3 ms·
The basic economic angle of it is that video games are a hit-driven business. Large publishers especially during the 1990s have a diverse product portfolio that
by skymt 7y ago
The basic economic angle of it is that video games are a hit-driven business. Large publishers especially during the 1990s have a diverse product portfolio that can cushion moderate failures with the income from hits (more so during the 90s than today). When a small studio is growing its games and budgets to keep up with player expectations, the relative safety of a publisher can be tempting compared to sticking it out independently and betting the company on each game.
- aasasd 7y agoYeah, but you'd think that studios that made plenty of hits in the 90s and early 2000s would be kept as they are in hopes that they make more hits—even as subsidiaries. The publisher financed the games before, after all. But no, afaict it's the same story every time: after several years, the publisher revs up the old blender, reassigns the studio's sub-outlets to its existing regional divisions, moves people around, and either renames the studio to ‘BigPublisher RegionName’, or shuts it down. Also iirc there's a running theme of ‘we solemnly promise that the studio keeps the creative control after the acquisition,’ from both companies.