El problema de Destiny 3 de Bungie es realmente una pregunta que todos los estudios de GaaS tendrán que enfrentar

El 21 de mayo de 2026, Bungie anunció que la actualización del 9 de junio de Destiny 2 sería su última actualización de contenido, cerrando el ciclo de uno de los juegos mainstream más monetizados que se hayan construido. Ocho horas después, Jason Schreier de Bloomberg reportó que se avecinaban despidos significativos una vez que el cierre estuviera completo, según Thomas Wilde de GeekWire. Y el remate que más duele: no hay ningún Destiny 3 actualmente en desarrollo, según la cobertura de The Game Post sobre ese mismo informe. Así que Bungie, el estudio que prácticamente escribió el manual moderno del GaaS, ahora está sentado en el silencio después de que la música se detiene, tratando de descifrar cuál es la próxima canción.

The Machine That Ran Too Long Destiny 2 did not fail by any normal definition.

It survived a Sony acquisition, multiple studio-wide layoffs, and enough expansion sunsets to fill a graveyard. But Naavik's Mario Stefanidis documented in a detailed 2023 breakdown how the game had evolved into one of the most monetized mainstream titles in history, layering battle passes, dungeon keys, and paid expansions onto a playerbase that was increasingly asked to pay more to access the content they had already partially funded. The design stopped serving the player and started serving the quarterly number. When a live-service game reaches that inflection point, the audience does not rage-quit all at once; they just quietly stop logging in. The June 9 final update is the official timestamp on a decision the players made years earlier. Now Bungie faces the fork every GaaS studio eventually hits, just unusually publicly. As PC Gamer framed it, the studio must decide whether a follow-up is a live-service game, a premium box product, a subscription offering, or some architecture that does not have a clean name yet. The YouTube analysis from the channel covering Bungie's decision laid out the optionality plainly: a third entry could be a box product, a live service, both, or even a subscription where all expansions are included. Each choice carries a completely different cost structure, team size, and relationship with the player. Picking wrong does not just hurt a game; it can hollow out a studio.

What Each Path Actually Costs

The live-service route is the default assumption, and the numbers explain why. A 2023 Game Development Report from Griffin Gaming Partners and Rendered VC, surveying 537 studios worldwide, found that 95% of studios were developing or maintaining a live-service game, according to Kotaku's coverage. That is over 500 studios all betting on the same model at the same time. The problem is not that live service is dead; Fortnite is still printing money. The problem is that Destiny-style live service, built around a content calendar that requires a large standing team to feed indefinitely, is brutally expensive and punishing when player counts dip. It is the DMV of business models: slow, costly, and the line never actually gets shorter. A premium campaign with no live-service obligations is the contrarian play, and Polygon's Corey Plante argued it might be the right one, outlining four major structural changes a potential Destiny 3 would need, including cleaning up the content architecture that left new players staring at a decade of lore with no roadmap. A clean $60 or $70 box product with a defined ending would let Bungie ship something, get paid, and not commit to infinite content support while the studio is reportedly also working on Marathon. The honest argument against it: Destiny's sandbox is designed for repetition and reward loops that a single-playthrough campaign cannot justify. You do not build that gunfeel to use it for twelve hours. The hybrid path, a premium entry point with optional live-service content on top, is theoretically the answer to everything and in practice the hardest to execute. It requires the studio to design two games simultaneously, one that is complete at launch and one that justifies ongoing spending. GeekWire noted that Bungie's immediate focus appears to be on Marathon, which means the studio is not even in a position to commit resources to that kind of architecture yet.

Why This Decision Is Bigger Than One Studio

Here is what makes the Bungie situation worth watching beyond the obvious fandom interest: the studio is being forced to make a structural architecture decision in public, under financial pressure, after a high-profile live-service wind-down. That is exactly the scenario most GaaS studios quietly try to avoid by keeping a game on life support rather than pulling the plug cleanly. Bungie pulled the plug. That takes a certain kind of nerve, and it creates a rare data point for the industry. If Bungie ships a follow-up as a premium campaign and it sells well, that is a receipt that the Destiny brand has value independent of the treadmill. If it ships as a live-service and holds a healthy playerbase without the content-vaulting decisions that alienated so many, that is a different receipt. If it ships as a hybrid and gets the balance right, every studio currently staring at a sagging GaaS player count has a template. The industry has over 500 studios in the live-service space right now, and most of them will face this exact crossroads eventually. Bungie just happens to be going first, loudly, and with Marathon as a concurrent bet on its balance sheet. Watch the Marathon launch cadence, watch whether Bungie announces a Destiny project before or after that game finds its footing, and watch how the studio structures whatever that announcement is. The format choice will not just tell you what Destiny 3 is. It will tell you what Bungie thinks the next decade of games publishing actually looks like.