Let's look at the situation around Escape from Tarkov and Battlestate Games: analyze the features of the release version, recall the history of development, study the most notable scandals, and consider the main theories that are formed within the community. This article is not a review of the game — it will be later. Here, observations will be systematized and a comprehensive understanding of how the game came to its release and what factors determine its future will be formed.
Nothing happened at release
The full release of Escape from Tarkov became a continuation of the practice characteristic of most previous major updates. Version 1.0 did not bring tangible changes to the gameplay, optimization, and operation of the project's servers. Instead of the expected transition to a new stage of development, players were faced with the usual set of problems that they had observed for 10 years. Loss of synchronization between clients, incorrect display of damage, and recurring network connection errors. Some bugs have remained unchanged since the early stages of testing.
One of the most notable decisions of the developers was the refusal to publish a detailed list of changes. Unlike past patches, where the update document allowed you to assess the amount of work done, the release version was released without formal documentation. As a result, users are forced to independently look for differences between the beta version and the "final" build.
As a result of the first days, neither the gaming community nor bloggers found significant functional changes, except for the plot, texture updates, location expansion, and the introduction of new items. The main visual difference was the disappearance of the warning that the game is in beta testing. The developers announced the correction of "about a thousand" errors, but without a detailed list, it is impossible to assess the scale and effectiveness of these edits. In practice, users record the preservation of many previously known problems.
In the first hours after the game's release on Steam, the servers faced overload. Players observed massive authorization errors and long queues. At the same time, Nikita Buyanov's statement about "300 thousand simultaneous users" did not coincide with the official Steam indicators, where the peak online was no more than 48 thousand. The difference between these values raised questions about the real load on the infrastructure and the technical readiness of the servers: in the first hours after the release, no one could download the game, go to the official website of the game, and log in to the servers from a Steam account.
As a result, the release of "Tarkov" became a resounding failure with a large number of negative reviews on Steam. But such a reaction was predictable. Newbies could easily avoid all this if they were interested in the project before.
A decade of scandals
The development history of Escape from Tarkov is a sequence of reputational conflicts and dubious management decisions that have shaped a negative attitude towards the project from the very beginning. Almost every stage of its development was accompanied either by technical problems, or by indignation due to neglect of the community, or by questions about the transparency and quality of work on the game.
Battlestate Games appeared as a new legal entity, but the actual development of the project was carried out by the AbsolutSoft team — a Russian studio, known for Contract Wars and Hired Ops. These projects were characterized by aggressive monetization, rampant cheaters, and a disgusting attitude of developers with players. The new "international" shell allowed us to enter the foreign market, but the production processes and technical base remained the same as in previous games. This created several key problems: a gap between public positioning and the real capabilities of the team. The latter highlighted the lack of experience to create an AAA project.
Initially, Escape from Tarkov was positioned as an ultra-realistic tactical shooter. The advertising materials emphasized complex simulation systems, physics, advanced ballistics, and other "hardcore" mechanics. However, already in closed tests it became clear that the project does not correspond to its own image: part of the systems were simplified, others did not work at all. Gradually, the game shifted from the concept of deep simulation to a set of artificial restrictions and economic barriers that created the appearance of hardcore, but did not solve fundamental problems.
The key technical weakness was the dependence on the Unity engine. It was not designed for a complex network shooter with a high load, a large number of detailed objects. As a result, for many years the same problems persisted: incorrect damage registration, delays in data processing, and an incredible load on the hardware. Many of these problems exist to this day and are interpreted not as defects, but as elements of game "realism", which causes even more distrust among players and disputes about the competence of developers.
As the project developed, the direction of the genre changed: from a "combat simulator in extreme conditions" to an MMORPG with realistic combat mechanics. There were traders and a flea market where you could buy anything from other players. You can also create various items on workbenches in the shelter. On the other hand, the number of artificial restrictions grew. For example, over the past year, the requirements for leveling up the shelter and accessing items have become more complicated, the rules for interacting with pouches and traders have changed, and barter between players in the flea market has been blocked altogether. In practice, this created much more routine to achieve progress, but did not reflect the original idea of "realism".
A separate place was occupied by the problem of balance. The parameters of weapons, armor and ammunition often changed without explanation, and the economy could change dramatically from one patch to another. Players faced the fact that some bugs had not been fixed for years, but received a "thematic" explanation. For example, body armor in early versions might not protect you from the cheapest bullet. Buyanov explained this by the fact that it hits those parts of the vest where there is no armor, although then there was no armor plate mechanics yet, and the problem was solved by simply removing and putting on the vest in the raid.
A serious problem was the spread of cheats. For many years, a whole cheating community has been formed around the game. Radars, "magnets" for collecting loot, aimbots, and data theft tools appeared. They all use developments from old AbsolutSoft projects. Due to the lack of protection at the kernel level, cheats could bypass standard protection mechanisms. And the system of penalties was mainly limited to blocking the account, which allowed cheaters to continue playing by buying a new account. Because of this, players had the feeling that the fight against cheating is purely nominal.
Literally 1984
One of the most stable features of the Escape from Tarkov ecosystem has become the model of interaction between developers and the audience. For many years, Battlestate Games has demonstrated a closed nature of communication, limited the discussion of certain topics, and formed mechanisms of internal control over the public space of the game. This was manifested both in the work of official channels and in relation to critics, bloggers, and users who raise problems of the project.
The communication system was built around two basic elements: the official community and a group of loyal users — emissaries. The latter acted as a link between the studio and the audience, but their activities were often perceived by players as a tool for forming a one-sided agenda. Emissaries are engaged in covering patches, promoting game initiatives and discussing innovations, but rarely raise problematic topics.
In parallel with this, Battlestate Games regularly entered into direct conflicts with authors who covered the problems of the game. One of the most well-known cases was the story of a YouTube blogger with the nickname G0at.
He was trying to understand how many cheaters play Tarkov and how they interact with each other. For this, he bought one of the simple cheats and tried to communicate with players in raids. As a result, he revealed a whole conspiracy in which cheaters try not to touch each other. And for trying to cover the existing problem, his account in the game was blocked, the hard drive was destroyed by the cheat seller, and the video on YouTube was at risk of being deleted. At the same time, the exposure came out two years ago, but the problem remains relevant at release. Instead of publicly acknowledging the vulnerability, the studio focused on limiting the spread of this information.
A similar situation was observed around the incident related to the security of player data in 2018. Blogger Eroktic discovered that there is one channel with unencrypted personal data in the game – voice chat.
Attackers could intercept IP addresses, logins, passwords, and other information of those who communicated in the game itself using VoIP, initiate DDoS attacks on individual players in the raid, and even steal victims' accounts. Despite the scale of the problem, which affected more than two million players, the studio responded to the problem by removing information from the blogger's channel, as well as sending 47 complaints with a request to ban the author on the video hosting. The blogger was accused of spreading fakes, which caused even more outrage from the community towards BSG. Any other attempts to publicly discuss this problem on official platforms were suppressed, and other bloggers actively called not to believe such news and also called to file complaints against the blogger to YouTube support.
A separate area of confrontation arose around modding.
For a long time, Battlestate Games actively restricted any discussion about unofficial modifications, including single-player versions of the game based on SPT-AKI (SinglePlayer Tarkov) or the Project FIKA network add-on. Despite the fact that these tools required a purchased copy of EFT and did not compete with official servers directly, BSG persecuted those for violating the user agreement. Bans for mentioning mods became commonplace, and the very existence of unofficial builds was perceived by the studio as a threat to control over the community. The situation changed only when the developers introduced The Unheard Edition in the spring of 2024 and changed security protocols at release. After the release of the super-expensive edition, the developers temporarily lifted the moratorium on showing SPT-AKI. And after the game came out of beta testing, the mod developers are forced to rewrite the source code.
A consistent policy has created around the project a space with low resistance to criticism. Users discussing technical vulnerabilities, bugs, or security issues often faced pressure from both official representatives and loyalist groups forming the internal agenda. At the same time, the problematic areas themselves continued to exist without a systemic solution.
This model of work reflects the closed production culture of BSG. The company sought to minimize public discussion of the game's shortcomings, limiting communication channels and maintaining a controlled information field. But in the context of a long beta and many technical problems, this led to the opposite effect: external platforms became the main source of information about vulnerabilities, cheating, and other negative aspects of the game. The community gradually formed an alternative information circuit, independent of the official position of the studio. As a result, the community became convinced that the studio is not trying to solve systemic problems, but is focused on silencing them.
Returns are not accepted!
One of the most stable and odious elements of the policy of Battlestate Games has become the system of blocking accounts in response to requests from users for refunds. This practice has been traced since the period of closed beta and had a significant impact on the studio's reputation, especially in the period of Escape from Tarkov's release on Steam. Release 1.0 exacerbated the scale of the problem, as new purchase and return mechanisms collided with the old rules, which were not revised or adapted to the new audience.
After the game appeared in the Steam store, some users encountered account blocking shortly after making a return. Different groups of players were affected: newbies who made a return; veterans who bought the game again and did not know about the possibility of linking an old profile through the website; users who bought it for a negative review. In most cases, players reported blocking both by IP and by hardware, which effectively deprived them of access to previously purchased versions of the game.
This situation was aggravated by the fact that refunds on Steam were made only for the cost of the basic edition. Refunds for improvements were implemented only by making additional requests to support through the purchase history menu.
In the public space, such cases caused active discussion. Dozens of questions about the reasons for the blocking and the possibility of a refund appeared on the Steam, Reddit, and third-party platforms forums. Some users considered what was happening to be a bug, but the precedent of past years indicates the targeted nature of these blockings. A long history of such incidents during the beta test confirmed that Battlestate Games considers attempts to refund as a reason for unilaterally terminating account service.
The legal basis for this practice is enshrined in the user agreement of Battlestate Games: the company reserves the right to terminate the service of an account without the obligation to refund funds. At the closed beta stage, this wording already led to many conflicts. Users who initiated a refund through the bank or through the support service often received a notification about the account being blocked, but the money was not returned. As a result, the only effective way to obtain a refund was to contact the bank and then file a claim based on consumer protection laws.
In the international context, such appeals turned out to be successful. Users from the USA, Canada, Great Britain and the European Union were more likely to achieve refunds after mentioning the possibility of legal proceedings. In some cases, players initiated collective lawsuits or prepared statements to the regulatory authorities of their countries. Against the background of the release of the premium edition The Unheard Edition, a wave of such appeals was recorded, which led to the launch of several lawsuits, but their results were not publicly disclosed.
The situation was different for players from Russia and the CIS countries. Payments for Escape from Tarkov were made through Xsolla — an international platform without a full legal presence in the Russian Federation. This made it difficult to recover funds and effectively deprived players of the opportunity to protect their rights under Russian law. In combination with the registration of Battlestate Games in the UK, this created a legal vacuum in which users were left without effective mechanisms of pressure on the seller. Many players who tried to return the money even through the bank faced a refusal and subsequent account blocking without compensation.
Against the background of the release on Steam and the increase in the number of complaints, the head of the studio Nikita Buyanov publicly stated that the blockings were not related to refunds , but to the use of cheats. This explanation was not supported by evidence and contradicted numerous messages from players who claimed that they did not use third-party software. Moreover, during the discussion, the old claim arose again: Battlestate Games in some cases treated cheaters more leniently than users demanding compensation. And the unwillingness to return the money is explained by the financial condition of the company.
And where does the money come from?
The financial model of Battlestate Games throughout the development history of Escape from Tarkov was characterized by opacity and many ambiguous decisions. Outwardly, the studio was positioned as an independent developer that finances the project by selling editions of the game. However, an analysis of the available information shows a more complex structure, including delays in the publication of financial statements, uneven distribution of the budget between development areas, and participation in shadow transactions, making it difficult to assess financial flows.
The public reporting of Battlestate Games always appeared with a noticeable time lag. For example, at the end of 2024, the studio published data only for 2022. Such a delay does not violate the formal requirements of UK law, but significantly reduces transparency and makes it impossible to quickly assess the financial condition. At the same time, the published figures indicate the absence of large profits, which raises questions about the stability of the budget, given the length of development and the scope of the project.
The presence of related structures also complicates the understanding of how income is distributed. AbsolutSoft, which participates in the actual development of the game, continues to function, maintain a staff of employees, and receive income. But the degree of its financial involvement in the project is not disclosed. This creates conditions under which a significant part of production costs and income can pass through a legal entity not directly related to Battlestate Games.
Pricing is also a concern. The cost of premium editions of Escape from Tarkov is higher than that of most projects of a similar scale, which is justified by the absence of an external publisher. However, users have repeatedly recorded discrepancies between the price on the website and the final amount, increased by the amount of VAT. This is because Battlestate Games operates as a foreign company, and Xsolla processes payments. Because of this the final cost in the CIS regions differs significantly from the declared one, but this does not explain the reason for non-compliance with Russian tax legislation.
The most expensive third-party project of the studio was an attempt to develop Escape from Tarkov Arena as a separate commercial product. According to estimates by independent analysts, up to 2.5 million dollars could have been spent on the promotion of "Arena" during 2023, but the game failed to gain a foothold either in the segment of PvP shooters or in the e-sports niche. Despite the investment, EFT Arena did not attract the attention of the audience and faced high activity of cheaters who migrated from ordinary Tarkov and aggravated its reputational problems. At the same time, such a redistributed budget load meant that resources could be allocated in a limited way to fix the key systems of the main game.
A significant financial factor remained the technologies used in the project. At some point, the studio stopped using the commercial Steam Audio sound solution, and the reason was the refusal to provide a discount from Valve. Because of this, the developers transferred the sound component of the project to the free version of the DOLBY engine. This step allowed to reduce costs, but led to a deterioration in sound quality, which was noticeable for several years. Later, the studio returned to Steam Audio when Battlestate Games transferred its project to an updated version of Unity with a fully integrated sound engine from Valve.
The policy of using anti-cheat also raises questions. Escape from Tarkov uses a free version of BattlEye, which works without access to the operating system kernel. This significantly reduces the effectiveness against modern cheats that use bypass methods through the kernel.
A separate area of discussion was the connection of Battlestate Games with cheating communities. Internal and external sources have repeatedly mentioned that many were created from old Contract Wars developments, and third-party program developers maintained contacts with AbsolutSoft employees who leaked information on future game updates. Although there is no direct evidence of the studio's participation in the distribution of cheats, the market structure, statements of individual participants and the free version of BattlEye, which does not have access to the kernel and drivers, created a favorable environment for the emergence of such suspicions.
In aggregate, the financial picture of Battlestate Games looks ambiguous. On the one hand, the studio demonstrates the ability to support a large project without an external publisher. On the other hand, the nature of resource allocation, the lack of transparency in reporting, and the choice of cost-saving solutions create the impression that many key elements of the game were built on a limited budget. This reinforces the feeling of instability and explains a number of systemic problems that have accompanied Escape from Tarkov for many years.
What's next?
The prospects of Escape from Tarkov and Battlestate Games remain uncertain. Against the background of many years of problems and scandals, as well as growing competition, any further movement of the studio is assessed with prejudice.
One of the common theories was the assumption that Escape from Tarkov was released in the context of rapidly growing competition — in particular, market pressure. The emergence of a large number of new extraction shooters created risks for the loss of audience interest in "Tarkov". The sudden release of version 1.0 was perceived by part of the community as an attempt to retain the audience at the expense of the status of a "finished product", even if the technical condition did not meet expectations.
The second common version was the assumption about the sale of the studio or its assets to a large investor. The idea of a possible deal appeared long before the release of 1.0 and intensified against the background of Battlestate Games' attempts to find new sources of funding: the appearance of The Unheard Edition, paid expansion of the stash, and cosmetic outfits. And this was supported by statements about the transition to the "final stage of development". There is no direct confirmation of this, but the general logic of changes allowed us to consider such a theory as possible.
Another scenario is not excluded: the studio's transition to developing a new project. Nikita Buyanov recently hinted at working on a new game. If this version is true, the release of 1.0 can be seen as an attempt to formally complete the development of the game, retaining minimal support for it and reallocating resources to the next project. In this theory, the key question remains the choice of engine. Given the emergence of technical limitations of Unity and the problems that accompanied Tarkov for many years, the transition to Unreal Engine looks likely. But at the same time, it poses a serious personnel and financial challenge to the studio: retraining the team, changing the technological stack, and revising production processes — all this requires a lot of time and resources.
There is also a conservative scenario that involves a gradual increase in monetization in the current version of Tarkov. Community observations indicate that the studio pays significant attention to the sale of premium editions and individual elements of the ecosystem — both within the main game and in EFT Arena. In this logic, the future of the project may include the appearance of new microtransactions, battle passes, and even loot boxes designed to retain the monetary audience. This approach will allow the studio to maintain financial flow without major technological investments, but at the same time increases the risk of further deterioration in the attitude of the audience.
Finally, the community continues to discuss the probability of a gradual fading of the project. This scenario is associated with a high level of competition, a negative background around the release, audience fatigue from unresolved technical problems, and the absence of signs of their solution. Slowing down the pace of development, reducing the number of players, and limiting major updates may lead to the fact that Tarkov will repeat the fate of Contract Wars and Hired Ops – it will remain a niche product with limited support, and active activity will be transferred to other projects.
Each of these theories is based on observed trends, but none has been officially confirmed. Battlestate Games maintains the privacy of information. However, the overall conclusion remains the same: the further development of Escape from Tarkov depends not only on the technical base, but also on the studio's ability to restore audience trust and form a clear, transparent strategy. So far, there are no signs of such progress, any forecasts remain uncertain, and the future of the project is viewed through the prism of risks accumulated over the years of its development.