Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal broke the bombshell news that Electronic Arts — one of the largest, most influential AAA publishers and developers in the industry — was nearing an over $50 billion buyout deal primarily led by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, Silver Lake and Affinity Partners, Jared Kushner’s investment firm.

The deal, now confirmed, will take the video game giant private in the biggest leveraged buyout of a company — any company — ever. Sounds like a pretty big deal, right?

With the sheer scale of this landmark sale, one would assume that news of EA’s buyout would be plastered across the front pages of publications’ newspapers, websites and social media pages. But alas, I still naively invest far too much faith in the myriad of legacy media outlets I admire — at least in their coverage of video games and the video game industry.

In truth, numerous highly respected legacy publications — The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press, to name a few — prefer to stubbornly exemplify an antiquated mentality, rather than recognize post-20th-century interactive media industries, which they seemingly have deemed unworthy of primary coverage.

Sure, almost every conceivable credible news outlet covered the EA deal. When I searched “EA” on Monday — the day of the deal’s official confirmation by EA itself — my feed was flooded by a blue deluge of hits from all the aforementioned publications, among countless others. 

Seeing this sparked a glimmer of hope in my chest, which was swiftly stifled upon clicking onto each publication’s respective landing page. Suddenly, coverage of the deal was nowhere to be seen. None of the sites I visited had their EA stories on their front pages, let alone anywhere near the top. Rather, the sites opted to highlight far more important coverage, such as The Washington Post’s “I tried Starbucks’ new protein-rich drinks. Here’s how they taste.”

In all seriousness, this swept-under-the-rug approach to coverage of the biggest company buyout ever must be attributed to legacy media outlets’ disdainful attitude toward video games and the video game industry in general. In not taking the games industry seriously, legacy media maintains a critical gap in its coverage. 

The issue of the game industry not being paid the respect it deserves by legacy media is generational and ongoing. 

From the genesis of video games, the media form has been plagued by negative press, stemming from cultural fears born of rapid technological and social development in the ’80s. A potent moral panic swept across the nation as latchkey kids became increasingly common. In the absence of their working parents, many of these children took to third places after school, one of the most typical being local arcades.

As the United States began to fear moral decay more and more, arcades — and therefore video games — were shunned, labeled as vehicles of degeneracy and corruption. Since then, positive video game press has been met with mellow, intracommunity celebration, while negative press is met with disproportionate national outrage. 

Aggression, violence, school shootings and toxic masculinity became — and have remained — the principal image of video games for baby boomers and Generation X: the two generations that likely dominated legacy newsroom leadership until very recently. 

Artistically, games have continuously struck an unfavorable chord with critics, some of whom, unless specializing in game criticism for outlets like IGN or GameSpot, refer to games with a dismissive attitude. 

A particularly heavy blow to the “games are art” critic conversation came with the late Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic Roger Ebert’s claims that “video games can never be art” and that they’re “inherently inferior” because “video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.”

When someone holds such heavy journalistic respect and trust, a statement like that is heard for decades. 

Though many video game professionals, journalists and players denied and rebutted Ebert’s claims, his opinion still carries industry credibility due to his past accolades in criticism. Even now, it would be unsurprising if some older critics still maintained Ebert’s position, which he doubled down upon numerous times before his passing. Only recently have some legacy outlets started to consistently review video games with an artistic perspective in mind.

Despite modern gaming continuously proving its worth in both economic and artistic spheres, this negative perception among many older generations — and in turn, news outlets — still holds fast. I challenge you to find a single legacy publication, aside from The Guardian, that even has “games” as a subhead under their “arts” or “culture” sections. This lack of coverage is a blatant disrespect to the industry’s success, substance and existence.

The numbers don’t lie: the games industry made over $180 billion globally in 2024, over twice as much money as the film and music industries’ 2024 earnings combined. Games like “Disco Elysium,” “Elden Ring,” “Baldur’s Gate 3,” “Hollow Knight: Silksong” and “The Last of Us Part II” continue to give Ebert sympathizers a run for their money. The world has shifted toward the era of games; the real question is, can legacy media keep up?

Aubrie Cole is a senior writing about video games in her column, “Downloadable Content,” which runs every other Friday. She is also the managing editor at the Daily Trojan.

Disclaimer: Aubrie Cole is a former Electronic Arts employee, having worked as an intern from May to August 2025. She is no longer affiliated with the company.