Why Gaming Needs a Different Kind of Founder

For an industry that prides itself on pushing boundaries, gaming can feel surprisingly stuck when it comes to who gets to lead. Games are evolving fast (mechanically, culturally, commercially) but the people building the most successful companies behind them look almost exactly the same.

Over the past decade, more than 100 gaming companies have exited for $100 million or more. These are the founders who’ve made it, who’ve turned ideas into serious businesses. But when you look at who they are, the picture that emerges is a narrow one. Mostly male. Mostly non-immigrant. Mostly from the same academic and technical backgrounds. In theory, that shouldn’t be surprising. But it should be a lot more uncomfortable than it is.

Why Gaming Needs a Different Kind of Founder

Why Gaming Needs a Different Kind of Founder

The average age of a founder at the time of a $100M+ gaming exit is just under 50. That lines up closely with what we see across the tech world. So no, it’s not a young person’s game, at least not at the top.

But what stands out isn’t age. It’s who gets access to the experience and resources needed to get to that level. Founding a company is hard. Getting it funded is harder. Scaling it to a massive exit is harder still. And throughout that whole process, the odds tilt in favor of the same types of people again and again.

That bias is clearest when you look at gender. Only 3.5% of founders behind $100M+ gaming exits are women. Even if you widen the lens to include any company with at least one female co-founder, that number only climbs to 7%. That’s lower than almost every other major tech category. It’s not a pipeline issue. It’s a support and funding issue.

The immigrant founder data is just as stark. Despite the well-documented role immigrants play in driving innovation across the tech industry, they make up less than 5% of these high-exit gaming founders. In broader tech, immigrants are behind more than half of U.S. unicorns. Gaming is way behind the curve.

Why Gaming Needs a Different Kind of Founder

Same Degrees, Same Outcomes

Most founders in the dataset went to university, which makes sense. But what’s more revealing is how concentrated their fields of study are. Computer Science, Engineering, Business, those dominate. That might seem logical, given how technical game development can be. But it’s also a missed opportunity.

Games aren’t just software. They’re culture. They reflect, shape, and challenge how people think, feel, and connect. And yet, the industry keeps filtering founders through the same technical lens. That means teams are often missing the perspectives that come from other disciplines, design, psychology, writing, anthropology, even art history. The result? A lot of games that feel over-engineered and under-inspired.

Why Gaming Needs a Different Kind of Founder

Global Industry, Local Gatekeeping

Gaming is a global business. Its audiences span continents and cultures. But when it comes to who’s building companies that scale, the same five countries dominate: the U.S., U.K., China, Israel, and Canada. Founders from everywhere else have a much harder time breaking through. Not because they lack talent, but because the networks and capital just aren’t there, or worse, they’re still looking for the same profile they saw work before.

This isn’t just about fairness. It’s about freshness. If you’re only betting on founders from the same few places, with the same educational and career backgrounds, how many new ideas are you actually making room for?

Why Gaming Needs a Different Kind of Founder

Innovation Needs a Broader Lens

The gaming industry has been talking about inclusion for a long time. Panels are held. Diversity pledges are signed. But the real test isn’t what companies say, it’s who they fund, promote, and put in charge.

Right now, the numbers tell a clear story: the people building the most successful gaming companies look a lot like they did ten years ago. That’s a problem. Not just because it’s unjust, but because it limits what’s possible.

Great games come from mixing perspectives. From founders who understand markets others overlook. From people who’ve lived different experiences, drawn from different disciplines, and see the world through a different lens.

Gaming doesn't need fewer engineers or fewer MBAs. But it does need more voices at the table, especially from women, immigrants, and founders outside the usual geographies. It needs people who think differently, not just execute faster.

Why Gaming Needs a Different Kind of Founder

What Needs to Change

None of this is easy. Funding cycles are slow to evolve. Networks tend to reinforce themselves. But the industry has no excuse anymore.

Gaming doesn't just need more diverse founders because "it's the right thing to do", it needs them because it's stagnating. When studios chase the same formulas, when investors fund the same types of teams, and when founders come from the same narrow backgrounds, the industry loses its edge. It stops taking risks. It starts repeating itself. And eventually, players move on.

There’s no shortage of talent out there. What’s missing is conviction, the willingness from investors, publishers, and platforms to back new kinds of people with new kinds of ideas. If the gaming industry wants to keep its cultural relevance (and grow beyond the echo chamber it’s been building) it needs to stop rewarding sameness and start betting on difference.

The future of gaming doesn’t belong to whoever copies the last big success. It belongs to the people bold enough to break the pattern. The only question is whether the industry will make space for them before it’s too late.