If the symbol of success for live-service games is cutting back, what hope does anyone else have?
For years, major game publishers and developers have aimed to replicate the success of Fortnite. With its impactful live events and numerous celebrity appearances, Epic’s battle royale shooter became the model for live-service games, achieving a level of cultural prominence unseen in most entertainment products while generating significant revenue. Many in the industry sought to create their own Fortnite-like financial success.
The outcomes were disastrous. The most successful live-service games consumed players’ time and money, leaving others to contend for leftovers. This led to layoffs, game cancellations, and studio closures. Even Fortnite, a dominant force in the sector, is now experiencing difficulties. Live-service games are more problematic than expected.
Recently, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney disclosed that the company is laying off more than 1,000 employees, three years following an 830-job reduction. Various reasons were cited for the layoffs, most notably the current state of Fortnite. “The decrease in Fortnite engagement starting in 2025 means we’re spending more than we’re earning, necessitating substantial cuts to maintain company funding,” Sweeney stated. He noted that “despite Fortnite being among the most successful games globally, we’ve faced challenges in consistently delivering Fortnite magic each season.”
The very success of Fortnite also makes it challenging to sustain. It’s a massive game, continuously updated with new content, with substantial associated costs. Fortnite remains popular and Epic is profitable, but the scale of Fortnite renders even that insufficient for sustainability.
This indicates that in recent years, video game companies have pursued an unattainable goal. There have been evident live-service failures like Concord, Highguard, and FBC: Firebreak, which lacked the popularity for viability. The real issue is that even successful games rarely reach sufficient success due to the demands of live-service games. It’s not just Fortnite. Battlefield 6 was initially successful, with EA investing heavily and four of its major studios working on it. EA termed it a record-breaking success, yet the studios involved faced layoffs shortly after.
What’s next? Fortnite requires significant investment to maintain, and Epic must now do so with fewer staff. The plan might involve a more focused approach; alongside layoffs, Epic announced the closure of several Fortnite game modes. Prices were also increased due to rising operational costs. Sweeney asserted that future efforts need to create excellent Fortnite experiences with fresh seasonal content, gameplay, storylines, and live events.
This approach resembles how Fortnite previously operated, now with 1,000 fewer personnel, including key developers like design director Christopher Pope and character designer Vitaliy Naymushin. This appears to be a daunting task. Fortnite gameplay producer Robby Williams noted that “our teams will need to pick up the pieces and strive to progress forward, though the full impact on the game for the year ahead remains unknown.”
Ideally, the layoffs at Epic might serve as a wake-up call for the industry. Prior studio closures and game shutdowns did not deter the release of new live-service games; for instance, Sony and Bungie recently launched the extraction shooter Marathon. However, it’s now apparent that live-service games, especially at the scale of Fortnite, are unsustainable. If even the largest game struggles, the target to emulate diminishes.