Avalanche Studios Group, the developer behind titles like Just Cause and the Hunter: Call of the Wild series, has confirmed a radical internal shift in how it develops new games. Following a series of studio closures that reduced its global headcount to approximately 400, the company is now implementing what it internally describes as a “Highlander” research and development strategy—a survival-of-the-fittest model where multiple internal teams pitch and prototype competing visions for the same core concept.
The Strategic Pivot After Major Contraction
The new R&D approach comes on the heels of significant corporate consolidation. In 2024, the group shuttered its Montreal and New York offices. This was followed last year by the closure of its Liverpool studio, a location that had only opened its doors in 2020. These moves represent a dramatic scaling back from the company’s previous global expansion ambitions. The workforce is now concentrated in its two remaining Swedish offices in Stockholm and Malmö, marking a return to a more centralized operational model.
This contraction is part of a broader trend within the gaming industry, where many mid-to-large-sized studios have faced similar pressures following a post-pandemic market correction. For Avalanche, the closures were not merely cost-cutting measures but a prerequisite for a fundamental change in creative direction. The leadership realized that continuing with traditional, linear project development was unsustainable in the current volatile market. The “Highlander” strategy—named after the film’s famous tagline, “There can be only one”—is their answer.
Decoding the “Highlander” R&D Model
At its core, the Highlander strategy is designed to foster intense internal competition and accelerate innovation. Instead of a single team being assigned to develop a new game concept from a top-down directive, Avalanche will greenlight multiple small, agile teams to explore the same core idea or intellectual property simultaneously.
The Prototype Phase: A Creative Thunderdome
Each team operates with a high degree of autonomy, tasked with creating a functional prototype and a compelling vision for the project. This phase is characterized by rapid iteration, diverse creative interpretations, and a startup-like environment within the larger studio structure. Teams might explore the same setting—say, a post-apocalyptic open world—but one may focus on deep survival mechanics while another prioritizes narrative-driven faction warfare, and a third experiments with unique cooperative gameplay.
“It’s about creating a crucible for ideas,” explained a source familiar with the strategy. “We’re not betting the company’s future on one team’s initial pitch. We’re pressure-testing the concept itself from multiple angles to find the most fun, most marketable, and most technically sound version.” This process lasts for a predetermined period, after which the teams present their prototypes to studio leadership and key stakeholders.
The Final Reckoning and Project Consolidation
Following the presentations, a decision is made. The most promising prototype is selected to move forward into full production. The other projects are shelved, and their teams are disbanded, with members redistributed to the winning project or other initiatives within the studio. This is the “there can be only one” moment. The strategy inherently accepts that significant resources will be spent on prototypes that never see the light of day, betting that the competitive process will yield a stronger final product worthy of the investment.
Potential Benefits and Inherent Risks
Proponents of the model argue it has several key advantages. Firstly, it mitigates risk by validating a game concept through tangible prototypes before committing hundreds of developers and years of work. It can prevent the all-too-common industry pitfall of a game stumbling through a difficult development cycle because its core premise was flawed from the outset. Secondly, it democratizes creativity, giving more developers a chance to lead and pitch ideas, potentially boosting morale and retaining top talent who crave creative ownership.
Navigating the Human and Cultural Cost
However, the risks are substantial. The most obvious is the human cost. Developers whose projects are terminated face the disruption of moving to a new team, potentially on a different game genre, which can lead to skill mismatches and frustration. A culture of intense internal competition could erode collaboration and create silos, as teams may become protective of their ideas. There is also the financial consideration of funding multiple prototypes for a single output, a luxury not all publishers or investors will support.
“This model requires a specific studio culture to work,” said an industry analyst. “It needs transparent leadership, clear communication about the rules of engagement, and strong support for developers transitioning between projects. If handled poorly, it can feel less like a creative thunderdome and more like repeated layoffs.” The success of Avalanche’s implementation will hinge on how they manage this human element and whether the quality of the final, shipped games justifies the process.
Avalanche’s Future in a Streamlined Landscape
With a leaner team of 400, Avalanche is positioning itself as a more focused entity. The company has stated that its core franchises, including Just Cause, theHunter, and the Generation Zero universe, remain priorities. The Highlander strategy is likely to be applied to new entries in these series or to entirely new IP. The move suggests a shift away from being a work-for-hire studio on large external projects and toward owning and controlling a tighter portfolio of its own branded games.
This strategic pivot reflects a broader industry reckoning. The era of unchecked growth and sprawling, multi-studio projects has shown its fragility. Avalanche’s response is to become nimbler, more experimental in pre-production, and more ruthless in project selection. They are betting that a shorter, sharper, and more competitive ideation phase will lead to longer-lasting and more successful games in the market.
The gaming community and industry watchers will be observing closely. If Avalanche can deliver a standout title born from this Highlander process, it could inspire similar shifts elsewhere. The model acknowledges a hard truth: in a market saturated with high-quality games, the traditional development path is increasingly risky. By making their internal competition as fierce as the external market, Avalanche hopes not just to survive its recent contractions, but to thrive with a sharper creative edge. The success of this bold experiment will ultimately be measured not by the prototypes left behind, but by the champion that emerges to claim the throne.
