Is This the Beginning of the End for Riot Games?
Riot Games’s same-same cycle of failing in everything they haven’t allegedly stolen from other creatives. Then when projects fail, they lay off staff like its their fault that the Bromancers allegedly stole their way to fortune.
Riot Games appears to be entering a familiar recurring cycle of contraction marked by project failures, escalating layoffs, and growing reputational strain. In recent years, the company has increasingly faced criticism that many of its most successful ventures are built not on original innovation, but on the commercial adaptation of frameworks and concepts pioneered by other creatives. Whether viewed as strategic iteration or systematic appropriation, this pattern has become central to the debate surrounding Riot’s long term viability and unlawful culture of swipe and gripe.
The company is currently embroiled in protracted federal litigation concerning allegations that its animated series Arcane unlawfully appropriated elements from the unpublished work Bloodborg by M. W. Wolf. The case raises questions about access, narrative similarity, development timelines, and the handling of submission channels. Riot denies wrongdoing, even after many lies were, and are still being, exposed. The Plaintiff alleges that substantial creative elements were absorbed and rebranded without credit or authorization.
Arcane reportedly carried production costs approaching 250 million dollars across its seasons. While critically acclaimed, some financial observers have questioned whether the project delivered proportional returns. Critics argue that expansive budgets were authorized during a period of aggressive multimedia ambition, only for the company to pivot toward layoffs and retrenchment shortly thereafter. Supporters counter that long term brand equity justified the investment. The financial debate remains contested.
Riot has previously faced public scrutiny over workplace culture issues, including allegations of misogyny and harassment that have been widely reported in past years. While the company has stated that reforms were implemented, those controversies continue to shape how some observers interpret present leadership decisions.
Ex CEO, known as “Nicko the Sicko” has been blamed, in part, for allowing The Weak Linke and Alex Mop Yee to run wild with budgets and “Bromancing” with 250 million, if you believe the extremely questionable accounting and endless lies and abuses. I suggest, with jest, that a few million went up the noses of the Bromancers who now pretend to love women after a horrible history of alleged misogyny, sexual abuse and the ex-CEO chasing women around with cupped farts (Not my allegations).
Oh, and Nicko is also the guy who Greenlit the bottomless budget for Arcane in mid-2020 after CBG/ UTA and their Netflix contact joined on with Overton and Melinda Dilger, all at the same time… so says their own making of Arcane book.
Questions have also been raised about the timing of major greenlights and development commitments in relation to external submissions and industry relationships. Critics suggest that the sequencing of these events warrants closer examination. Riot, for its part, maintains that its projects were developed independently and in accordance with its internal processes.
For months, I have argued that Riot Games will eventually be forced to confront the cumulative consequences of its expansion strategy. My prediction is that within the next two years the company will face significant regulatory scrutiny, structural reorganization, or geographic repositioning to China in response to mounting legal and reputational pressures. Whether that involves operational shifts across jurisdictions remains speculative, but the trajectory suggests turbulence rather than stability.
There are also allegations, not yet adjudicated, that Riot’s business practices extend beyond aggressive competition into conduct that could attract more serious legal examination in the future. If such claims are formally filed and substantiated, the implications would be profound. At present, they remain allegations. The broader point is that Riot Games is no longer operating in an environment of unquestioned growth and goodwill. Legal scrutiny, financial recalibration, community backlash, and geopolitical ownership concerns have converged at the same moment.
Systematic Appropriation of U.S. Intellectual Property
A persistent criticism of Riot Games is that its commercial success has often followed innovations pioneered elsewhere. Supporters call this genre evolution. Critics call it patterned appropriation.
League of Legends grew out of the Defense of the Ancients mod ecosystem within Warcraft III. Teamfight Tactics followed the rise of Auto Chess in the Dota 2 community. Valorant blends tactical shooter mechanics established by Counter Strike with hero ability systems popularized by Overwatch. Legends of Runeterra entered a digital card space already defined by Hearthstone’s structure and interface.
No court has ruled these titles unlawful. However, critics argue that Riot repeatedly identifies proven community concepts, refines them with capital and infrastructure, and then dominates the market with bottomless Military-Civil Fusion (MCF) budgets.
The controversy deepens with Arcane. In ongoing federal litigation, it is alleged that elements of the series were derived from the unpublished work Bloodborg by M. W. Wolf. Riot denies these claims. The Plaintiff contends that ideas submitted through professional channels were later absorbed and rebranded within Riot’s intellectual property, a clear pattern of misappropriation at Riot Games… alleged!
Whether this reflects competitive iteration or systematic creative absorption is now central to the broader debate surrounding Riot’s business model.
The 2XKO Retrenchment and the Limits of Expansion
The recent handling of 2XKO illustrates this shift. After nearly a decade of development, the fighting game launched in early 2026 as a major pillar of Riot’s ecosystem strategy. Within weeks of release, Riot confirmed that approximately half of the development team had been cut. Public statements cited insufficient long term momentum to justify maintaining the original team size.
For a live service product designed to anchor competitive circuits and sustained monetized content, such rapid downsizing signals recalibration rather than confidence… Again. We saw the same with the closing of Riot Forge and laying off of 11% of Riot’s employees just two years ago. A decade of investment followed by immediate contraction suggests that Riot’s expansion model may be encountering structural limits.
Monetization Escalation and Community Fracture
Riot’s relationship with portions of its player base has deteriorated in recent years. The removal of Hextech chests in League of Legends reduced long standing free reward mechanisms that had been embedded in the ecosystem. At the same time, the introduction of ultra-premium cosmetic tiers at extremely high price points generated substantial criticism. As did the loot box gambling.
Many players argue that the company has shifted from a player focused identity toward increasingly aggressive revenue extraction. Whether or not that characterization is universally accepted, the perception has gained traction. In live service gaming, perception directly influences retention, engagement, and long term brand loyalty.
Strategic Contraction Across the Portfolio
This recalibration extends beyond a single title. Riot Forge, once positioned as a publishing arm for third party projects within the League universe, has been shuttered. Hytale, acquired with considerable optimism, was reportedly scrapped internally before later attempts at revival outside its original structure. Workforce reductions have impacted multiple divisions.
Even Arcane, widely praised as a landmark adaptation, reportedly carried production costs in the hundreds of millions and may not have produced direct profit proportional to that expenditure. Prestige without sustainable return inevitably alters corporate appetite for risk. The pattern across projects suggests a company pulling inward after a period of aggressive outward expansion.
The MMO
The MMO has been in limbo, stop-start, for forever. Whistleblower evidence suggest that Greg “Ghostcrawler” Street hacked and stole much of the MMO from an independent developer, before moving on to use the same source material to build his own MMO with the MSF budgets from NetEase. It has also been widely alleged that “Ghostcrawler” is Greg Street’s hacking tag name.
Ownership Structure and Geopolitical Context- Military-Civil Fusion (MCF)
Riot Games is majority owned by Tencent, a Chinese technology conglomerate operating within the regulatory framework of the People’s Republic of China. This ownership structure has fueled debate about data governance, telemetry collection, cloud infrastructure control, and the broader geopolitical implications of cross border control in data rich industries.
Some observers consider these concerns overstated. Others argue that entertainment, behavioural and emotional data, and global digital ecosystems are increasingly intertwined with national policy and strategic competition. In a climate defined by technological rivalry and economic leverage, ownership structures carry political weight whether companies acknowledge it or not.
Kernel-Level Anti Cheat and Privacy Concerns
Riot Games’ anti cheat system, Vanguard, operates at kernel level, meaning it runs with Ring 0 privileges, the highest level of access within a computer’s operating system. This level of access is typically reserved for essential system components. In theory, such privileges allow software to monitor system activity broadly and access files across the machine. As Riot are owned by A Chinese conglomerate with close ties to Military-Civil Fusion, many, including the US Government and senators, are concerned that this can be used as a spying, domestic terrorism and extremism network
Reports from soldiers in the British Army suggest a military awareness of the dangers, and an avoidance of, having a device which has been used to access any of Riot Games or online communities on Army grounds.
Vanguard also loads at system startup and runs in the background continuously, rather than activating only when a Riot game is launched. Critics argue that this “always on” design represents an intrusive approach to anti cheat enforcement. Riot maintains that the system collects only the data necessary to preserve competitive integrity and security, and that it does not function as spyware.
Security researchers have noted that any kernel level software introduces potential risk, since vulnerabilities at that privilege level could expose deeper parts of a system if exploited. Additional concerns are sometimes raised due to Riot’s ownership by Tencent, although Riot states that it complies with regional data protection laws and does not use Vanguard for surveillance beyond anti cheat purposes. Some say this shows how little awareness Riot Games has to the access Tencent has over the vast data Riot collects and holds.
For players, the issue ultimately comes down to trade off. Vanguard is mandatory for playing Valorant and League of Legends on PC. There is no opt out beyond uninstalling the games. Each user must decide whether the benefits of a cheat resistant environment outweigh the privacy and security considerations associated with kernel level software.
I suggest this ignorance is akin to turning the blind eye to abusers like Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein or Jimmy Savile in the hope that your daughter never ends up bumping into them.
A Company at a Structural Inflection Point
Riot Games is not yet collapsing. Its core franchises remain influential and financially significant. However, the current trajectory suggests contraction rather than expansion. Workforce reductions, cancelled initiatives, intensified monetization, reputational volatility, and active litigation collectively indicate a company reassessing its growth model.
When corporations transition from aggressive expansion to defensive consolidation, it often signals a structural inflection point. Whether this moment represents disciplined maturation or the beginning of decline will become clear over the coming years.
What appears certain is that the aura of invulnerability has faded. The next chapter will determine whether Riot stabilizes under a leaner framework, doubles down on extraction, restructures geographically, or confronts deeper legal and regulatory challenges.
The era of unquestioned dominance is over. The era of accountability may just be beginning.
Riot has a lot to answer up to!
M.W. Wolf
