Highguard’s shutdown was not an isolated failure. It was the latest in a string of high-profile live-service games that promised to replicate the success of titles like Apex Legends, only to collapse under the weight of unmet expectations. The pattern is now undeniable: past hits do not equal future hits, and the industry’s relentless pursuit of the next big live-service title has left a trail of canceled projects, layoffs, and wasted investment.
For years, studios bet on teams with track records—developers who had built successful shooters or MMOs in the past. But those bets are no longer paying off. Riot Games, one of the most successful developers in existence, recently laid off a significant portion of its team working on 2XKO, a fighting game developed with input from genre experts. Even Valve, with its unmatched reach through Steam and a legacy built on innovation, couldn’t sustain Artifact, a card game designed in collaboration with Magic: The Gathering’s Richard Garfield.
The Illusion of Replication
The assumption that experience guarantees success is deeply ingrained. If a team has delivered a hit before, why wouldn’t they do it again? Yet the data suggests otherwise. Highguard’s developers, many of whom had worked on Apex Legends, believed they could replicate its formula. They couldn’t. The same logic applied to projects like Blizzard’s canceled survival game and Zenimax’s abandoned MMO, both of which were led by teams with proven credentials.
What went wrong? Part of the issue lies in the shifting landscape of player expectations. Games that once thrived on steady content updates now face scrutiny over monetization practices, balance issues, and whether their live-service models are sustainable. The rise of generative AI has also introduced new variables—some promising efficiency gains, others adding complexity without clear returns.
Who Loses When the Bets Go Wrong?
- Players: Many live-service games that fail leave behind unfinished updates, broken systems, or abandoned communities. Highguard’s closure left its player base with no path forward.
- Developers: Teams often take the brunt of cancellations, whether through layoffs (as seen with Riot’s 2XKO) or studio closures (like Jake Solomon’s life sim project).
- Investors: The industry has seen millions lost on projects that were supposed to be safe bets. NetEase’s recent cancellations, including a Warhammer MMO and another led by former World of Warcraft designer Greg Street, are just the latest examples.
The fallout is already visible. In 2024 alone, Microsoft canceled Blizzard’s survival game, while NetEase pulled funding from multiple Western studios, leaving teams scrambling for new opportunities. The question now is whether the industry will adjust its strategy or double down on a model that increasingly fails to deliver.
One potential silver lining is the rise of smaller, more agile projects—games like Peak, which emerged from a game jam and climbed Steam charts without the backing of a major publisher. But these are exceptions, not the rule. For now, the live-service gambit remains a high-stakes gamble with no guaranteed winner.
The next wave of games will tell us whether the industry has learned anything or if it’s doomed to repeat the same mistakes. The signs so far suggest the latter.
