alien — Image courtesy Survios

VR Veteran Behind ‘Alien: Rogue Incursion’ & ‘Creed: Rise to Glory’ Reportedly Shutting Down

By

-

May 4, 2026

Survios, one of VR’s most senior game studios and developer behind Alien: Rogue Incursion (2024), is reportedly shutting down, as a majority of staff have been laid off.

While Survios hasn’t publicly announced the shutdown at the time of this writing, the reduction in headcount appears to be drastic enough to all but confirm that the VR veteran studio is closing up shop.

Dylan Ralston, previously a Combat Designer at Survios, says in a LinkedIn post on Saturday the studio is “essentially shuttered, with all of the team members responsible for development being let go, including myself.”

Tim Schumann, Senior Technical Sound Designer at Survios, also maintains the studio is shutting down.

Survios released over a dozen games since its founding in 2013, which started with breakout co-cop combat game Raw Data (2016), notably one of the first VR games to pass $1 million in revenue.

As a pioneer of the space, Survios explored a variety of genres, some of which were based on its own IP, including foot racing game Sprint Vector (2018), immersive song-making game Electronauts (2018), and ship-based battle arena Battlewake (2019).

The studio also released a number of VR games based on popular franchises and IPs, including boxing game Creed: Rise to Glory (2018), narrative-driven adventure Westworld Awakening (2019), zombie shooter The Walking Dead: Onslaught (2020), puzzle game Puzzle Bobble VR: Vacation Odyssey (2021), an upgraded re-release with Creed: Rise to Glory – Championship Edition (2023), and Alien franchise shooter Alien: Rogue Incursion (2024).

Meta is Permanently Shuttering the VR Version of 'Horizon Worlds' in June

In late 2024, Survios announced the sequel to Alien: Rogue Incursion was already in development, which was slated to resolve the game’s cliffhanger while offering up what the studio called “deadlier enemies and more difficult challenges.”

Shortly after the game’s release on Quest 3 in early 2025, Survios paused work on the sequel to release a flatscreen version of the game, which saw a measure of success across console and PC. Worryingly enough, the studio hasn’t publicly spoke about the game’s sequel, even after launch of the flatscreen adaptation.

This follows a broader industry trend of studio shutdowns and mass layoffs, the largest of which was Meta’s revelation earlier this year it was shutting down a number of internal VR studios amid a wider shift in its Reality Labs XR division to instead focus on AI and smart glasses.

Following Meta’s pivot, a reported number of in-progress VR games have been cancelled, including as an unannounced Batman: Arkham Shadow sequel from Meta’s Sanzaru Games, an unannounced Harry Potter VR game for Quest from Skydance Games, and a major project from Moss developers Polyarc.

More recently, social VR platform Rec Room, once valued at $3.5 billion, announced it will be shutting down in June. Additionally, Meta says its own social VR platform, Horizon Worlds, will be focusing “almost exclusively” on mobile in the future as Quest players will no longer have access to future content.

eadVrim

It’s as if VR game studios aren’t the only ones shutting down, regular game studios are closing every day too, without us even hearing about it.
As for Alien: Rogue Incursion, it’s truly an amazing VR game by all standards.
Its only downside is that the beginning makes it seem like a simple “shooting monsters” game
- Christian Schildwaechter
  
  TL;DR: we lack sufficient numbers to determing whether this is "normal" or a bad trend, but it looks suspiciously like a large part of the non-casual Quest VR game development industry was only surviving thanks to Meta subsidies.
  
  Most times game studios shut down it is due to failed projects that didn't make their money back, meaning they ran out of money. And occasionally it happens due to some braindead managerial/publisher decision that leads to shutting down a studio that was actually very successful and made money, but for some reason no longer fits into their overall strategy.
  
  It is of course possible that Survios shutting down is just average churn, and nothing special in the current gaming market. But a suspicious amount of studios with a rather impressive VR game portfolio have been closing in the wake of Meta reducing their VR engagement.
  
  These were often studios releasing what are probably VR AA titles, much more complex and costly to develop than the more casual games that tend to dominate the Quest sales top 20. Which hints that Meta did a lot more to push VR than developing advanced VR hardware and selling it at cost.
  
  We of course knew that they paid for (large) parts of the budget of showcase projects like RE4VR, Asgard's Wrath 2 or Assassin's Creed: Nexus to push the platform, because the limited sales in VR couldn't cover the development costs. And that they offered financial support for developers through different programs. But the extend of this might have been even larger than expected.
  
  Was there any AA game developed for Quest that wasn't mostly financed by Meta? A number of simpler/cheaper to produce games have been very successful without Meta floating the bill, partly because casual games are more popular on Quest, partly because they had to sell a lot less copies to break even, which can be essential for survival in a small niche market. It has been obvious for years that the current VR market size cannot pay for AAA titles, but with more and more studios going down after the constant flow of Meta money has ended, the question is if VR can even pay for AA, or if it is basically destined to go casual and F2P just due to financial realities. It's probably not all doom and gloom, but many devs reported falling sales even before Meta recently pulled the money plug, so there aren't any signs that things might get better anytime soon either.
  - Dragon Marble
    
    For AA VR to exist as a niche, it needs to be priced as a niche. The prices of VR games need to be much higher. Increasing the price now would be suicidal because we've come to expect cheap games. But it should've been higher at the beginning.
    
    Early VR developers made the fatal mistake of setting the prices for their games based on how similar flat games were priced. They probably thought VR would take off soon and they would be seeing flat-level sales. If they had been more realistic, they would've know that the math simply wouldn't work.
    - NL_VR
      
      Which games are to cheap?
    - Christian Schildwaechter
      
      TL;DR: high prices for niche games can work in some "rich" areas like simulators, where people often spend thousands for equipment, but probably not on a device aiming for the masses and getting compared to other consoles.
      
      Initial PCVR games weren't much cheaper, the lower standard prices started with Quest. One problem was that Meta tried to push VR into the mass market by making Quest very cheap. If this bet would have worked out, the lower priced would probably have been fine, because they would have been compensated by larger sales.
      
      And since the Quest was a lot less powerful than for example PS4, with much simpler and shorter games, VR gamers wouldn't have accepted the USD 60 they paid for console AAA titles like Uncharted 4. By the time Quest 1 released in 2019 for USD 400, the PS4 Slim sold for USD 300, and the PS4 Pro for 400 with already huge libraries, and it is very doubtful that Quest would have stood a chance at higher hardware/software prices. Quest 1 didn't do that well, only Quest 2 released 18 months later for USD 300 started to sell in serious numbers, and to a very price sensitive crowd.
      
      In the end, Quest was still a gaming console, a field that is driven by large user numbers, with Quest having the extra difficulty that it didn't allow for cheap ports from other platforms. I don't think that higher prices would have improved the situation, and Meta's one attempt to sell AW2 for USD 60 completely tanked, with the game vanishing from the sales top 20 the moment it was no longer bundled for free. Meta's main blunders might have been merging App Lab and Quest store, which flodded the market with tons of apps, competing for attention via price, and them trying to push Horizon Worlds down users throats. Had they stuck with the heavily curated store for longer, established studios would have had a better chance to grow to where the still limited market could actually sustain them.
      
      But in the end the problem is always the small market with lots of (Quest) users that never buy a single app at any price. Sony trying to push hybrid games like RE 8 or GT 7, allowing for longer, full price worthy experiences, or Valve pushing Frame as a virtual screen to also play flat games sold at regular prices are both attempts to lessen the problem of VR games not being able to compete budget wise due to the limited audience.
      - Dragon Marble
        
        AW2 should've been $120 or more — so are Batman and other AAA VR games. That kind of price will surely scare away casual players, but they are not likely to spend $60 either.
        
        That kind of contents are scarce and have no substitutes. I believe there is a hard demand for it at a very high price.
      - Christian Schildwaechter
        
        revenue = unit sales * unit price
        
        Doubling the price while losing more than 50% of the sales will lead to loss. And I'm pretty sure that at USD 120, AW2 sales would have dropped by 90% or more. A hard demand close to zero isn't worth all that much.
        
        And if sales would have increased by 50% if AW2 sold for USD 40, the same price at which for example RE4 sold lots of copies, they'd still have made the same amount of money. And RE4 stayed in the sales top 20 for almost a year vs. zero months for AW2 at USD 60.
        
        That kind of contents are scarce and have no substitutes.
        
        Apparently a lot of people considered keeping USD 60 a pretty attractive substitute for playing AW2 despite its scarcity. There is not much to gain from scaring away casual users, but a lot to lose.
      - Dragon Marble
        
        For many of us VR price is like gas price. We are going to drive no matter what. And there is no "right" price. It feels expensive today only because it was cheap yesterday.
      - Christian Schildwaechter
        
        That’s may be true for billionaires, but very few people will do anything not essential for their survival “no matter what”. I’m still considering whether Steam Frame will be worth its not even announced yet price, and this is more about perceived value than some specific amount of money. It certainly won’t be a “no matter what” purchase.
        
        And while there may be no “right” price, there is most certainly an “upper acceptable price” for pretty much anybody, depending on personal preferences and available resources. Successfully selling products means matching the acceptable price of enough people to maximize the resulting revenue.
    - Herbert Werters
      
      Surely you don't really believe that would work.
    - STL
      
      YES! What he says! ⬆️
  - NL_VR
    
    YYou are forgetting the indiependend developers who not make casual free 2play games.
    they still kickin. Look at the april releases of shooters for example.
    and this month Flat2VR which released Wrath in april now release Flatout 4 VR.
    Survios is no loss, only for those who lost their job. But Alien was a half assed game
    - Christian Schildwaechter
      
      I may have unfairly tossed indies in the casual box, but the real differentiator here is budget. Indie technically just means they don't get the development paid for by a publisher, so Baldur's Gate 3 from Larian Studios is an indie game. But we usually think of indies as having small teams with limited budgets and development times, while AAA can take hundreds of millions of dollars and years of work by hundreds of devs and artists to produce, with matching advertising budgets. AA are somewhere inbetween, with larger teams, bigger scope and longer development, which means they need to sell more copies than indies. My fear is that VR gets sort of limited to (very) low budget games, not necessarily all casual or F2P, simply because these are the only ones with a chance to make back the development costs from a few million active VR gamers.
      - NL_VR
        
        Yes but whats shown is thats is the indie devs who not make the "casual slop".
        those who made bad andcsomewhat ok games was studios like survios and they now pay the price because they cant step up.
  - Herbert Werters
    
    From my perspective, the situation is fairly clear: the more affluent users who got into VR early mostly came from the PC space and therefore had higher expectations when it came to game quality. With the shift toward cheaper mobile VR, however, a large wave of casual gamers and younger users entered the space, significantly changing — and arguably distorting — the VR gaming landscape.
    
    This new user base shows little interest in PCVR and also seems largely unwilling to spend money on high-quality games. At the same time, the players who previously invested heavily in VR titles are starting to withdraw, as many current releases have lost a significant amount of quality or no longer meet even basic expectations.
    
    So I’m not surprised by what’s happening in the VR scene right now. A survey among VR enthusiasts would be really interesting in this context. I’d be especially curious to hear honest opinions from VR YouTubers, since their viewer numbers are clearly declining as well. To me, the reason seems quite obvious. The problem, however, is that users who have completely dropped out of VR are very hard to reach, which makes such surveys difficult.
    
    The key question for me is: how can VR gaming recover from this situation? Is there even a realistic path forward? Can VR survive long-term on casual mini-games alone? I doubt it, because VR is not a smartphone — it’s used in a completely different way. At the same time, it’s unclear whether core gamers can be brought into VR at all if there are no truly compelling VR titles available.
    
    If even studios that were producing at least “decent” games are now slowly disappearing, I don’t see much chance of things improving anytime soon.
    
    Alternative strategies also seem to be largely ignored — for example, adding optional VR modes to existing games or at least revisiting stereoscopic 3D approaches like in the past with shutter glasses and head tracking. But there appears to be little willingness to take that risk. Overall, the situation feels like a real dilemma.
    - STL
      
      Mobile VR sucks.
      - Herbert Werters
        
        Yeah, that’s not for me either.
    - Christian Schildwaechter
      
      TL;DR: it's not that too few people could afford VR, it's that very few people care enough about a highly immersive experience to even bother.
      
      I don't think that willingness/ability to spend money is the main issue here. The first people who got into VR at still high prices and limited tech were those that cared most about the medium, actual VR enthusiasts. These were also the people that bought the first bunch of Quest 2 when it released in 2020, and those most likely to care about high immersion. But there is apparently only a limited number of these.
      
      Quest 2 showed a very distinct seasonal sales pattern, and Meta reported that every new group of new users engaged less with the platform than the one before. I seriously doubt that the earlier VR users had higher expectations about game quality, as early VR barely had any decent VR-only games and VR integration into flat games was often horrible. If game quality was really the driving force, those who waited a couple of years for the tech to improve and devs to learn how to create proper VR games would be the ones that cared more about quality.
      
      I'd say that instead the earlier users cared most about experiencing VR itself as a completely new way to interact in a virtual world, low resolution, lacking comfort and high prices be damned. People getting in later got better tech, lower prices and improved software, both on Quest and PCVR, but weren't as motivated by the medium itself. One of the latest groups to arrive, the teenage Quest owners that play almost exclusively Gorilla Tag, aren't really driven by the medium, but by their friends doing the same. It has become a place to hangout with friends, similar to how millions of gamers play Counter Strike mostly to spend time with their friends.
      
      These people don't really have a reason to explore other games, because the value they seek is their circle of friends. So it also won't matter if the all get jobs that allow them to pay more for games. They aren't VR gamers because they seek this particular form of experience, they just happen to use VR because it is a convenient way to connect to others.
      
      I'm not sure what the way out of this might be. I'm sure that the often propagated idea of "once there are good (AAA) games, the masses will come" won't work, because the number of people who care enough about immersion to deal with VR in its current state is actually limited. Whether mass acceptance can be reached before HMDs in glasses form factor weighting only a few grams remains to be seen. And even then I'd have some doubts, given that mobile games as the least immersive form of games are the most popular by far.
      
      So there is a chance that VR gaming will never go mainstream, not even after someone invents an actual holideck, and thus will never be able to pay for VR-only AAA titles. For the time being hybrid game design and DIY hybrid gaming via UEVR etc. seem the most realistic option for more complex games. Technical improvenents esp. regarding comfort may draw some new users, but the Quest 3 is already pretty decent, so huge improvements that could convince lots of people in the near future are unlikely.
      
      And with most companies now focusing on media HMDs, even one of them actually becoming very popular and selling in huge numbers may end up in mostly pushing casual XR games, as these are what their users care more about. VR enthusiasts seeking highly immersive experiences apparently being a rather small group puts a limit to all strategies about getting more "decent" VR games. There will always be great VR games and ways to still get a high quality, highly immersive experience, but it's unlikely that the market will allow for AAA VR games that acutally make money for years or decades.
      - Herbert Werters
        
        The hybrid approach really needs to be revisited and implemented more professionally. I actually expected Sony to give it a serious try, but unfortunately that doesn’t seem to have happened. It’s a shame, because I’d really love to see how VR could evolve if someone truly committed to this hybrid strategy long-term.
        
        For me, that would be a dream come true—something I’ve been hoping for ever since the CV1 days with a gamepad. Until then, I’m still having a lot of fun with all the mods that are out there.
dextrovix

I did think recently something must be wrong to not here a peep about Rogue Incursion Part 2 since the first was released. And it's a shame as I enjoyed the first and the story isn't resolved.

What I don't understand is they had an engine and assets from the first title, so putting together the sequel at least had a foundation they didn't have to develop again. And then sequel could also have a flatscreen version released afterwards, so I'm not sure why the felt it wasn't worth continuing assuming the first met expectations for copies sold.
- Christian Schildwaechter
  
  assuming the first met expectations for copies sold
  
  That assumption may actually be the problem. It's pretty sure they wouldn't shut down if they didn't have to, with the most likely reason why they had to being a lack of money to carry on.
  
  Ideally a game makes enough money to pay for the development of the next one, but that apparently wasn't the case with Alien: Rogue Incursion. Them trying to expand the player base by releasing a flat version also hints that way, as VR to flat conversions and vice versa are always problematic. A few weeks ago Mighty Coconot significantly reduced their staff after canceling their attempt to expand Walkabout Mini Golf from VR to phones
  that didn't work out, but at least this venture didn't kill them.
  
  It's possible that Survious would have been able to still release a successor to Rogue Incursion reusing a lot of existing tech to lower the development costs, if they hadn't spent money and time on the flat version. But is also possible that the flat version was their last hope to reach sufficient sales numbers to break even.
Oxi

I am curious what the argument is that this industry isn't dying?
STL

High-quality VR struggles with three problems: 1. Motion sickness, 2. Expensive equipment, and 3. A lack of truly good games. But once you've gotten a taste for it, one would buy €500 games to go with your €5000 hardware setup without hesitation. Why aren't there any of these games? I would pay easily €500 for Oblivion VR. (Not that Luke Ross stuff, of course!)
- Andrew Jakobs
  
  Motion sickness isn't a problem anymore, certainly not with high quality VR. Unless you don't properly setup your headset. But that's the same as walking around with glasses which aren't your prescription.
  - STL
    
    For years I've offered my friends the chance to try Skyrim VR or Enderal VR at my place. Many are impressed by the graphics quality, but then, despite the 90 fps, they quickly have to take the headset off because they get nauseous. We'll never reach that customer base, no matter what we try. Out of ten people, not one has had a problem with it.
- Herbert Werters
  
  I get your point, but I strongly disagree. You don’t get to speak for all gamers by claiming that VR with a gamepad “isn’t real VR.” There are plenty of people who would actually like that option. I’d personally prefer having it available right at release, instead of waiting until everyone else has already finished the game.
  
  If it’s not your thing, that’s fine—just don’t use it. But all the constant complaining and outrage online sends a pretty clear message to developers and publishers: that VR players are never satisfied. That kind of attitude likely discourages them from even bothering with these features in the first place.
  
  And the idea that only you and a handful of friends would be willing to pay $500 for a VR game like that? That’s just nonsense. The audience is probably bigger than you think.
  - STL
    
    Every user here can only speak for himself and of course you’re free to disagree with my opinion. Funny thought I could speak for anybody else, yet for all gamers.
    - Herbert Werters
      
      No, that’s not what I thought. I just wanted to point out that simple gamepad-based VR, like Luke Ross somewhat makes possible with his mods, would already be a really good way to get gamers exposed to VR. I’m just saying that this approach shouldn’t be dismissed or undervalued.
      - STL
        
        Luke Ross? No, Sir. He rather drives people away from VR. His mods were quite expensive and became worse over time.
      - Herbert Werters
        
        I’ve played many games all the way through with it, and every time I’m amazed at how well it works and how much extra immersion it adds to these games. The issue with costs is over now—Mutar (NoMoreFlat) and Luke Ross aren’t charging for their frameworks anymore. There was enough pressure, after all.
        
        Why would that discourage people from VR? You’ll have to explain that to me in a bit more detail.
  - FrankB
    
    hard agree, I would actually prefer if VR games that did use motion controls had a gamepad option. Sometimes its easier and less janky, also, you don't have to stand and there's less chance of crashing into furniture and walls. RE8 and 4 VR can be a frustrating experience compared to the simpler PSVR controls of RE7 VR. As for Luke Ross stuff, its fine. Just getting to experience AAA games in a VR environment is awesome, no motion controls required.
    - NL_VR
      
      It would be better if the "flatscreen games" got the option to play the game the same way in VR without using mods.
      Games designed with motioncontroller first then moved to regular controller i guess is more work than the other way. Just because there are so many actions with motioncontroller that need complete redone for regular button inputs.
      - Herbert Werters
        
        That would actually be the right approach—that games should first be made for the core player base, and only then get a VR option. You don’t even have to change that much. It would be interesting to interview Ninja Theory about how they handled their VR adaptation. It’s really a shame that hardly any studios have taken that route so far.
      - NL_VR
        
        What you can do is to request VR mode in the games you think should have it. More people should do it. Request, Request Request.. Much better approach then many on these boards thats just doom and gloom but in reality they are no VR-gamers anyway so they just want to spread negativity.
      - Herbert Werters
        
        That’s correct, and it’s something I—for example—and many people on Steam discussion forums have been doing for years. Even in YouTube comments, you’ll always find someone who would be happy about a VR mode. Thanks for the tip. It’s simply being ignored because they can afford to ignore it. Calling it doom and gloom is quite an exaggeration.
    - Herbert Werters
      
      Yeah, that’s exactly how it is for me. I even had the option to play various games with motion controllers, but for exactly those reasons I prefer using a gamepad. All the Resident Evil mods, for example, or the Silent Hill 2 Remake—I played them in third person with a gamepad, the way the developers intended. I don’t need motion controls, and the games were still super immersive just because of the level design, story, and overall depth.
      
      Right now I’m playing Uncharted: Legacy of Thieves Collection with the Luke Ross mod, and I’m having the time of my life. It’s honestly way, way better than the 100 native VR games I’ve already played.
  - Leisure Suit Barry
    
    I prefer playing AAA games with a pad in VR, I find most motion controls gimmicky
Octogod

When you raise $70,000,000 your investors eventually want a return on that investment. That return never came. So, when you ask for more money, they deny you, and your studio closes.

This is VR right now and where it will be for the next several years…if we're lucky.
STL

Simply not true. I played my first round on PSVR / PS4 Pro.
- NL_VR
  
  Well we all have different standard what we se as a good game.
silvaring

Zombies on the Holodeck was their first game right? Great studio.
NL_VR

Into the radius 2 got eyes on them and complaints for having a pretty "hgh price" for an early access game of 39.99€.
In the end it was worth it because even in EA Into the radius 2 should be seen as one of the best vr games out there.
Its a pretty niche genre that many on these boards couldn't handle so the question is how high could the price be?
another good game with a high price is Legendary Tales at around 45€. But it also provides on of the best expereiences out there.
Also something many people at these boards have absolutly no clue about and probably cant handle either.