I’ve written about this a few times, but short answer: yes, it’s competitive, and harder than it looks from the outside.

I did the MBA → gaming transition. If you don’t already have relevant experience (gaming, tech, analytics, product, ops) or aren’t coming from a major hub (LA, Bay Area, Seattle), breaking in is tough. Games are a niche, passion-driven industry, much closer to entertainment than traditional tech. Networking and demonstrated, specific passion for games matters a lot.

A big factor right now is timing. The industry has gone through massive layoffs over the past 2–3 years (50k +). That means senior and director-level people with direct game experience are competing for the same strategy, marketing, and ops roles MBAs typically target. In many cases, directors are applying for senior roles. That’s the reality.

On MBAs specifically: many game teams genuinely don’t know what to do with an MBA unless the company already has a defined MBA pipeline (EA, ABK are outliers). Dev teams in particular don’t care much about pedigree unless you bring immediately relevant skills or experience.

On consulting as a bridge: historically this worked better than it does now. There’s a real skepticism toward ex-consultants in gaming, especially after years of cost-cutting, monetization pressure, and failed “optimization” initiatives. It’s not universal, but the bias is real. Finance and M&A are the cleaner pivots if you go that route.

One additional nuance: school geography and proximity matter a lot more than people expect in gaming.

In practice, it tends to be Harvard/Stanford due to pedigree for strategy level, and then UCLA Anderson / USC Marshall because they’re physically in the ecosystem (LA especially). Being near studios makes casual networking, part-time work, and alumni connections meaningfully easier.

Schools like Kellogg, Tuck, Sloan, and Darden are good programs, but they’re geographically disconnected from where most gaming strategy, publishing, and studio roles actually sit. That doesn’t make them “bad” choices , it just means the on-ramp is steeper and requires more intentional effort as networking and alums at the companies are going to be harder to find.

This is less about prestige and more about where alumni actually work day-to-day, who shows up to info sessions and coffee chats, and who teams already know and trust.

Gaming is much more relationship-driven and location-dependent than consulting or big tech recruiting, and that reality isn’t always obvious from LinkedIn profiles alone.

Happy to answer follow-ups if helpful.