Behaviour Interactive lays off more people as 'demand for mobile and casual external development projects has declined'

Dead by Daylight developer Behaviour Interactive has confirmed the layoff of an undisclosed number of employees, telling Game Developer the cuts were made as a result of reduced demand for external development partnerships.

"A portion of Behaviour Interactive’s business has traditionally focused on external development partnerships. In recent months, demand for mobile and casual external development projects has declined," a Behaviour Interactive rep told the site.

"As we conclude our remaining engagements and do not foresee comparable opportunities in the near term, we have made the decision to part ways with some colleagues. Those decisions are never easy, and we are grateful for the contributions of the affected employees, who have helped shape Behaviour and support our partners over the years."

Founded in 1992, Behaviour Interactive is best known for the long-running asymmetric multiplayer survival horror game Dead by Daylight, but it has credits on numerous other games: It co-developed Fallout Shelter with Bethesda, for instance, and made the Ubisoft-published mobile game Assassin's Creed Rebellion.

Despite having irons in fires, the past couple years haven't been especially kind to Behaviour. The studio laid off 40 people in January 2024, and less than six months later it put another 95 out of work. The studio said at the time that it had expanded from 575 to 1,300 employees over the prior five years, and that "over the same period, the greater gaming industry has also witnessed remarkable growth."

Of course, that was through the heart of the Covid-19 pandemic, when people were looking for ways to entertain themselves while staying home—and when people stopped staying home so much, all that explosive growth proved unsustainable. Which isn't to say that the post-pandemic hangover is the only reason for the violent industry contraction we've seen over the past few years, but it is one that competent executives should have been able to foresee and avoid—and with precious few exceptions, they did not.