Xbox Co-Creator: "A Studio Naughty Dog's Size Could Never Handle a Live-Service Game"

Laura Fryer, a pivotal figure in the initial launch of the Xbox and widely recognized as one of its co-creators and the founder of Microsoft Game Studios, is now a prominent voice on her YouTube channel. There, she offers candid and often blunt insights into the gaming industry.

Her latest commentary targets Naughty Dog and their recently canceled live-service game based on The Last of Us. Fryer expresses bewilderment at how the project received the green light, suggesting management was negligent in their due diligence. She asserts that a studio of Naughty Dog's caliber simply could not have managed the demands of a live-service title alongside their ongoing development of acclaimed single-player games, and therefore, its cancellation was the correct decision.

Fryer elaborates: "I always return to the larger question of why they started this game in the first place. Where was the planning? Live-service games are not a mystery. There's ample data they could have reviewed to understand what it takes to make this type of game. You have new maps. You have new modes, new weapons, new seasons, balance patches. It's an endless treadmill. Any studio head could have done the math on what a studio of Naughty Dog's size could realistically support. They would have seen very clearly that a studio Naughty Dog's size could never handle a live-service game and all of their incredible cinematic single-player games. It wasn't feasible."

Despite these apparent oversights, development on the game reportedly continued diligently for seven years. Fryer believes it was Bungie's later analysis that ultimately illuminated the true scope of what was required.

"But instead of doing that analysis, they moved forward and let the game proceed. They let it run for 7 years. Eventually, Bungie was brought in to do an analysis in 2023, and their confrontation with the reality of player retention and what it truly takes is what finally convinced people this could be an issue," Fryer stated.

As previously reported, the game was approximately 80% complete when it was scrapped, a decision that significantly impacted the team and led to several departures. However, Fryer maintains this was the only sensible course of action, as Naughty Dog would have otherwise been relegated to becoming a live-service support team.

"I've seen this play out many times before, where you have a studio that has spent many years and millions of dollars, and they feel they have to ship the game anyway, that they have no choice, even though they know the long-term live-service support will be brutal. So the game comes out half-baked, the team burns out on endless updates, and it usually ends poorly," she explained.

Ultimately, Fryer believes canceling the game, which she feels should never have been approved, was the right move, allowing Naughty Dog to return to its core strength: single-player narratives.

"In my opinion, it was the right decision, even though it hurt the team that worked so hard on it. They chose to go back to what was their studio's bread and butter, narrative-driven single-player games," she concluded.

Do you agree with Fryer's assessment?