Shams Jorjani, the chief executive of Arrowhead Game Studios—the studio behind Helldivers 2—recently told GamesIndustry.biz at Gamescom that the video‑game sector is undergoing a profound transitional period. He argued that the tactics and assumptions that guided developers and publishers throughout the 2010s have lost their relevance in today’s rapidly evolving market.
"There have been moments of doom‑and‑gloom, but overall the industry is healthy," Jorjani said. "What’s changed is that the foundations of our old playbooks have been ripped apart. Strategies that worked from 2010 to 2020 simply don’t cut it any longer.
The bottom line of every business case has evaporated. In the past we could predict a minimum sales figure for a title; now you have to subtract that number entirely.
That’s the new reality." He identified several key forces driving this upheaval. First, the continued ascent of developers from the Asia‑Pacific region is reshaping the global landscape. This year’s Gamescom Opening Night Live highlighted the capabilities of studios from China and South Korea, underscoring a trend that has been building for a decade but now appears in back‑to‑back releases that dominate charts worldwide. "Asian games and companies have been making inroads into the West for ten years," Jorjani noted.
"Now it’s a steady stream—game after game—showing that they can compete at the highest level." China, in particular, seems to have reached a tipping point in terms of production quality. While the Chinese market remains heavily mobile‑centric, that focus has cultivated a distinct design sensibility that is accelerating thanks to artificial intelligence.
Jorjani observed that AI is enabling studios to iterate faster, pushing new titles to market at an unprecedented pace. The impact of AI, he explained, adds another layer of uncertainty to forecasting the next five or ten years of the industry. Unlike previous hype cycles—such as virtual reality—AI is not merely a novelty; it is a structural shift. Moreover, adoption patterns differ sharply between East and West.
In Western markets, developers wrestle with ethical debates, data‑training permissions, and artistic integrity, whereas many Eastern studios appear less concerned with those questions, treating AI as a straightforward tool for efficiency. "In the West we’re asking whether AI is ethical, whether companies should be allowed to train on certain data, and whether it threatens artistic expression," Jorjani said.
"In the East, there’s almost no hesitation—if it helps you write functional code, they adopt it without moral qualms." He warned that this cultural divide could lead to an "existential crisis" for Western creators, who view games as artistic experiences rather than pure software. Nevertheless, he predicted that the West will eventually catch up, albeit at a slower pace.
Beyond technology, Jorjani highlighted the logistical challenges of AAA development. Large‑scale projects often span five to six years and involve multiple teams across different time zones. This lengthy horizon makes publishers wary of investing in untested intellectual property, prompting a reliance on established brands to mitigate risk. Recognizable franchises provide a safety net because players already know what to expect, reducing the fear of market failure.
"When you have a flood of new titles, consumers experience analysis paralysis," he explained. "A familiar name like Worms instantly conveys its core experience, even if you don’t know whether it will innovate. Data shows that a significant portion of Steam playtime still goes to games older than 18 months, meaning players gravitate toward known entities rather than unproven newcomers." Jorjani cited Riot Games and Supercell as examples of companies that juggle multiple projects simultaneously; a single breakout hit can eclipse the rest of their pipeline. This dynamic, he argued, creates a strategic opening for indie developers, who can move much faster and validate concepts early.
"The secret sauce of any successful game is early validation," Jorjani asserted. "If you can put something in front of a player quickly and receive positive feedback, you know you’re on the right track and can iterate. Indie studios excel at this because their development cycles are short and they share progress openly—posting a GIF, watching the community react, and adjusting accordingly." He recounted the rise of Tiny Glade, an indie title that gained momentum after early teaser GIFs went viral week after week.
By contrast, a four‑year AAA cycle forces studios to wait until the final product is polished before launching a massive marketing push, risking misalignment with audience expectations. Arrowhead is planning to adopt this early‑feedback model for its next project.
Jorjani said the studio intends to borrow tactics from mobile developers, who routinely test concepts via ads and measure engagement before committing resources. "We’ll hand a prototype to a curated group of about a hundred Helldivers fans and ask them about their favorite IPs and game preferences," he explained. "If they love aliens, enjoy Helldivers, and respond positively to our new concept, we’ll know we’re hitting the right niche. This approach lets us iterate early rather than waiting two years for broad user testing." He concluded by emphasizing the need to abandon the old playbook of keeping development under wraps for years before a grand reveal.
Instead, studios must embrace transparency, rapid iteration, and community‑driven validation to stay competitive in a market where assumptions have shifted dramatically. In summary, Jorjani’s message is clear: long development timelines, the rise of Asian talent, and the disruptive influence of AI have upended the traditional formulas that once guided the gaming industry. While these forces introduce uncertainty, they also create fertile ground for indie developers who can move swiftly, test ideas early, and connect directly with a passionate audience.
Arrowhead’s own strategy reflects this new reality, aiming to blend its proven expertise with a more agile, feedback‑centric development philosophy.