On May 24, 2000, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney shared a public statement (the specific platform or venue eludes me) on the closure of Looking Glass Studios, a canonical PC gaming institution and originator of the immersive sim genre (maybe don't call it that, though). The statement was resurfaced by immsim enthusiast account Sinnoware on Twitter, and Sweeney has since responded.
Here's Sweeney's original statement from 2000 in full:
"This isn't a sad day, it's an economically realistic day. Looking Glass spent lots of money making innovative games that never sold well.
"A really cool guy I know who used to work at Looking Glass had some insight into this: The company slogan may well have been 'By MIT Grads, For MIT Grads'. Think about that. Most of the stuff they did was way out of the realm of what most mainstream gamers wanted.
"Being a niche company and making good, unusual styles of games is cool, but you have to be lean-and-mean in order to do that successfully. Pop Top (Railroad Tycoon) is a great example of success in a small genre.
"But you can't be a niche company and have the kind of huge overhead and expenses that Looking Glass had.
"Right now, an ugly shakeout has begun in the industry. Look at the stock market crash in shares of Activision, EA—that's Electronic Arts not Evil Avatar :)—Activision, Acclaim, GT, and Eidos. These guys no longer have the resources to fund the financial losers.
"Projects and teams that are not producing profitable games are being axed. Origin's projects (minus [Ultima Online]) and Looking Glass are only the beginning. Some of the companies and teams that will take the axe damn well deserve it, and others are unfortunately made up of really good guys who just haven't had the good fortune of producing hits.
"This is the bit where the comet hits the earth and the dinosaurs die, but the way is cleared for cooler life forms to evolve."
Responding to the post's resurfacing, Sweeney stands by his assessment of this prior moment of studio closures and industry uncertainty: "Sometimes the creative magic that makes a game loved by some isn't accompanied by the economics of a viable business," he wrote. "Game businesses are businesses, and though one can invest in anticipation of future profit or growth, ultimately a company must earn enough to pay the bills.
"This is a challenge all game makers face, and it's magnified during downturns. The solution? Make a great game, make it efficiently, and set the budget based on the size of the audience that will pay for it. Technology that helps achieve that is, in my opinion, good."
A number of prominent industry figures took issue with Sweeney's take. Danny O'Dwyer of Noclip and Arkane co-founder Raphael Colantonio both emphasized the lingering artistic impact of Looking Glass. Gloomwood developer Dillon Rogers wrote Sweeney's statement off as "the mindset of an asshole CEO."
I'm not particularly fond of Epic's games or Sweeney's 'metaverse' vision for the future of the industry. I am a huge fan of Looking Glass. Indeed, many of my favorite games were born of beautiful, doomed studios that were ultimately sacrificed before Mr. Market: Looking Glass, Black Isle, Troika, and now BioWare.
That's what's tough for me here: There is an uncomfortable ring of truth to Sweeney's words, even as I find them infuriating. If the future of the industry fully belongs to Roblox, Fortnite, and EA Sports brought to you by Jared Kushner and the Saudi Public Investment Fund, I don't want to be a part of it. But that's who's winning.
Whatever I feel like saying about Thief's incredible fictional world or Ultima Underworld's inescapable influence, the market leaders can just point to the scoreboard: More hearts and minds, more money, more influence, more impact. These are not what's most important to me, but they are what matter to the wealthy few who own and shape the future. All of my protests about artistry and meaning end up sounding like cope. "By MIT Grads, For MIT Grads" was, unfortunately, a very sick burn.
If you disagree with Sweeney's premise for what truly matters in games, I think it's worth being realistic about where he has a point. But there are also aspects of his argument where I think it's valuable to push back and reframe things.
Sweeney speaks in terms of balance sheets and profitability, and while that's relevant to Looking Glass' story and those of many smaller studios shut down in recent years, there's a more arcane logic behind many recent shutdowns and mass layoffs:
- Bluepoint: A remaster studio shut down by Sony after it was pivoted to a multiplayer God of War.
- Arkane Austin: A successor to Looking Glass that was mired in the confused, live service-adjacent Redfall.
- BioWare: My hobby horse remains the cancellation of the original Dragon Age 4 in favor of Anthem.
- Tango Gameworks: There was seemingly no reason. It looks to have been operating within its means. Thankfully it was saved by Krafton.
On that note, we've been keeping a running tally of ways to get laid off in the videogame industry that defy common sense. Many studios are being shut down based on mathematics well beyond my ken. They had clear remits and devoted fanbases, but were sent to chase down short-lived industry fads, then punished for it. Others are amputated or hollowed out seemingly for short term, quarter-to-quarter improvements in stock price. And as O'Dwyer pointed out, Epic laid of 1,000 employees in 2026, even as it remains an industry juggernaut—would it have had to close its doors if it kept paying those salaries?
It feels almost trite to point out that the impacts of layoffs, shutdowns, and failed business strategies are softened the higher up you go in a company's hierarchy, with the crowning absurdity that the executives calling these shots never bear the brunt of the consequences. Things are somewhat different in Japan, which coincidentally has been relatively insulated from this crisis.
In the absence of a new and cooperative industry that altogether sheds things like leveraged buyouts, high-paid executives, and high store fees (which to be fair, Sweeney has been ahead of the curve on criticizing), I do think there are stabilizing compromises that the CEOs and billionaires of this industry could choose to make at any time, ones that prioritize sustainability and human decency while still making them money. I'll let you know if that ever happens.
