← BACK TO INSIGHTS FEED

Riot ends F2P mandate after 2XKO ran on losses

Summary
SummaryRiot co-founder Marc Merrill confirmed the studio is building non-free-to-play premium titles.
Merrill said there is no "strategic imperative" for every Riot game to be free-to-play.
The reversal follows 2XKO, which cost Riot "substantially more to operate than it brings in."
"Not every game needs to be infinite"
— Marc Merrill, Riot Games Co-Founder, Co-Chairman and CPO
01

Merrill drops the F2P mandate at PAX West anniversary chat

Merrill said no "strategic imperative" requires every Riot game to be free-to-play.
"We're working on some stuff that isn't [free-to-play]"
— Marc Merrill, Riot Games Co-Founder, Co-Chairman and CPO
Business model must fit each game's vision, not Riot's historical F2P playbook.
This reverses a studio built entirely on League of Legends and Valorant F2P revenue.
02

2XKO's cost structure, not its quality, forced the shift

Riot ended active development in December after 2XKO cost more to operate than it earned.
Engagement stayed flat despite two new champions and a third-place slot at Evo 2026.
Riot rejected cutting team size, patch cadence, and business model as unviable.
80 employees, roughly half the team, were cut three weeks after the January 20 launch.
03

Merrill names the design flaw baked into free-to-play

"Free-to-play tends to work really well with long-term engaging games... with optional cosmetics"
— Marc Merrill, Riot Co-Founder, Co-Chairman and CPO
"In many other game types, it creates these sorts of challenges from a design standpoint that can impact the integrity of the experience"
— Marc Merrill, Riot Co-Founder, Co-Chairman and CPO
Riot Forge, its prior premium label, was wound down in 2024 alongside 530 layoffs.
Merrill frames the new push around "really excellent, really differentiating" games, not acquisition funnels.
04

Fixed live-service costs decide niche-genre survival

Riot rejecting a leaner F2P model proves overhead, not content quality, is the binding constraint.
Genre-audience fit decides sustainability, not IP strength or execution.
Premium pricing fits finite or niche competitive titles better than forced F2P conversion.

What this means

For Publishers & Developers: Niche competitive genres cannot amortize live-service fixed costs; test audience ceiling before model choice.
For Investors & VC: A decade of dev and top-tier IP failed on genre fit; diligence retention curves, not brand.
For Service Vendors: Fighting-game F2P clients are fragile; price contracts for 12-month wind-downs, not multi-year runways.
Events
Companies
Games
Locations
North America

COMPILED BY

RELATED ARTICLES
EXPLORE MORE

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!