[JKCalhoun]

I understand what you are saying but I'm old fashioned (or naive) enough to think that entertainment companies are supposed to be about art (and I'm using the word in an admittedly hand-wavy sort of way) and not about finding cheap money and/or growing headcount.

It already reads wrong if throwing money at my "competitors" somehow gives them some kind of advantage over me. That sounds factory-like (but then I am also coming to believe that what others call "AAA" games may not be the same kind of thing that drew me into gaming).

[bordercases]

As we are now decades into the history of both film and gaming industries, at the top level of the pyramid, yes, this is naive.

Your experiences as a gamer will have little to do with the kind of decision making that yields billions of dollars at the margin. There are exceptions in the game space of overnight hits becoming cottage industries (Stardew Valley, Braid) but the way those liabilities are formed are much different. The developer is the tastemaker. They are almost industries of two types you shouldn't confuse if you want your claim to hold.

[jackseviltwin]

For EA and other entertainment companies, it's probably not about finding cheap money or growing headcount for its own sake. Cheap money funds more "art." They can try to create new games or movies or tv series and gamble that one or more becomes a hit or even a franchise that makes a return on that cheap investment. Maybe a return that covers the cost of multiple failed attempts. Similar to VCs.