of R&D activities. The project must also include preparations for commercialisation, such as validating customer needs and market potential.

Tiivola explained that Sprint is primarily intended for companies less than five years old. Older companies may also be eligible in certain circumstances if they are making a substantial change in their business based on a new innovation. Developing a different type of game is generally not sufficient on its own to demonstrate such a change.

Previous Tempo, Sprint or other Business Finland funding specified in the eligibility criteria may prevent a company from receiving Sprint funding.

Why does a studio with revenue need additional equity financing?

During the Q&A, participants challenged Sprint’s requirement for €50,000 in equity financing. Why should a small studio already sustaining itself through game sales need to arrange additional capital financing to qualify for a grant?

Tiivola acknowledged that Sprint’s conditions had not been designed specifically for game companies and could not provide a clear justification for the requirement in such a situation.

The discussion also clarified that retained earnings are not automatically treated as the required equity financing. An audience member suggested a possible accounting arrangement, but its eligibility was not confirmed.

In another question, Tiivola explained that the requirement for two full-time employees applies to employment within the company, not exclusively to work on the Sprint project.

R&D funding – for larger development projects

Business Finland’s R&D funding is intended for broader research, development and piloting projects. Funding may take the form of a grant or a loan, typically covering 50–70% of eligible costs.

According to Tiivola, loans are often more likely than grants for game companies because their development work is relatively close to commercialisation. Grants are more commonly suited to research-oriented projects involving substantial technological uncertainty.

An important distinction for game developers is what qualifies as R&D. Tiivola gave examples such as developing new game mechanics or technical solutions that can be used across several projects. Producing ordinary game content, such as graphics, music or narrative, does not in itself meet the purpose of Business Finland’s R&D funding.

However, the distinction is not always straightforward, so companies are advised to discuss their projects with a funding specialist before applying.

Business Finland also mentioned a creative industries funding call planned for early 2027, which was expected to focus at least partly on the game industry. The detailed conditions were still being prepared at the time of the event.

Before applying: Tiivola recommended completing the company profile in the My Business Finland service and booking a discussion with a funding adviser. This allows companies to assess whether their project is suitable before preparing a full application.

3. Creative Europe MEDIA – funding for narrative game development

Liisa Sauri, Creative Europe MEDIA Desk Finland

Watch the presentation and Q&A (46:05) + Diats

Liisa Sauri presented the Creative Europe MEDIA programme’s Video Games and Immersive Content Development funding, which supports the development of narrative video games and immersive content.

Unlike Business Finland’s R&D funding, MEDIA support can directly cover the concept development of a game’s creative content. However, its eligibility is subject to specific requirements concerning the content, applicant and development stage.

Main conditions of the 2027 call

Under the call open at the time of the event, applicants could seek a grant of up to €200,000, covering a maximum of 60% of eligible costs. The maximum project duration was 36 months, and the application deadline was 2 February 2027.

Sauri highlighted several important requirements.

The game must be narrative. The story must run throughout the gameplay experience. For example, a puzzle game containing only isolated narrative elements may not meet the requirement. This condition also excludes many other types of games.

The applicant must have previous commercial experience. The applicant company must be able to demonstrate a commercially distributed reference work that has generated revenue during the specified reference period.

Sauri made an important clarification during her presentation: the reference game may have been released before 2024, provided it generated verifiable sales or advertising revenue during the reference period beginning on 1 January 2024. No minimum revenue amount was specified.

However, an unfinished Early Access game, work-for-hire produced for another company or an individual developer’s personal credits do not, by themselves, qualify as an eligible reference.

The applicant must meet European eligibility requirements. The company must be established in a country participating in the MEDIA programme, and its majority ownership must meet the programme’s nationality requirements. Simply being based in Finland may therefore not be sufficient.

Funding covers development, not the entire production process. Support can be used for concept development and prototyping, but not for the main production phase. Sauri acknowledged that this distinction, inherited from film production, can be difficult to apply to the iterative nature of game development.

Previous Finnish beneficiaries and other opportunities

Sauri presented examples of Finnish projects that had previously received funding. These included Red Stage Entertainment’s E.I.N.S – Everything I Never Said, the joint ALMA project by Dreamloop Games and Making Movies, Frozenbyte’s Six Heroes and a Villain and VRKiwi’s Echoes of the Sunstone.

The MEDIA programme also offers other opportunities. Sauri mentioned the European Co-development, European Slate Development, Innovative Tools and Business Models, and Creative Innovation Lab calls. Their relevance depends on the nature of the project and the conditions of each call.

Creative Europe also supports game industry visibility at gamescom, including through the MEDIA Stand and Indie Arena Booth.

Allow sufficient time for the application

Sauri emphasised that preparing a MEDIA application requires considerable work. Applications include a creative development plan, commercial justification and detailed budgeting.

Creative Europe Desk Finland provides free advice, webinars and opportunities to receive feedback on applications before submission. Sauri encouraged applicants to seek feedback from an experienced adviser rather than relying solely on AI tools to interpret the funding requirements.

The presentation also covered the proposed AgoraEU and MEDIA+ funding framework for the period after 2027. The European Commission’s proposal could broaden the types of game industry activities supported, potentially including market access and new forms of content. However, the final programme conditions had not yet been decided.

Further information and application advice: Creative Europe MEDIA Desk Finland.

4. EIT Culture & Creativity – business development and future funding opportunities

Sami Jääskeläinen, EIT Culture & Creativity

Watch the presentation (75:40) + Dias

Sami Jääskeläinen from EIT Culture & Creativity presented European business development and funding programmes designed to support innovation, commercialisation and international growth in the cultural and creative sectors.

At the time of the event, EIT Culture & Creativity did not have an open funding call specifically targeting the game industry. Jääskeläinen explained that game-related opportunities were expected in 2027, but their detailed conditions had not yet been confirmed.

The presentation covered three programmes aimed at companies at different development stages.

Spark Incubation helps early-stage ideas develop into businesses. In the 2026 programme example, support amounted to €30,000 and did not involve giving up equity. The funding could also be used to pay founders’ salaries.

Shape Accelerator is intended for companies that already have evidence of product and market potential but need support to prepare for their next stage of growth and strengthen their investment readiness.

Scale Post-Accelerator focuses on more established companies preparing for larger funding rounds.

EIT also presented innovation projects supporting the development of technology and new business models.

According to Jääskeläinen, EIT’s interest in the game industry focuses particularly on scalable game technology, production tools, AI solutions and business model innovation. This distinguishes its approach from Creative Europe MEDIA funding, which focuses more directly on the development of creative content.

In addition to funding, the programmes offer coaching, mentoring, networks and support for accessing international markets. Participation may, however, require a significant commitment of time.

Jääskeläinen also described the Financial Sustainability Mechanism used in the Shape and Scale programmes. In the 2026 programmes, this included an option to acquire a 3% equity stake. Not all EIT funding instruments therefore operate in the same way, and the 2026 conditions should not automatically be assumed to apply to the 2027 programmes.

Further information: EIT Culture & Creativity.

5. Business Basics – what does moving from a game team to a company involve?

Suvi Kiviniemi, Metropolia UAS / LGIN

Watch the presentation and Q&A (116:55) + Dias

Suvi Kiviniemi, a game industry specialist at Metropolia and lead of the LGIN network, discussed the practical considerations involved in starting a company.

The central message was that a game studio is not the same as a single game project. If the aim is to build a company, founders also need to think about future games, developing their expertise and sustaining the business over time.

According to Kiviniemi, each game project should help the studio develop expertise or a competitive advantage that it can use in the future. A company can change direction, but it should avoid unnecessarily abandoning the skills and experience it has already built.

Shared goals and agreements between founders

Kiviniemi encouraged founding teams to discuss their goals thoroughly. Team members may believe they agree, only to discover later that their expectations concerning growth, responsibilities, commitment or the company’s future are different.

Kiviniemi placed particular emphasis on having a shareholders’ agreement. This can address matters such as ownership, responsibilities, share buybacks and situations in which a founder leaves the company.

An audience member asked whether everyone involved in the original game team should also become a company founder. Kiviniemi recommended considering founder status particularly for those prepared to commit to the business over the long term. Participating in a game project and owning a company are not the same thing.

Running a company also means taking on obligations

Establishing a company brings responsibilities involving bookkeeping, financial statements, taxation, contracts and potentially employment-related obligations. Someone on the team also needs to take responsibility for market research, financial management and controlling project scope.

According to Kiviniemi, a hierarchical organisation is not necessary, but responsibilities must be clear. Otherwise, difficult or less appealing tasks can easily remain undone.

Kiviniemi also emphasised market research and early marketing. A studio needs to understand who its game is for, why players would want it and what they are willing to pay for.

External funding can help a company develop, but it cannot replace paying customers indefinitely.

Finally, Kiviniemi encouraged teams to learn from unsuccessful projects as well. Time and money spent on development are not necessarily wasted if the studio can apply those lessons to future games.

As a practical resource, Kiviniemi recommended LGIN’s legal requirements checklist: LGIN Resources.

6. Entrepreneur panel – different business paths and funding solutions

Jussi Autio, Olli Raudus and Elina Arponen. Moderated by Suvi Latva.

Watch the panel discussion (137:20)

The entrepreneur panel examined how early decisions, market choices and subsequent changes in direction had affected companies’ funding opportunities.

The three entrepreneurs’ experiences also differed in how deliberately their current business models had been developed from the outset.

All Hats – building a sustainable business through client work

Olli Raudus spoke about All Hats, founded in 2023, which develops games and other experiences for the Roblox platform.

When the company was established, the team did not have a precisely defined business model. The initial aim was to explore a new platform and develop games for it.

However, discussions with investors familiar from previous ventures suggested that Roblox-based business activities were not particularly well suited to traditional VC funding at the time.

Meanwhile, All Hats found its first client. Work-for-hire projects related to Roblox development began generating revenue and became the foundation of the company’s business.

Alongside its client work, the studio develops its own games and intellectual property. According to Raudus, this model allows the founders to retain ownership and grow in a more controlled way, although progress is slower than it might be with substantial external investment.

Raudus also acknowledged the importance of previous entrepreneurial experience and networks. Finding a similar client base might not be as straightforward for a team establishing its first company.

Playables AI – a change in direction opened up new markets

Elina Arponen described how her previous company, Quicksave Interactive, changed its business direction and evolved into Playables AI.

Quicksave had developed technology for creating embedded web games. However, the team’s original expectations for the growth of this market were only partly realised.

The team began looking for other applications for its technology. An initial attempt to expand into interactive web content did not deliver the expected results, but the company eventually identified a new commercial opportunity in interactive advertising.

An AI-based user interface and a new pricing model opened up a market in which customers could obtain interactive advertising content more easily than before.

The change also affected funding opportunities. As the company was no longer focused solely on game content, it could approach a broader range of technology investors.

Arponen explained that Playables AI had received Business Finland Sprint funding despite being more than five years old because its change in business direction was sufficiently substantial. However, she stressed that this did not automatically make raising investment easier.

Jussi Autio – researching the market before making major production decisions

Jussi Autio discussed his previous entrepreneurial experience at Resistance Games and the more growth-oriented strategy of his new company, Silver Legend.

His earlier company had come close to an acquisition, but the deal ultimately fell through. According to Autio, the experience exposed problems in the company’s structure and ways of working that he wanted to avoid when planning his next business.

Autio placed particular emphasis on market research.

In his view, the commercial potential of a new game should not be justified simply by pointing to one successful comparable title. Every genre has exceptional successes, but they do not represent the probabilities across the market as a whole.

Studios should investigate how competitive their chosen market is, what kinds of games succeed there and why their own game might stand out.

Autio considered a clear unique selling point essential. In his previous experience, it had been possible to secure substantial publishing agreements based on a strong concept without a playable demo, but he noted that this had become considerably more difficult in the current market.

Entrepreneurship does not always follow the original plan

In the wider panel discussion, Arponen encouraged founders to keep several funding options open. Based on her experience, a co-production agreement can bring external funding into a game project without being a conventional work-for-hire contract or a traditional publishing agreement. Such arrangements can address matters including retaining IP rights and sharing revenue.

The discussion also challenged the assumption that taking investment inevitably restricts a studio’s creative control. In Arponen’s and Raudus’s experience, their investors had not directly interfered with creative decisions about their games. Nevertheless, understanding the terms of funding and investors’ expectations remains important.

Audience questions addressed the personal risks and pressures of entrepreneurship. Arponen described how her founding team had considered in advance how they would cope with the worst possible outcome. Autio discussed the stress associated with substantial borrowing earlier in his career and encouraged founders to think carefully about personal financial risk.

Other practical advice included controlling costs, testing early, building networks and learning from other entrepreneurs.

Arponen pointed out that experiences and advice can sometimes be contradictory. Autio also raised the issue of survivorship bias: looking at successful companies does not necessarily reveal which decisions actually caused their success.

7. Kokoon Games – how has the studio funded its operations without VC funding?

Henri Lindgren, Founder & CEO, Kokoon Games

Watch the presentation and Q&A (170:45) + Dias

Henri Lindgren from Kokoon Games explained how the studio he founded has combined different sources of income and funding during its first years of operation.

The founders of Kokoon Games had a long shared history at Lightneer. According to Lindgren, the first contacts with angel investors were made at Pocket Gamer Connects London, even before they established their own company.

The angel investments subsequently enabled the company to apply for Business Finland’s Tempo grant. In the next phase, the studio carried out client projects for companies including Skillz and Voodoo. These projects generated cash flow that helped the company meet the financial requirements for its next Business Finland R&D project.

Lindgren illustrated the distribution of the company’s funding and client revenue up to that point as follows:

Funding or revenue source	Share of the total
Business Finland R&D projects	Approximately 41%
Client projects	Approximately 33%
Angel investments	Approximately 20%
Other grants	Approximately 6%

The percentages are based on Kokoon Games’ presentation at Get Funded 2026. The breakdown includes both external funding and revenue from client projects, rather than equity investments alone.

According to Lindgren, the important factor was not any individual source of funding, but how the different sources complemented one another and enabled the company to move on to the next stages of its development.

Not every game project should be taken to release

Kokoon Games discontinued development of its first game project, Party Royale, when testing did not demonstrate sufficient interest and the team was not convinced by the direction of the game.

Technology and experience gained from the earlier project were later used in Liberators Inc.

The studio has since developed its Kokoon Hatchery approach, in which game ideas are quickly turned into playable prototypes. These are tested with target audiences before larger production decisions are made.

Lindgren explained that New World Trading Company progressed from an idea to a publishing agreement in three weeks. The rapid prototyping process makes use of AI and other modern production tools.

The company’s core team consisted of three people, supported by external expertise in areas such as art production.

Funding needs to fit the business model

Lindgren emphasised that a studio cannot necessarily build its future around a single funding source. In the case of Kokoon Games, client work, public funding, investors and publishing partnerships have complemented one another.

He was also critical of self-publishing without dedicated full-time marketing expertise. In his view, it may make more sense for a small studio to focus on game development and make use of a publisher’s commercial expertise.

Although Business Finland funding had been important to Kokoon Games, Lindgren argued that the game industry needed funding instruments better suited to the needs of early-stage studios. He highlighted, for example, combining angel investments with public funding.

Lindgren’s account is the experience of one team with substantial industry expertise, not a universal funding model. However, it illustrates how a company’s funding strategy, production methods and commercial ambitions can change as the business develops.

8. Investor panel – private funding, publishers and changing game markets

Jessica Blechingberg (Supercell Investments), Pietari Päivänen (Nuard Ventures), Samuli Syvähuoko (Sisu Game Ventures) and Daniel Torbjörnsson (Dataspelsbranschen). Moderated by KooPee Hiltunen.

Watch the investor panel (192:00)

The final panel discussed what kinds of game companies investors are interested in, how changes in the market affect investment decisions and what investors expect from early-stage studios.

The discussion also made clear that not all investors are looking for the same kinds of companies.

Different investors have different objectives

Jessica Blechingberg described Supercell Investments’ approach as strategic, long-term investing. Supercell invests in game studios and game technology companies developing something that complements its own activities, such as new types of games, platforms, technologies or target audiences.

Supercell’s interests are not limited to mobile games. Blechingberg also highlighted PC and console game companies, as well as new geographical markets and player audiences.

Samuli Syvähuoko explained that Sisu Game Ventures was primarily focused on supporting its existing portfolio companies at the time of the event. According to Syvähuoko, the $55 million fund launched in 2021 was largely invested, with 37 active companies in its portfolio.

This illustrated a practical distinction between an investor’s general areas of interest and whether a fund currently has capital available for new investments.

Pietari Päivänen brought experience from game technology entrepreneurship, angel investing and venture capital funds. He emphasised that the size of a fund affects its return expectations. Large funds need investments with the potential to generate exceptionally high returns.

Daniel Torbjörnsson approached the subject from the perspective of the Swedish game industry. He discussed particularly the position of PC and console games, smaller publishers and developer-led businesses. His perspective complemented those of the investors with broader industry experience.

What do investors expect from an early-stage studio?

Towards the end of the panel, KooPee Hiltunen asked what makes a company investment-ready in the current market and when founders should approach investors.

Syvähuoko emphasised the importance of a distinctive gameplay hook: an idea or feature that makes the gameplay experience interesting and different. He also wanted to see a marketing plan and, preferably, some early evidence of external interest. In his view, even small angel investments can help demonstrate that others have confidence in the team.

Päivänen placed particular emphasis on team dynamics and the ability to execute quickly. In his view, previous employment at a well-known game studio is not sufficient evidence that a team can build a successful new business.

Investors also need to understand how the company intends to reach players.

Blechingberg emphasised the value of a playable build. Whenever possible, founders should send investors a game they can actually try, rather than relying on a pitch deck alone.

The panel also encouraged founders to get to know investors before a formal funding round. Early conversations and requests for feedback can help companies develop their plans without every meeting having to be a formal investment pitch.

Publisher or self-publishing? The panellists disagreed

The clearest difference of opinion in the discussion concerned publishing.

Syvähuoko was strongly critical of self-publishing. In his view, the growing number of games makes it so difficult to gain visibility that a publisher’s marketing expertise, networks and established audience are extremely important for many studios.

Torbjörnsson added the perspective of Sweden’s smaller, specialised indie publishers. A publisher does not need to be a large international company if it understands the market for a particular game and can help bring it to customers.

However, Päivänen disagreed with rejecting self-publishing as a general rule. Particularly for mobile game companies, building in-house publishing and user acquisition capabilities can be a central part of the business.

Blechingberg expanded on the mobile perspective. Self-publishing requires expertise in advertising campaigns, user acquisition and assessing the value generated by players. She also mentioned new funding arrangements in which external partners contribute to financing user acquisition campaigns.

The different views partly reflected the differences between PC, console and mobile game business models. However, this does not remove the underlying strategic question: which commercial capabilities should a studio develop in-house, and which should it obtain through partners?

AI is speeding up development – but who will find the players?

The impact of AI was discussed particularly in relation to production costs, team sizes and reaching the market.

Syvähuoko said that some Sisu Game Ventures portfolio companies had significantly reduced their team sizes while new tools had enabled them to maintain or increase production output. He considered this commercially significant but also concerning.

According to Päivänen, faster production places even more pressure on distribution. As games can be developed more quickly, standing out and reaching players become increasingly important.

Blechingberg pointed out that producing content quickly does not automatically result in compelling games. Players still look for experiences they want to return to. The quality of game design, the developers’ creative vision and player feedback therefore remain essential.

Torbjörnsson described similar experiences in Sweden, where AI is being used for rapid prototyping and testing, even when the final game may subsequently be built differently.

How are game markets changing?

The panel also discussed the shift from mobile towards PC development, growing interest in game technology companies and changing ambitions around studio size.

Syvähuoko described a shift towards PC games within The Finnish Game Industry. At the same time, he noted that gaining visibility on Steam is difficult and that reaching console markets may require evidence of success on PC.

Torbjörnsson discussed Sweden’s strong PC and console game development sector and the importance of smaller studios and publishers. He also described a trend in which some new studios deliberately aim to remain small rather than rapidly expanding their headcount.

Game technology companies emerged as another area of investment interest. Blechingberg explained that Supercell had identified investment opportunities in technology companies whose products are used by its own game teams.

These observations reflected the panellists’ experiences of the market, rather than a shared forecast for the future direction of The Finnish Game Industry as a whole.

Audience questions: crowdfunding and educational game applications

An audience member asked whether a crowdfunding campaign raising, for example, €25,000 could serve as evidence of market interest in a game.

The panel considered a successful campaign a possible form of validation. However, it does not determine an investment decision on its own, and the outcome does not necessarily demonstrate the long-term viability of the business.

Another question concerned educational and simulation applications. Syvähuoko explained that Sisu Game Ventures focuses on entertainment games, a business area its investment team understands through direct experience. Päivänen raised the question of the commercial model for educational products, particularly identifying who the paying customer would be.

The discussion illustrated how an investor’s sector expertise and investment model influence which companies it is prepared to consider.

What should founders explore next?

Get Funded 2026 presented a range of funding options, entrepreneurial experiences and investor perspectives. However, these do not add up to a single path suitable for every game company.

Before seeking funding, founders should consider what the money is needed for, when it will be needed, what evidence the company already has and what securing the funding will require from its team and finances.

It is equally important to consider what the chosen funding route means for the company’s future: its ownership, decision-making, growth ambitions and ability to continue operating beyond the next game.

Further resources:

Please note: The funding information in this article summarises what was presented at Get Funded 2026 on 4 November 2026. Funding conditions, eligibility criteria, available calls and deadlines may change. Before applying, please always check the latest information directly from the relevant funding organisation’s official website.