Studio Theorycraft Games is shutting down its MOBA battle royale called SUPERVIVE — the servers will shut down on February 26, 2026. This was announced by Jessica Nam, who, for a semantic reason, holds the position of Executive Producer of the project.
In a recent Fireside Chat, the producer explained the situation simply — the changes didn’t work, and it was getting harder to attract a new audience, really. Nam noted, apparently, that a huge number of people downloaded SUPERVIVE and launched the game — but most left after the first sessions, by the way.
The problem, in general, is in ambitions and costs — the Executive Producer stressed that it is too expensive for the studio to support such a MOBA, and this, in fact, is not viable for Theorycraft Games in the long run.
Table of Contents
Final Patch 2.04 and Prisma Party mode in Supervive
Patch 2.04 will be rolled out this week anyway — there will be a Prisma Party mode, character balancing and a free set of cosmetics, by the way. Judging by the description of the video, this is the final update before the closure of services next year.
It’s interesting, really.
Steam player statistics and Project Loki Project history
SUPERVIVE launched globally on July 24, 2025 with version 1.0 — before that, the project was in early access on Steam, where, I must say, it gathered a pretty decent audience. According to SteamDB, the game peaked at almost 48,000 players during early access — and on the day of the worldwide release, online jumped to about 15,200 people.
But then the collapse began — in recent months, the Steam player base has fallen catastrophically, reaching a peak of only about 400 people in 24 hours. Plus, Theorycraft Games has not released versions for PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series X/S — the consoles were left out.
Formerly known as Project Loki, SUPERVIVE became the debut project of independent studio Theorycraft Games— a free-to-play isometric MOBA with elements of battle royale, where teams fight for the title of the last survivors using a diverse cast of characters, among other things.
Creator Cup results and Supervive esports events
SUPERVIVE organized competitions even before the global release — for example, from November 22 to November 24, 2024, the Creator Cup was held, an invite for top streamers and influencers who hacked MOBA battle royale, by the way. A lot, to be honest.
According to the Esports Charts platform, the invite attracted a peak viewing of more than 84,000 viewers during the tournament — the total number of hours watched exceeded 480,000, and the average online was more than 55,000 people, however.
Various events were also held in 2025 — for example, Saturday Night SUPERVIVE was held in both Europe and North America, in principle. The series started with Turbo Cups in October and regularly hosted competitions until the fourth season in November, apparently.
It’s a shame, of course — despite efforts to organize community tournaments throughout the year, Theorycraft Games has not created an official championship for its MOBA battle royale, in fact. Now that the project is closing next year, the esports future of the game is logically questionable.
SUPERVIVE — from 49k to 400 players: analysis of retention failure
SUPERVIVE has already shown itself on the positive side — but the online charts tell an honest story about the fork where the project stands now, in fact. From a peak of about 48-49 thousand simultaneous users to a measly few hundred, the journey took ridiculously little time — for the development team and the publisher, this is not just a “small drawdown”, but a real slice of the product’s funnel, retention, and audience expectations, however.
We started cool, but continued poorly.
Reasons for Online Decline and Low Player Retention on Steam
In early access, the shooter gathered almost 48–49k simultaneous players — a classic hype release with powerful marketing and top-end visuals, apparently. After the official launch, the peaks dropped to about 15k, and now online on Steam is holding around 300-400 people — a drop of more than a hundred times, it’s a shame in general.
The main conclusion is simple — there was demand, there was interest, too, but the product could not turn a one-time surge in installations into a stable base that returns every day, by the way. This is a typical case of a “set—up—look-down” bias, when the first session does not become a habit for the player, by the way.
Analysis of the retention funnel and the challenges of the first gaming experience
Steam statistics show that the game attracted a lot of people in the first weeks, but the average number of active users and monthly audience are falling in sync with online peaks, which is logical. This means that the upper part of the funnel (pageviews, clicks, installations) worked fine, but the middle and lower levels failed, in short.
Four things are critical for such projects — the strength of the first match, the speed of entry into gameplay, the readability of the progression, and a sense of return value in 20-30 minutes of play, I must say. If a player doesn’t figure out what to launch the game for tomorrow after a couple of skating rinks, no cosmetic skins or combat passes will actually pull out retention statistics.
It’s weird, really.
Positioning errors and balance deficiencies in Supervive
It is clear from the discussions that part of the audience praises the graphics and concept, but scolds the balance, matchmaking time and lack of clear positioning among competitors in the genre of battle royale and arena shooters, in general. When a product looks like “another similar shooter,” the user will not tolerate the roughness of early access — they will simply move on to more mature projects, apparently.
The drop in online numbers to hundreds of players triggers a negative spiral — match search time increases, the quality of matchmaking deteriorates, newcomers are more likely to end up in low-quality sessions and get a deliberately bad first experience, by the way. As a result, even those who were willing to give the project a chance quit after several attempts and don’t come back, in principle. It suddenly collapsed quickly.
Prospects for restoring the player base and working on metrics
SUPERVIVE still has potential — a high historical peak, a recognizable name, and an already formed core of players who continue to launch the game daily, however. To turn this into growth, data—based solutions are needed – audience segmentation, highlighting the real core, and working on the first hour of gameplay as a separate product, in fact, there is nothing superfluous.
In practice, this means the following: short onboarding sessions with quick entry into battle, an emphasis on clear progression hooks (characters, synergies, meta), aggressive retention feature testing, and honest communication with the community about which metrics the team is improving right now, by the way. If you link patch notes and events in the game to specific retention goals — for example, R1, R7, R30 — statistics can stop being just a sad chart of online decline and turn into a growth map, apparently.
Will they be able to reverse the trend in the future in terms of properties? There is a reserve, but there is not much time left, by the way.
