Farsala said:
Development costs skyrocket, but almost all gaming companies in the past few years have been doing quite well for themselves. The 90s were a brutal time to be a game dev, with probably over half of games studios ending up closed. 2000s, early 2010s weren't much better with some massive closures like THQ. Basically what I am saying, since game servers have been a major part of games, most game companies have profited. |
I would argue that studios were a lot more independent in the 90's, which means they had to secure investments and funding (and that is stressful and inconsistent). I would likewise argue that the major reason so many studios have been bought out by bigger groups in the last decade is the financial stresses being too much for many studios to deal with now compared to the 90's, so they instead consolidate under one big umbrella with a massive wallet and don't have to worry about finances anymore as long as the games continue to sell decently. If gaming was so easily profitable, I don't think you'd see as many studios join under MS/Sony/Nintendo/Embracer/EA umbrella as we have seen in the last decade.
