Both sides, in good faith

The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.

The case for

Supporters of Riot's decision would argue this is a responsible, clear-eyed business call: when a genre as competitive as fighting games fails to retain enough long-term players to sustain ongoing investment, continuing to pour resources into it becomes unsustainable and unfair to shareholders and to other titles that could better use those resources. They would point to the manner of the wind-down as evidence of good faith – servers staying online, offline play preserved, all pre-cutoff purchases refunded, most content unlocked for free, and a competitive season allowed to finish – as a considerate, player-respecting way to end a project rather than an abrupt shutdown. On this view, cutting losses early while still honouring the existing community is preferable to dragging out a title that isn't finding its audience.

The case against

Critics, including sympathetic members of the fighting game community, would argue this reflects a broader and troubling industry pattern of publishers launching ambitious live-service games, generating excitement and investment from dedicated players, then withdrawing support within a couple of years once growth targets aren't hit. They would note that the enthusiastic core community Riot itself acknowledges is being let down: ranked play, seasons and Battle Passes are being dismantled, and organised competitive support ends after November 2026, effectively closing off the game's future as a serious esport regardless of how loyal its remaining players are. For this side, the refunds and cosmetic unlocks are welcome but do not offset the loss of a title players invested time and identity into, nor the wider concern that publishers are too quick to abandon niche genres like fighting games when they don't match the scale of their flagship products.