Myst sold 6 million+ copies in the '90s, yet its latest spinoff couldn't secure funding. Here's why the double-A game model is broken and what it means for players.
In 1993, a game about exploring a mysterious island with no combat, no timer, and no leaderboard became one of the best-selling PC titles of all time. Myst sold more than 6 million copies during the 1990s, proving that the puzzle-adventure genre could compete with the industry’s biggest blockbusters. Today, the double-A studio behind the franchise can’t secure a single dollar of external funding for a new Myst project. This dramatic reversal isn’t just a somber footnote for one beloved series—it’s a stark warning that the economics of game development have fundamentally shifted, placing atmospheric exploration games on the endangered species list.
Myst wasn’t born in a sprawling corporate studio. Cyan Worlds was a small team, and its co-founders, Rand and Robyn Miller, relied on pre-rendered art and meticulous puzzle design rather than massive engineering resources. The result was an unexpected phenomenon: a game that asked players to slow down, think carefully, and immerse themselves in worlds connected only by imagination.
In its heyday, the double-A tier was the backbone of the PC gaming ecosystem. Studios like Cyan, Looking Glass, and Sierra built experiences that didn’t require blockbuster budgets to succeed. A game could sell a million copies, generate healthy profits, and fund the next ambitious project. The formula was simple: creative risk-taking, disciplined scope, and a direct connection to a passionate audience.
Myst’s success demonstrated the commercial viability of that model. Six million copies sold in the 1990s wasn’t just good fortune—it was evidence that players hungered for more than blood-soaked action or twitch-reaction gameplay. The genre offered intellectual engagement, atmosphere, and a slower, more contemplative form of play.
But that golden age rested on a fragile foundation. The cost of production remained low enough that a strong concept could overcome a lack of institutional backing. Today, that foundation has crumbled.
The numbers paint a sobering picture of modern development economics. A typical AAA title costs more than $200 million to develop and market, according to a 2023 report from Variety. AAA production budgets have grown roughly 200% since 2010. Meanwhile, the latest Myst spinoff secured exactly zero external funding, according to Wired’s 2025 reporting.
Those data points frame a market sharply divided:
For context, Myst was created when a successful game could be produced by a handful of people working in relative isolation. Today, even a modest double-A production requires a team of dozens, years of full-time work, and millions in salary, software costs, marketing, and overhead. The market hasn’t lost interest in atmospheric puzzle games; it has lost the economic infrastructure needed to produce them.
Another compounding factor is a growing trust gap between developers and investors. Venture funds and publishers remember the overhype-and-underperformance cycles of the mid-2010s, when ambitious crowdfunded projects collapsed under their own scope. That institutional memory makes them cautious about backing games that don’t fit a proven template.
The result is a self-reinforcing cycle. Investors want pre-existing traction; developers need funding to build that traction; without funding, they can’t demonstrate the potential that would attract investors. The double-A tier is caught in a chasm that neither the indie route nor the AAA route can bridge.
For a decade, crowdfunding looked like the savior of ambitious game projects. Kickstarter campaigns for games like Pillars of Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenera raised millions, creating a blueprint for bypassing traditional publishers.
In theory, crowdfunding should be ideal for a niche genre like puzzle-adventures. Loyal fans can fund a project they believe in while developers retain creative control. Myst’s legacy should have made it a crowdfunding juggernaut.
But the theory has collapsed in practice. Crowdfunding for niche adventure projects has been declining since 2021. Campaigns raise less money, attract fewer backers, and struggle to reach their goals across multiple platforms.
Several factors explain the decline:
The latest Myst spinoff highlights the new reality: zero external funding. Fans may love the genre, but love doesn’t automatically translate into million-dollar pledges—especially when economic uncertainty makes discretionary spending a harder sell.
Modern publishing strategy has bifurcated into two extremes. On one end, publishers chase giant live-service platforms designed to generate ongoing revenue. On the other, they’re comfortable funding micro-budget indies that can fail cheaply and quietly.
The double-A tier fits neither category. It’s too expensive to treat as a casual experiment, yet too niche to guarantee a blockbuster return. That paradox has led publishers to avoid mid-sized projects altogether, preferring to allocate capital toward opportunities they can model with spreadsheets.
There’s a bitter irony in this dynamic. The very qualities that made Myst special—original world-building, deliberate pacing, and intellectual challenge—are the characteristics that make it difficult to pitch in an investor meeting.
Wired captured the problem succinctly: “Myst sold over 6 million copies in the '90s. Its latest spinoff couldn’t shore up any funding, pointing to an existential crisis among double-A games.”
When a proven franchise can’t attract funding, the problem isn’t the concept; it’s the infrastructure. Publishers no longer know how to market, distribute, and monetize games that don’t fit the live-service mold.
The decline of the double-A tier isn’t just a business story. It represents a cultural loss for gaming as a medium.
Myst offered a rare form of play: unhurried exploration, quiet atmosphere, and the satisfaction of solving a puzzle through careful observation. In an industry increasingly defined by action, competition, and live-service engagement, those contemplative experiences are disappearing.
The public appetite hasn’t vanished. Modern titles like Outer Wilds, Return of the Obra Dinn, and Disco Elysium have proven that thoughtful, atmospheric games can still find audiences and critical acclaim. But their successes were hard-won, and every one of those projects required years of difficult development under uncertain financial conditions.
The double-A crisis is also creating a skills gap. Developers who master environmental storytelling, puzzle design, and pacing are increasingly rare. As mid-sized studios close or shift focus, that expertise dissipates. Even AAA studios struggle to integrate meaningful puzzle sequences when the right talent is hard to find.
Without a healthy double-A ecosystem, the industry loses its farm team for creative risk-takers. The next Cyan Worlds may never get the chance to form.
Despair isn’t warranted yet. Several strategies could help sustain mid-sized game development:
Subscription platforms like Game Pass, Apple Arcade, and PlayStation Plus are hungry for content. A curated library needs distinctive experiences, and double-A games can fill that role. Subscription revenue could function as a de facto advance or a guaranteed baseline for mid-sized projects.
Double-A developers can also adapt by controlling scope. A tightly designed four-to-six-hour experience can be polished and profitable—provided pricing aligns with player expectations. The industry’s fixation on 100-hour games is itself a double-A killer.
Developers who build community before launch have a clear advantage. Early access, developer diaries, and open playtesting can create an audience while reducing marketing costs.
Governments in Canada, the UK, France, and parts of Asia offer meaningful tax credits for game studios. In the current environment, these incentives can significantly de-risk a double-A project.
The double-A crisis is real, and Myst is its most visible casualty. A franchise that sold over 6 million copies in the 1990s can’t attract a single external investor in 2025. The economic forces behind this shift—soaring AAA budgets, declining crowdfunding, and publisher risk aversion—aren’t going to reverse overnight.
But the players who love atmospheric puzzle games still exist. Their passion shows up in every indie success story and every fan conversation about classic games. What’s missing is a sustainable financial bridge between enthusiasm and ambitious production.
Understanding the numbers is the first step. The next is reimagining how double-A games are funded, produced, and delivered in a market that no longer supports the old model. If the industry fails to solve this puzzle, we’ll lose far more than Myst. We’ll lose the entire category of creative expression that only games like it can provide.
Double-A games are mid-tier titles that sit between indie games and massive AAA productions. They usually come from small-to-mid-sized studios with modest budgets, allowing for more creative risk-taking than big-budget projects while still having professional production values.
The economics of game development have shifted dramatically. While Myst sold over 6 million copies in the 1990s, modern development and marketing costs are far higher, and investors are less willing to fund atmospheric puzzle-adventure games that don't promise blockbuster returns. The latest Myst spinoff reportedly secured zero external funding, highlighting how hard it is for double-A projects to get off the ground.
Myst succeeded because the production costs for games in the 1990s were low enough that a small team like Cyan Worlds could create a polished, ambitious experience with pre-rendered art and clever puzzle design. Its unique appeal—exploration with no combat or timers—proved that players wanted thoughtful, atmospheric games, and it sold more than 6 million copies as a result.
Production budgets have ballooned: a typical AAA title now costs over $200 million to make and market, and budgets have grown roughly 200% since 2010. This pushes publishers and investors toward safer, high-revenue genres, leaving smaller double-A projects like Myst-style puzzle adventures without funding and making it harder for them to compete.
It means atmospheric, exploration-focused games are at risk of becoming rare, because they no longer fit comfortably into the dominant blockbuster model. Players may see fewer mid-budget puzzle-adventure titles unless new funding sources emerge—such as successful crowdfunding campaigns, smaller digital-first releases, or studios that self-fund instead of relying on traditional investors.
