OtherSide Entertainment game director Jeff Hickman has confirmed that Thick as Thieves will not be getting any more content updates, and it is tied directly to the studio shrinking after two rounds of layoffs left fewer than 10 employees. In his message, Hickman acknowledges the situation plainly, calling it an outcome “not the outcome that any of us want,” and then explains why: ongoing development of “extra content, modes and systems is not a viable path” with the current headcount.

So what happens to the game you already bought for $5? OtherSide and publisher Megabit are working together to keep Thick as Thieves playable by changing the server approach for co-op. Hickman says this “mainly involves putting together a new version of the game that uses Peer to Peer servers for co-op play.” He adds that the “gameplay and flow of your experience will remain virtually identical,” that solo play “will be completely unaffected,” and that once the work is complete, Megabit will take over care of the game to respond to bugs and other issues as needed.

That matters because Thick as Thieves launched in May with a relatively thin package and a few friction points that players would notice immediately. The game started with two maps. Its campaign tried to stay dynamic by changing objectives as it bounced you between them, but it still landed with a “thin” feeling. That impression was reinforced by specific launch frustrations like how its time-limit system worked and the absence of options such as rebindable keys at launch. The first post-launch content update added rebindable keys, but Hickman’s latest update makes the bigger issue obvious: even if you can patch quality-of-life gaps, you still need the staffing and runway to build more content.

And staffing is the whole ballgame here. The source notes that OtherSide had another game in development that was cancelled, and then the studio went through two rounds of layoffs, now leaving “only a very small team.” Hickman’s message frames the decision as reality-based, not creative. He is not saying the team gave up on the game because the content pipeline was exciting and then stopped. He is saying ongoing content work is not viable, which is a financial and operational constraint. In other words, the studio is choosing survivability over scale.

For executives, this is a reminder of how post-launch roadmaps actually work when studios get squeezed. Launch pricing and early impressions can influence demand, and the source explicitly points to $5 as a “too good to be true” price that may have created an impression of “desperation and cheapness.” Whether that perception truly caused sales issues is not proven in the text, but it is a strategic lesson anyway: when a title launches as a bargain, later attempts to fund development through goodwill, updates, or new modes can collide with investor-level math. If early traction is limited, the roadmap that requires headcount does not survive a budget reset.

There is also a technical second-order implication hiding in the plan to move co-op to peer-to-peer. Dedicated servers in the cloud are expensive and operationally demanding, because someone has to run them, maintain them, and handle scaling. Hickman’s description says the new version will remove that dedicated server requirement for co-op, while leaving solo unaffected. In plain terms: the team is re-architecting the multiplayer plumbing so the game can keep running even with fewer people behind the scenes. That is not just a gameplay choice. It is a cost structure and an operations strategy.

The industry context makes that more than a footnote. When studios shrink, they often pivot from “growth mode” updates to “keep it alive” maintenance. In this case, Megabit stepping in after the peer-to-peer work finishes is essentially the organizational equivalent of handing off the on-call schedule. The source says Megabit will respond to bugs and other issues as needed, which is the smallest viable version of ongoing support. No new content streams. No new modes and systems. Just stability.

Finally, for boards, founders, and investors watching this from the outside, the story is less about Thick as Thieves specifically and more about what it signals for the broader cadence of indie and mid-market launches. A game can ship, receive a first update, and still end up in “no more content updates” territory when headcount collapses. The key question for decision-makers is not only, “Will the game be fun?” It is, “Can we staff the promise we made at launch, and can we sustain it through a downturn?” When the answer is no, you either pivot quickly, cut scope, or watch your roadmap dissolve. Here, OtherSide is cutting scope and changing infrastructure so players keep playing, even if the studio cannot build the next wave of content.