Lucasfilm Games wants its next wave of Star Wars titles to feel less predictable, not more. In comments reported by Instant Gaming News, Aftermath, GamesIndustry.biz, and VGChartz on October 19, 2026, the studio’s leadership laid out a strategy built around variety over volume: smaller studios, unconventional genres, and partners picked for talent rather than size. The message lands at a moment when Star Wars: Zero Company and Star Wars: Galactic Racer have already shown that the franchise can work outside its usual action-adventure lane, and while Respawn Entertainment keeps building a third entry in the Star Wars Jedi series.
The remarks come from Douglas Reilly, a Lucasfilm Games executive, who told press that the studio does not need a top-five publisher attached to every project to greenlight it. That is a notable shift for a franchise that spent much of the last two decades funneled almost exclusively through Electronic Arts. Reilly’s comments, as reported by GamesRadar+, frame 2026 as a turning point where quality bar and creative fit matter more than publisher pedigree.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
Lucasfilm Games Signals a Break From the EA-Only Era
For years, Star Wars video games ran through a narrow pipeline. Electronic Arts held an exclusivity arrangement with Lucasfilm Games that shaped nearly every major release between 2013 and the early 2020s, from Star Wars Battlefront to Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order. That exclusivity has since loosened, and the comments reported this week make the new posture explicit. Reilly said Lucasfilm Games has “a high-quality bar” and wants every game under the license to be an “excellent experience,” according to reporting cited by Instant Gaming News and GamesIndustry.biz.
Crucially, Reilly did not describe this as lowering standards to let more studios in. He described it as widening the search for studios that can already clear that bar. “You don’t have to necessarily be a Top Five publisher to make a great Star Wars game,” Reilly said, in a quote carried by GamingBolt. That line matters because it reframes the gatekeeping criteria: it is about demonstrated craft, not size of balance sheet or marketing budget.
This echoes a broader trend already playing out in licensed game development. Publishers like Electronic Arts, Disney, and Lucasfilm have learned that a blockbuster license does not require a blockbuster-sized studio behind every title. Smaller, focused teams with a clear creative vision have increasingly outperformed larger, more diffuse productions on both review scores and player sentiment, a pattern visible across the wider industry this year, including in titles like ARC Raiders’ breakout performance against established shooters.
What Lucasfilm Games Actually Said
According to the reporting gathered from Instant Gaming News, Aftermath, GamesIndustry.biz, and VGChartz, Reilly’s comments centered on three main points. First, Lucasfilm Games is exploring projects with “large and small” partners simultaneously, rather than committing exclusively to one publisher model. Second, the studio continues to favor teams that already have a track record of shipping great games over new studios without that history. Third, Reilly explicitly said partners the studio is exploring “could continue to surprise folks,” signaling that announcements beyond what is already public are likely.
Reilly’s broader framing, as quoted by Eurogamer, draws a sharper line around Lucasfilm Games’ actual role: “We’re obviously a licensing business, so we’re not the publishers any more of products.” That single sentence explains the entire strategic pivot. Lucasfilm Games is not trying to become a traditional publisher competing with EA, Ubisoft, or Take-Two. It is positioning itself as a curator and rights-holder that pairs developers with the right publishing partner on a per-project basis, rather than locking the whole franchise behind one corporate umbrella.
Reilly put it plainly: “Our goal is to try and find a publishing partner and a developer or a publisher and a developer,” a structure that gives Lucasfilm Games flexibility to match genre, scope, and studio culture to whatever idea clears its quality bar. That is a meaningfully different operating model than a single studio churning out annualized tie-in titles.
Zero Company and Galactic Racer: The Proof of Concept
Star Wars: Zero Company and Star Wars: Galactic Racer are the two titles named directly in this week’s coverage, and both function as evidence for Lucasfilm Games’ new approach. Neither game follows the franchise’s traditional action-adventure or shooter template. Zero Company leans into turn-based tactical combat, drawing comparisons to the XCOM school of strategy design, while Galactic Racer takes the license into arcade racing, a genre Star Wars games have rarely touched with any seriousness since the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation era.
That genre spread is the point. Lucasfilm Games is not just diversifying who makes its games; it is diversifying what kind of games get made. A tactical strategy title and an arcade racer sitting in the same release window under the same brand signals an openness to pitches that would have been unthinkable during the years when nearly every Star Wars game had to fit a single first-person or third-person action mold aimed at the broadest possible audience.
Industry coverage of both titles has been largely positive, reinforcing the idea that stepping outside the traditional genre box has not cost the franchise quality or fan goodwill. For a license with as much scrutiny attached to it as Star Wars, that matters. Every misstep gets amplified across fan communities that have grown wary of licensed games treated as marketing tie-ins rather than genuine creative works.
Respawn’s Star Wars Jedi Three: The Safe Bet Running Parallel
While Lucasfilm Games expands its roster of smaller and more unconventional partners, it is also keeping its most proven asset in motion. Respawn Entertainment, the studio behind Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order and Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, is confirmed to be developing a third entry in the Jedi series. That project represents the other half of Lucasfilm Games’ current strategy: lean on studios with an established track record for the franchise’s biggest, highest-budget releases, while opening the door for smaller teams to take creative swings in genres the flagship series will not touch.
This dual-track approach, big-budget continuity alongside smaller experimental bets, mirrors strategies other major franchises have adopted as licensing businesses mature. It reduces the franchise’s dependency on any single studio or publisher while still protecting the flagship series that carries the most commercial weight and fan expectation. Respawn’s continued involvement also signals that Lucasfilm Games is not abandoning scale; it is adding variety around it.
Why This Matters for the Licensed Games Business
Licensed video games have historically carried a reputation problem. For every standout, like the Jedi series or Insomniac’s Spider-Man titles, there is a long list of rushed tie-ins built to hit a movie release date rather than to be good games. Lucasfilm Games’ pivot toward quality-first, size-agnostic partner selection is a direct response to that history, and it fits a pattern playing out across the broader industry as publishers rethink how they manage valuable intellectual property.
Electronic Arts’ own anti-cheat and live-service infrastructure investments, including its Javelin anti-cheat system now protecting tens of millions of matches, show how deeply EA has invested in supporting live, ongoing titles rather than one-off releases. If Lucasfilm Games is willing to work with smaller studios on standalone or narrower-scope projects, that infrastructure question becomes less central. A turn-based tactics game or an arcade racer does not need the same live-service backbone a shooter does, which opens the door for leaner teams to compete for the license on creative merit alone.
That shift also has implications for how other major entertainment IP holders might manage their own licensing businesses. Disney, which owns Lucasfilm, has multiple franchises beyond Star Wars that could benefit from a similar multi-partner model rather than single-publisher exclusivity deals that concentrate risk and limit creative range.
Historical Context: How Star Wars Gaming Got Here
Star Wars games have gone through distinct eras. In the 1990s and early 2000s, LucasArts itself developed and published titles directly, producing fan favorites like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (developed by BioWare) and Star Wars: Battlefront (developed by Pandemic Studios). That era ended when LucasArts was shut down as a development studio in 2013, shortly after Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm, and the license moved to an EA exclusivity deal that lasted roughly a decade.
That exclusivity period produced both high points, like Respawn’s Jedi series, and lower points, including the launch controversy around 2017’s Star Wars Battlefront II and its loot box monetization, which drew regulatory attention in multiple countries. The backlash from that title is widely viewed within the industry as a turning point that pushed EA and Lucasfilm toward rethinking how the license gets managed. The current multi-partner strategy, with Zero Company, Galactic Racer, and the continuing Jedi series running in parallel, represents the clearest departure yet from the single-publisher model that defined the 2013-2023 window.
Competitive Landscape: How Other Franchises Manage Game Licenses
Lucasfilm Games is not alone in rethinking licensed game strategy. Marvel, also under Disney, has spread its video game output across multiple studios and publishers, including Insomniac Games (Sony-owned, working with Marvel directly), Firaxis (Take-Two, tactical strategy with Marvel’s Midnight Suns), and Skydance (narrative action). That multi-studio model has produced a wider range of critically acclaimed Marvel games than the franchise saw during years when licensing ran through fewer hands.
Warner Bros. has taken a more centralized approach with its own internal studios like Rocksteady and WB Games Montreal, concentrating on fewer, larger releases. The contrast between these approaches gives the industry a live experiment: does spreading a license across more, smaller partners produce better outcomes than concentrating it in fewer, larger ones? Lucasfilm Games’ comments this week suggest it has already picked its answer, at least for now.
| Franchise | Primary Strategy | Notable 2025-2026 Approach | Studio Diversity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Star Wars (Lucasfilm Games) | Multi-partner, quality-first | Zero Company, Galactic Racer, Jedi 3 running in parallel across different studios | High (tactics, racing, action) |
| Marvel (Disney) | Multi-studio, genre-spread | Spread across Insomniac, Firaxis, Skydance and others | High (action, tactics, narrative) |
| DC (Warner Bros.) | Centralized, internal studios | Concentrated in Rocksteady and WB Games Montreal | Lower (primarily action) |
| Harry Potter (WB Games) | Single flagship, occasional spin-offs | Avalanche Software-led flagship with select licensed spin-offs | Moderate |
| Alien (Disney/20th Century) | Mixed, selective licensing | Multiple studios across different genres historically | Moderate |
Market Impact: What This Means for Studios and Publishers
For independent and mid-size studios, Reilly’s comments function as an open invitation that did not exist a decade ago. A studio with a strong creative pitch and a credible shipping history, but without the backing of a top-five publisher, now has a realistic path to working with one of the most valuable licenses in entertainment. That is a meaningful shift in a games industry still working through the aftershocks of widespread layoffs and studio closures over the past several years, where smaller developers have had fewer avenues to land high-profile licensed work.
For publishers, the message is more nuanced. Electronic Arts no longer holds the kind of exclusivity that guaranteed it first and last say over every Star Wars release. That opens competitive pressure from other publishers willing to back smaller studios with Star Wars pitches, potentially including those who have historically focused on tactics, racing, or other niche genres that EA’s internal studios rarely prioritize. Bit Reactor and Fuse Games’ involvement in Zero Company and Galactic Racer already demonstrates that this competitive opening has started to produce results rather than remaining theoretical.
The financial upside for Lucasfilm Games itself is straightforward: licensing fees and royalties from a wider pool of games, spread across genres with different audiences, reduce dependency on any single title’s performance. If one project underperforms, it does not drag down the entire franchise’s gaming output the way a single flagship title’s failure might have in a more concentrated model.
Deep Analysis: The Risk in “Surprising Fans”
Reilly’s language, that future partners “could continue to surprise folks,” is deliberately vague, and that vagueness is itself informative. Lucasfilm Games is not ready to name additional studios or confirm genres beyond what has already shipped or been announced. That caution tracks with how the company handled Zero Company and Galactic Racer before their own announcements, suggesting the studio prefers to let finished or near-finished work speak for the strategy rather than pre-announcing a roadmap that invites years of fan speculation and pressure.
There is a real risk embedded in this approach, though. Smaller studios typically have less capacity to absorb a high-profile public misstep. If Lucasfilm Games bets on an unproven or lesser-known team and that project underperforms, the backlash could be sharper than it would be for a large publisher with more resources to manage the fallout, patch issues, or simply move on to the next release. The franchise’s fan base has shown, repeatedly, that it holds Star Wars games to a standard that does not always account for studio size or budget constraints.
At the same time, the strategy has an obvious strength: it reduces the industry-wide tendency toward homogenized, safe, committee-designed licensed games. Smaller studios, when given creative latitude and a clear quality bar instead of a rigid corporate template, have repeatedly produced some of gaming’s most memorable licensed work. The question is whether Lucasfilm Games can sustain its stated quality bar across a wider and more varied slate without the kind of direct oversight a single, large, long-term publisher partner would typically provide.
Data Snapshot: Star Wars Games Across Two Strategic Eras
| Era | Approximate Years | Primary Publisher Model | Representative Titles | Genre Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LucasArts internal era | 1990s-2004 | Direct internal development/publishing | Knights of the Old Republic, Jedi Knight, Battlefront (original) | Wide (RPG, action, strategy, racing) |
| Multi-publisher transition | 2004-2013 | Mixed external licensing | Force Unleashed, Old Republic MMO, Battlefront II (2005) | Moderate |
| EA exclusivity era | 2013-early 2020s | Single-publisher exclusivity | Battlefront (2015), Battlefront II (2017), Jedi: Fallen Order, Jedi: Survivor | Narrow (primarily shooter/action) |
| Multi-partner era (current) | 2024-2026 | Case-by-case publisher and developer pairing | Zero Company, Galactic Racer, Jedi 3 (in development) | Wide (tactics, racing, action) |
What Industry Watchers Are Saying
Reilly has been the most consistent and direct voice on this shift. Describing Lucasfilm Games’ recalibrated approach to pitches, he said: “I think we’ve tried to be more flexible about who we’re willing to take pitches from and good ideas can come from a lot of different places,” in comments reported by The Game Business.
He reinforced that point with a sharper version of the same idea: “You don’t have to necessarily be a Top Five publisher to make a great Star Wars game,” also carried by The Game Business. That framing directly challenges the assumption, long baked into how major licenses get managed, that only the biggest publishers have the resources to handle a franchise of Star Wars‘ scale and scrutiny.
On the specific mix of partners Lucasfilm Games is currently exploring, Reilly told press: “We’re exploring all kinds of things, large and small, with partners that are going to surprise folks,” according to Eurogamer’s reporting.
What Comes Next: Predictions for Star Wars Gaming
Based on the trajectory Lucasfilm Games has described and the precedent set by Zero Company and Galactic Racer, several outcomes look likely over the next 12 to 24 months.
- More genre experiments announced in 2027. Expect at least one more unconventional genre entry, potentially a puzzle, simulation, or narrative-adventure title, given the pattern set by tactics and racing titles this year.
- Respawn’s Jedi 3 remains the tentpole release. The big-budget, broadly marketed flagship will likely still anchor Lucasfilm Games’ publicity calendar even as smaller titles diversify the overall slate.
- At least one mid-size, non-top-five publisher lands a Star Wars deal. Reilly’s comments strongly suggest this is already in motion, and a formal announcement naming a specific smaller publisher or developer is plausible within the next year.
- EA’s role narrows but does not disappear. Electronic Arts will likely keep its position on the franchise’s biggest, most resource-intensive titles while ceding smaller or more experimental projects to other partners.
- Other Disney-owned franchises may copy the model. If the multi-partner Star Wars strategy produces strong critical and commercial results, expect similar approaches floated for other major Disney gaming licenses beyond Marvel.
How This Fits the Broader 2026 Gaming Industry Picture
Lucasfilm Games’ pivot arrives during a year when licensed and franchise gaming has been unusually competitive. Major releases like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 and Battlefield 6’s head-to-head with Call of Duty have shown that even the biggest, most heavily resourced franchises face real pressure from both direct competitors and smaller studios producing standout original titles. ARC Raiders’ rapid rise against an established shooter like Helldivers 2 is one example of how a comparatively smaller studio can outperform expectations against entrenched competition, a dynamic that likely informs Lucasfilm Games’ willingness to bet on less conventional partners.
There is also a platform angle worth watching. As subscription services like Xbox Game Pass, PlayStation Plus, and Nintendo Switch Online continue to reshape how players discover and commit to new titles, a varied slate of smaller, more experimental Star Wars games could fit naturally into subscription catalogs in a way that a single annual blockbuster release would not. A tactics game or arcade racer carries a different risk profile for subscription inclusion than a full-price, high-production-value action title, giving Lucasfilm Games another reason to diversify its output rather than concentrate it.
The timing also lines up with a broader industry reckoning around licensed IP management. Studios have watched franchises like GTA face intense fan scrutiny and leak pressure, as seen when Rockstar publicly addressed GTA 6 leaks, underscoring just how closely major fan communities track every detail of beloved franchises. Lucasfilm Games’ deliberate vagueness about future partners, while frustrating for fans eager for specifics, may be a calculated move to avoid that same kind of premature scrutiny before projects are ready to be shown.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did Lucasfilm Games announce?
Lucasfilm Games did not announce a specific new game. Executive Douglas Reilly described the studio’s strategy of exploring Star Wars projects with both large and small partners, emphasizing that a studio does not need to be a top-five publisher to work on the franchise, as long as it meets Lucasfilm Games’ quality standards.
Who is Douglas Reilly?
Douglas Reilly is a Lucasfilm Games executive who spoke publicly about the studio’s partner strategy, discussing how the company evaluates pitches and selects developers and publishers for upcoming Star Wars games.
Is Electronic Arts still involved with Star Wars games?
Yes. Respawn Entertainment, an EA-owned studio, is confirmed to be developing a third game in the Star Wars Jedi franchise. EA’s exclusive hold over the entire license has loosened, but the publisher remains active on the franchise’s biggest titles.
What are Star Wars: Zero Company and Star Wars: Galactic Racer?
Star Wars: Zero Company is a turn-based tactical strategy game set in the Star Wars universe. Star Wars: Galactic Racer is an arcade racing title. Both are cited in current reporting as examples of Lucasfilm Games’ broader approach to genre and studio diversity.
Will Lucasfilm Games name its new partners soon?
As of this reporting, Lucasfilm Games has not disclosed the identities of additional large or small partners it is exploring. Reilly said these partnerships are intended to “surprise folks,” but did not provide a timeline for formal announcements.
Does this mean Star Wars games will get cheaper or lower budget?
Not necessarily. Lucasfilm Games has emphasized maintaining a high-quality bar regardless of studio size. Smaller studios can still produce premium, full-priced titles; the shift is about who gets considered for projects, not a strategy to cut costs or lower production values.
How does this compare to how Marvel manages its game licenses?
Marvel, also under Disney, already spreads its games across multiple studios and publishers, including Insomniac Games, Firaxis, and Skydance. Lucasfilm Games’ new approach moves Star Wars closer to that multi-studio model rather than the single-publisher exclusivity it operated under for roughly a decade.
What should fans expect next for Star Wars games?
Fans can expect Respawn’s third Star Wars Jedi game to remain the franchise’s flagship release, alongside continued support for Zero Company and Galactic Racer. Additional announcements involving smaller or mid-size studios are plausible, though Lucasfilm Games has not confirmed specific titles, genres, or release dates beyond what is already public.
