From Blockbuster IPs to ‘Weird’ Worlds: Why One Ex–Last of Us Director Is Betting on Experimental Multiplayer

The cancellation of The Last of Us‘ long-rumored multiplayer spin-off left many fans wondering what would happen to the ambitious ideas that had been brewing inside Naughty Dog. For one of the project’s directors, the answer is simple: take those lessons, leave the weight of a mega-franchise behind, and build something “weird” on his own terms.

In recent interviews, former The Last of Us multiplayer director Vinit Agarwal has opened up about his new path. After years at Naughty Dog, he and former creative director Joe Pettinati have formed a new studio that spans the United States and Japan. Their first project is a multiplayer title that aims to merge cinematic single-player sensibilities with flexible, smaller-scale development. Crucially, Agarwal says he’s relieved to be making a game that doesn’t need a remaster mere years after launch just to keep up with new hardware.

This shift is not just one developer’s personal story; it reflects growing tensions in big-budget game development—between technical spectacle and sustainability, between franchise expectations and creative experimentation, and between sprawling live-service ambitions and focused multiplayer design.

Leaving a Giant Behind: From Canceled Spin-Off to New Studio

Naughty Dog’s planned The Last of Us online project was, for a long time, one of the most anticipated multiplayer experiments in the AAA space. Built on top of a series famous for its intensely cinematic single-player campaigns, the game was expected to blend narrative ambition with cooperative or competitive play.

That project, however, was ultimately scrapped. Reporting from major outlets suggested that internal reviews raised concerns about the long-term viability of the game as a live service and the amount of ongoing support it would require from the studio.¹ At that point, Agarwal pivoted away from Naughty Dog and toward something more personal.

Instead of jumping to another AAA franchise, he co-founded a small team split between Japan—where he opened a new office—and the United States, where Pettinati remained. Together, they began prototyping an online title that could retain some of the cinematic punch of their previous work but with a very different development philosophy.

Why the Canceled Project Still Matters

Although the multiplayer spin-off will never see release, it clearly shaped the priorities of Agarwal’s new studio:

• Multiplayer as a cinematic canvas – The goal is not simply another competitive shooter, but a game that uses multiplayer encounters to evoke drama and narrative-like stakes.
• Learned constraints – Working on a live-service concept under a huge brand highlighted how risky and resource-intensive that model can be.
• Desire for independence – In a smaller studio, creative decisions can move faster and aren’t subject to the same franchise expectations.

What Is a “Triple-Indie” Game?

Agarwal has described his new project as a “triple-indie” game—an intentionally tongue-in-cheek spin on the AAA label. The term captures a hybrid approach: more ambition and polish than a solo micro-budget project, but far leaner and more experimental than a blockbuster release under a platform holder.

This mid-sized approach is increasingly common. Some of the most acclaimed games of recent years—like Hades and Disco Elysium—were made by small to mid-sized teams that focused on a strong central vision rather than AAA spectacle. Industry surveys have noted rising budgets and team sizes in mainstream development, even as players show strong appetite for distinctive smaller titles.²

Escaping the Remaster Treadmill

One of the most revealing comments from Agarwal is his relief at creating something that will not require a remaster a few years after release. Big franchises, especially those tied to platform holders, often see rapid-fire re-releases to keep up with new consoles or PC expectations. The Last of Us itself has seen multiple versions as technology progressed.

There are several reasons a developer might want to avoid that cycle:

• Hardware turnover – New console generations increasingly arrive with expectations of higher resolutions, frame rates, and visual features like ray tracing.
• Player expectation inflation – Gamers quickly acclimate to graphical upgrades, raising the baseline for what “good” looks like.
• Team fatigue – Remaster work can keep developers locked into old projects instead of moving on to new creative challenges.

Official platform data illustrates the pace of hardware improvement. Sony, for example, touts dramatic performance gains between the PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 5, including up to 120 Hz output and extensive use of hardware-accelerated ray tracing for supported titles.³ While these capabilities are exciting, they also push studios to constantly rework older games if those titles are expected to remain visually competitive.

A smaller, deliberately scoped multiplayer title can sidestep some of these pressures. Instead of chasing every new graphical innovation, the team can lock in a visual style that’s sustainable over time, focusing on responsive gameplay, smart netcode, and readable art direction.

Cinematic Multiplayer: Bringing Single-Player DNA Online

One of the most intriguing parts of the new project is its ambition to bring “cinematic” sensibilities into a multiplayer format. Traditional cinematic action games rely on scripting, camera control, and carefully staged sequences. Multiplayer, by contrast, is chaotic by nature; players move unpredictably, improvise, and break carefully choreographed setups.

To bridge that gap, a studio like Agarwal’s can lean on several design strategies:

• Strong animation and camera language – Using contextual animations and subtle camera shifts to sell weight, impact, and tension during key moments.
• Environmental storytelling – Embedding narrative hints—like remnants of past conflicts or changing weather—into multiplayer maps to give matches a sense of place and history.
• Moment-driven systems – Designing mechanics that naturally produce “movie-like” beats, such as last-second rescues, high-stakes revives, or clutch escapes.

We’ve seen glimpses of this approach in other titles. Games like Apex Legends and Rainbow Six Siege use strong character silhouettes, sharp sound design, and bespoke animations to make moment-to-moment play feel dramatic, even without cutscenes. Agarwal’s previous work on The Last of Us gives him a strong foundation to push this further in a purely multiplayer context.

Why Smaller Teams Are Leaning Into Multiplayer

On paper, multiplayer games look like massive undertakings—servers, matchmaking, anti-cheat, and content pipelines are challenging to build and maintain. So why would a small “triple-indie” studio focus on multiplayer at all?

There are several compelling reasons:

• Replayability from systems, not content
  A tight set of rules and interactions can keep players engaged for hundreds of hours without requiring vast amounts of bespoke story content. This is a huge advantage for smaller studios that cannot afford endless cinematic missions.
• Community-driven evolution
  Well-structured multiplayer games can evolve with player feedback. The rise of early access models on platforms like Steam has shown how iterative development with a live community can refine design over time.⁴
• Scalable live updates
  Instead of giant expansion packs, the team can release smaller updates—new maps, balance tweaks, modes—that meaningfully extend the game’s life.

The key, however, is avoiding the trap of trying to become the next global live-service phenomenon. Studies of the games market suggest that players now face an overabundance of live-service titles competing for their time and spending.⁵ For a smaller studio, aiming for a devoted niche audience with realistic content cadence is often more sustainable than chasing the scale of the biggest battle royale or looter shooter.

Cross-Cultural Studio, Cross-Pollinated Design

A distinctive aspect of Agarwal’s new studio is its split between Japan and the United States. Cross-regional studios are not new, but having such a small team operating across two very different game development cultures presents unique opportunities.

Japanese and Western studios have historically emphasized different strengths: Japanese developers are often celebrated for bold, sometimes eccentric ideas and character-driven storytelling, while Western studios are frequently associated with large-scale technical production, open worlds, and photorealistic graphics. By maintaining offices in both regions, the new studio can potentially draw on both traditions.

Practical benefits include:

• Time-zone coverage – Development can progress across more hours of the day, which is particularly useful for online infrastructure and fast iteration.
• Diverse design perspectives – Differing player expectations in each region can push the team to design mechanics that feel fresh rather than derivative.
• Broader recruitment pool – The studio can attract talent who prefer to remain in either region, without forcing relocation.

Balancing Tech Progress with Longevity

Behind Agarwal’s desire to avoid frequent remasters lies a broader concern about how quickly game technology evolves. Game engines are updated frequently, new lighting and rendering techniques emerge every few years, and hardware leaps make previously impressive visuals look dated.

Hardware manufacturers such as Sony and Microsoft emphasize these leaps as a selling point, highlighting features like near-instant loading and advanced GPU capabilities.³ But for developers, each leap brings a decision: patch the old game, remaster it, or move on.

For a mid-sized multiplayer game, practical strategies to maintain longevity without endless remasters include:

• Stylized art direction – Visual styles that are not chasing strict realism age more gracefully and can remain appealing across generations.
• Modular technology – Building systems that can be upgraded incrementally (e.g., higher-resolution textures or improved netcode) without overhauling the entire project.
• Focused platform support – Limiting the number of platforms at launch and expanding only when the team is confident it can maintain quality.

These choices align with what Agarwal implies: a preference for tech that supports design, rather than design contorting itself to serve the latest tech demo.

Why “Weird” Is a Strength, Not a Liability

Calling the new project “weird” is not an apology; it’s a statement of intent. Major franchises must often play things safe to justify their immense budgets. Smaller teams can afford to be stranger—whether that means unusual settings, unconventional progression systems, or experimental social mechanics.

Recent years have shown that players will passionately support offbeat ideas when they are executed with conviction. The success of games like Among Us and Inscryption demonstrates that distinctive hooks and unexpected twists can cut through a crowded marketplace without AAA production values.

By leaning into the “weird” label, Agarwal’s studio signals that it is not trying to replicate The Last of Us in a smaller package. Instead, it’s trying to build something that would have been difficult, if not impossible, to greenlight at a mega-studio—especially under a billion-dollar franchise name.

What This Says About the Future of Multiplayer Design

One director’s career move doesn’t define an entire industry, but it does spotlight important trends:

• Veteran talent moving to mid-sized projects – More developers with AAA experience are seeking places where they can own a complete vision without drowning in scale.
• Rethinking live service – Studios are increasingly wary of taking on ambitious live-service games without a clear, sustainable plan for ongoing content and support.
• Cinematic design beyond single-player – The line between narrative experiences and multiplayer sandboxes continues to blur as designers find new ways to inject story sensibilities into online play.

For players, this could mean more focused multiplayer titles that are easier to commit to: games that don’t require daily logins to keep up, but reward repeated play with rich, emergent stories and well-crafted systems.

FAQs

Is the new game officially connected to The Last of Us?

No. Although Agarwal and Pettinati previously worked on The Last of Us franchise at Naughty Dog, their new studio and project are independent. They may carry over design principles—such as cinematic action—but the game is not part of the existing franchise.

Will this new multiplayer title be a live-service game?

The studio has discussed regular playtests and ongoing development, but has not positioned the project as a massive live-service platform on the scale of the biggest battle royale games. The focus appears to be on a strong core experience that can evolve with player feedback, rather than endless content seasons.

What platforms will the game release on?

Specific platforms have not been confirmed publicly. Given the studio’s size and goals, it is reasonable to expect a targeted platform strategy rather than a simultaneous release on every possible device.

Why are experienced AAA developers moving to smaller studios?

Many veteran developers cite creative autonomy, manageable scope, and healthier work-life balance as reasons to join or start smaller teams. With mid-sized games increasingly receiving critical and commercial success, the perceived career risk is also lower than it once was.

How does rapid hardware advancement affect game development?

Faster hardware and new graphics technology can enhance game experiences, but they also push production costs and expectations upward. Studios must decide whether to invest in remasters, free updates, or building entirely new projects for each hardware cycle, which can strain budgets and teams.