Plus would have gotten them some extra money.

No. It's the publisher's fixation on profit margins. They only want the most profitable of products. It's greed.

I wouldn't blame consumers entirely either. If shooters and Battle Royal is all we're given then it's all we've got to buy. If the AAA industry wouldn't follow trends so obsessively it'd be better varied.

There is fault to go around. Some of it is on consumers for sure. We whine constantly about live service games, but then we play them anyway and ignore better smaller titles.

But publishers and platform holders bear some responsibility too. You hear stories come out from indie devs who had big hits in the late PS3/360 to early PS4/XONE window who can barely move units now, and some of that is definitely failure to advertise and poor discoverability. During that era I felt like I reliably heard about the worthwhile indies, and now I don't.

Then there is the game pass effect (and PS Plus to a lesser extent). So many consumers have now been trained to expect to get indies with their subscriptions, they don't want to pay $20-$40 for them anymore.

The games were profitable, you ding dong.

The thing is, some of the Indie devs closing are really independent. In other words, we can blame Take 2 here, but who can we blame other than the consumers when a fully independent dev shuts down because their games aren't selling? There is an answer to that question, it just isn't greedy publishers, even if they are the most fun to blame.

Last year, Take-Two president and CEO both got paid 72M combined as a bonus. They could have paid the 600 employees they laid off 60K a year and still get half of that (36M). Strauss' compensation alone is 578:1 compared to a T2 employee's.