Patrick SoderlundFounder & CEO

Someone needs to dare to say what’s uncomfortable. That’s my job. I point out the hard things, maybe guide the team, but they’re the ones who must figure it out.

We launched strong over 20 million downloads fast and then on January 7 the Kurv started falling quickly. There was no single fix. We went back to players, mined the data, improved onboarding, content, and UI/HUD, and kept iterating.

Data can be your best friend or your worst enemy. It's not about having data, it's about what you do with it how you analyze it and the decisions you make for something that is still creative entertainment.

We tried things, even a mode we loved (Terminal Attack), and most people didn’t like it. We stayed methodical, made retention better, and over the last six months we’ve grown steadily. The game is profitable now and we plan years ahead.

Launch with more depth. Nail second-to-second first, then minute-to-minute, then hour-to-hour and week-to-week. Give players things to do and keep the balance: rewarding but not too rewarding, fair yet sometimes unfair.

Players choose us over many great options. Our job is to make that time feel worth it. If we do, they may stick around.

The Finals works with fair cosmetics and battle passes. Arc Raiders has a deeper construct that didn’t fit a cosmetics-only model. Also, people here need to get paid. Market conditions and our own results informed the choice.

We relied too much on deep AI/ML ideas and the loop didn’t deliver often enough. You can look at all the data, but in the end it’s a gut decision: does it feel right? I pushed toward PvP/PvE; the extraction part came later.

Don’t be complacent. Bring meaningful innovation so people have a reason to break away from what they already play. Make it accessible yet deep. That’s what got The Finals and Arc Raiders noticed.

We can’t outspend big publishers, so we changed how we build. We aimed for 100× faster, rebuilt tools, used procedural content and some AI in pipelines. Not literally 100×, but fast enough to ship weekly updates and run multiple projects with a ~300-person team.

It’s about efficiency, not speed for its own sake. Automate the boring work so people focus on creative, player-facing things. Ship when it’s right.

Sometimes it helps, but long term it’s not a sustainable formula if you want high-quality products.

We’ve looked at it from many angles. Right or wrong, we think the game can start there. This is a long-term journey; it has to start somewhere.

Yes. My EA years were rewarding, but I wanted to get back to working with teams, asking difficult questions, and seeing software in players’ hands. That joy matters more than anything else.

They take a long-term view. No pressure to ship on a specific date. When The Finals had problems, they were patient and supportive. Honestly, we were the impatient ones.

It’s partly self-inflicted. We hired for pandemic highs, then demand normalized. Capital flooded in, many new studios formed, and now funding cooled. Competition is steeper, and some games are more like platforms. It’s not one source; it’s many.

I don't want us much bigger. I want us known for curiosity, new IP, building games in a different way, and treating players with deep respect. Personally, I wish I'd been more patient and trusted the process more. Also, first thing in the office I clean up my email.