IndustryOpinionMMO

Industry Reaction: 'Games Should Never Die' — What New World's Closure Tells Us About AAA Live-Service Risk

JJonathan Hale

2026-02-01

4 min read

New World’s closure reignites debates about live-service games. Why do virtual worlds vanish, and what policies can preserve player trust in 2026?

“Games should never die.” This bold statement from Garry Newman, creator of Rust, struck a chord in the gaming community when news broke that Amazon's ambitious MMO, New World, will be shutting down in 2027. Less than five years after its hyped release, the game’s closure raises critical questions about the fate of live-service titles. Why are we seeing more early closures, and what does this mean for players who dedicate countless hours (and wallets) to these games?

The Short Life of New World: What Went Wrong?

New World debuted in 2021 with immense promise. Positioned as Amazon’s flagship entry into the gaming scene, it combined a vast, immersive world with a live-service structure, aiming to replicate the success of titles like World of Warcraft. Despite a strong launch, player numbers dwindled quickly in 2022 due to a range of issues:

Server instability and long queue times.
Unaddressed exploits and in-game economy problems.
Lackluster end-game content.
Failure to maintain innovating updates to compete with rivals.

But New World's challenges weren’t simply technical. The broader issue lies in the business model of live-service games, where a combination of audience demands, high development costs, and cutthroat competition makes longevity difficult—even for AAA studios.

Industry Reactions: Developers Speak Out

The closure of New World has sparked widespread debate among developers and gamers alike. Notably, Garry Newman, the creator of Rust, took to social media to express his dismay:

“Games should never die. Sure, they might stop receiving updates, but shutting down servers eliminates entire community legacies. We need to rethink this.”

Newman’s sentiment resonates with countless gamers who’ve seen beloved worlds disappear over the years, including titles like Microsoft's Fable Legends and EA's Anthem. Other prominent developers chimed in, with many calling for policy changes to ensure better preservation:

Tim Sweeney (Epic Games CEO): "Live games are an evolving medium... but when players lose access to their investment, it erodes trust in the entire industry."
Yoshida Naoki (Final Fantasy XIV Producer): "Preservation should be a standard. When we rebuild for players, we ensure their emotional and financial investment is honored."
Ted Price (Insomniac Games): "The blame isn’t just on studios. It’s up to publishers, too, to fund long-term sustainability plans."

Why Live-Service Games Are at Risk in 2026

In a post-pandemic world, gaming is bigger than ever, but the economics of live-service games remain precarious. Here are the key factors contributing to increasing shutdowns:

1. Rising Development Costs

Modern AAA games take years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. For live-service titles, the costs grow exponentially due to frequent updates, server maintenance, and community management. This creates immense pressure to turn a profit quickly. When growth slows, studios cut their losses.

2. Oversaturation in the Market

The live-service model is no longer unique. The market is oversaturated, with every major publisher vying for player attention. Even well-funded projects like New World struggled to differentiate themselves in the face of titans like Fortnite and Genshin Impact.

3. Erosion of Player Trust

Players grow attached to their characters, purchases, and friend groups built in these online worlds. When these worlds vanish, it leaves many gamers hesitant to fully engage with new titles. As Newman noted, “Kill a game, you kill a community.”

What Needs to Change: Policy and Preservation

Given the frequency of shutdowns, can the industry evolve to protect players and communities? Here are actionable steps developers and publishers could take in 2026:

Adopt Preservation Policies: Studios should commit to maintaining server infrastructure or offering alternative offline modes before sunsetting games. Examples include Destiny 1, which still allows solo play long after its live-service updates ceased.
Transparent Roadmaps: Communicate clear support timelines upfront. This could help manage expectations and allow gamers to make informed decisions about financial investment.
Open-Sourcing Legacy Titles: Allowing communities to host private servers once official support ends could help preserve these worlds. Ubisoft recently explored something similar with older franchises.
Restructure Business Models: Consider hybrid models that blend live-service elements with traditional one-time payment structures—minimizing reliance on seasonal churn for revenue.

A Call for Stronger Player Advocacy

Gamers, too, have a role to play. Demand better transparency and sustainability from your favorite studios. Support titles with ethical monetization and communicate dissatisfaction with rushed, incomplete projects. Together, we can pressure the industry to build a future where games no longer simply vanish.

The closure of New World is a wake-up call for the industry—a reminder of both the fragility of virtual worlds and the need to prioritize trust and community longevity.

What are your thoughts on the live-service model in 2026? Share your experiences and perspectives with our UK-centric gaming community. Join the conversation in the comments or over on our forums to shape the future of online gaming together!

Jonathan Hale

Senior Tech Editor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.