Budgets have inflated. Production cycles have slowed. Content pipelines have become heavier and less predictable. Science-based optimization has been optimized for squeeze that churn users. Players are spreading time among multiple medias more, and many claim “AI is going to kill our jobs”, and such. While this all is cumulating, at the same time, player expectations have shifted toward something entirely different, e.g., living, evolving, and social experiences that persist over time, or just towards wanting, well, better games and experiences.

Growth is no longer driven by acquisition alone. It is driven by retention, depth, and long-tail engagement. Similarly, the industry is no longer rewarded for producing just more content and squeeze over it. It is rewarded for producing better games, and, as I get to discuss this topic here more, better systems around them.

This creates a fundamental shift in how games should be designed, built, and scaled.

The old model:

• Build a game

• Ship content

• Maintain via live ops

• Move to the next project

The better model:

• Build systems, and launch “an experience engine” platform

• Experiment rapidly for optimizing performance in smart way, even when building just the first game

• Through one game (or more games), scale across multiple games, genres, and audiences

• Expand through modular extensions

This is where experience systemization becomes critical for the better model. Not only as an optimization mean, but as the core strategy and mindset model.

When you are as a reader exploring this topic, please note that lots of the examples lie around games and genres I like to blog about, e.g., Shooters. This doesn’t say, though, that Shooters are best benefitting from experience systemization alone. As I see it, there are multitude of genres and experiences these same principles and models can be used for, e.g., even for simulation / tycoon games / idle games, puzzle games, 4X / strategy, MMORPGs, and such.

The key lies in understanding a market, and its near-by markets deeply, and using experience systemization as the main anchoring method for pulling things together the way this article discusses about experience systemization.

Note: This is a topic I’ve developed with a lot of care and passion. It’s something I return to often, because I believe it sits at the core of building a more sustainable future for our industry.

This is also an area where deep, cross-disciplinary experience matters. Systemizing experiences at this level requires a rare combination of systems design, game economy thinking, product leadership, and business understanding. It’s a space I’ve been operating in, and one I feel strongly positioned to help push forward.

Very few people in the industry are currently equipped to operate at this level when it comes to experience systemization. My hope is that through this post and effort of others, more can switch their world perception to right tune for achieving same.

Also, I’m open for opportunities as they come, if someone wants to arm me for building sustainability for their studio(s) through experience systemization.

From Games to Experience Engines

Experience systemization in a nutshell means that you are no longer designing a single game. You are designing an experience engine, which builds sustainability and scalability for your business in smart way.

This engine consists of reusable, interconnected systems, such as:

• progression

• matchmaking

• game mode(s)

• economy / monetization

• social structures / systems

• world / environment simulation

• live ops systems

When it comes to experience systemization, these are not just features. They are primitives / foundations as well as base systems that carry over not just one game but multitude of games, on top of which even for one game they allow adjustments between science bases, modes, genres, and, well, experiences combined.

When designed correctly, they allow you to e.g.,:

• create multiple game modes smarter

• mix and switch between game modes

• experiment with monetization models

• adapt games to player behavior without rebuilding the product

• shift between genres for one or more games

• scale from one foundational game base to new experiences faster

The result is a system that produces experiences and new games instead of building content and games again, and again, and again in an infinite loop. Simultaneously, I would say your genre-mastery accumulates on a much greater scale than previously, as it comes from a foundational layer that allows you to experiment between sciences and experience bases. Instead of just deepening one vector knowledge, you deepen your knowledge in parallel around a multitude of vectors.

Systemizing Experience

Traditional design is often content-first. It focuses on e.g., levels, missions, and handcrafted sequences.

Systemic design is rule-first, and it focuses on:

• mechanics

• interactions

• emergent outcomes

Instead of asking:

“What content do we build next?”

You can ask:

“What system(s) produce(s) the next thousand experiences?”

This is where e.g., mechanics → dynamics → aesthetics become “operational”. You build mechanics that scale and shift dynamically through configurations. In a simple way, you enable dynamics that vary, and you allow aesthetics to emerge.

The outcome:

• higher replayability

• lower content cost

• stronger player agency

Multi-Science Systems

One of the most important principles in experience systemization is this:

• Every system should be built on multiple scientific bases.

Let’s look, for example, into matchmaking. A traditional implementation optimizes for one variable, for skill-based matchmaking.

A systemic implementation optimizes for multiple sciences, e.g.,:

• geo-based matchmaking

• skill-based matchmaking

• engagement-based matchmaking

• symmetric matchmaking

• asymmetric matchmaking

• social cohesion

• core gameplay data

• server data

This transforms matchmaking from a static system into a configurable layer. You can switch between logics, combine models, run experiments, and adapt to player data and feedback.

With this, even something like matchmaking becomes a control system for experience design, and not just a backend utility. And, through this approach, you would have a revolutionary matchmaking system ready for not just one game but multitude of games.

Note: Interested about matchmaking systems? Read what I’ve wrote about them here:

Genre as Configuration

When systems are modular, genre is no longer fixed. It becomes a configuration.

A well-designed experience system allows transitions such as:

• PvPvE → PvE-only → PvP-only

• Extraction → Roguelite → RPG/MMO

• Solo → Co-op → PvP

This is not about making everything flexible. It is about designing systems that support controlled transformation.

Thesis: PvPvE to Co-op PvE in a Shooter Game

If AI systems, rewards, environments, and matchmaking are modular:

• PvP pressure can be reduced or removed

• AI presence, behavior, and difficulty can be scaled

• rewards can be redistributed, and repositioned

The result is a fully different experience built on the same foundation. Of course, the foundation might require some finer tweaks, like for level design, but there are also ways how you could do all this within larger open maps and/or evolving biome-based maps.

Thesis: Extraction to Roguelite in a Shooter Game

Both, Extraction and Roguelite, share core primitives:

• run-based loops

• risk vs reward

• progression layers

The difference lies in e.g., persistence and reset structures. With this in mind, you can build and experience, in a smart systemized way, how you can even go that far that you switch between genres.

If foundations in your systems for both genre directions are supported:

• you can pivot or mix based on data

• you can test player preferences

• you can evolve the product post-launch

This allows you in one systemic shot to not just test and iterate a game to market wisely, but also over time spin new products out from same base, e.g., you could have an Extraction game acting as a spin-off base for your Roguelite game.

Switches between PvP, Co-op, and PvPvE can be also included in this mix, if you build things just the right way.

Note: Interested about what I’ve wrote about Extraction Shooters and Roguelites? Find more from these articles:

Designing the Bet: Constraints That Enable Flexibility

System design for experience systemization is not about unlimited flexibility. It is about choosing the right constraints early.

Meaning, which I acknowledge well here, that there are certain limits for the flexibility and switches between experiences. Like for those Shooter examples, you cannot make them to something extreme like to puzzle games without spending money expensively.

Key decisions for this matter include e.g.,:

• environment / map / level scale and its emergency

• world density and emergency

• session structure

• social depth

• progression systems

Map Example

Large-scale maps:

• long-term tension

• slower pacing

• high-stakes extraction

Biome-based maps:

• faster iteration

• controlled variability

• high replayability

Both support Extraction and Roguelite systems when it comes to Shooters. But they shape the experience differently.

With this in mind, system design for experience systemization is about selecting constraints that maximize future optionality rather than aiming for building a base for unlimited choices.

Systemic Shooter Game Concept Example

This game concept example, I’ve made myself withing couple evenings, can be understood, from experience systemization’s point of view, not as a single game but as a system configuration.

Core layers:

1. Extraction Loop

Deploy → Engage:

Loot:

Extract:

Upgrade / Maintain:

2. Roguelite Character & Trait System

With adding e.g., Class and Roguelite systems, you get e.g.,:

• temporary power growth, lost at character dead

• combinatorial builds and fantasy explorations

• deep economy, which allows also later DLC / microtransactions-based monetization opportunities, if wanted

3. Environment system

Well planned environments bring lots of dept, which suit for Extraction Shooters, Roguelites, and/or their mixes.

For example:

• multiple environments / biomes

• dynamic events (e.g., night, breach)

4. Social structures

Smart design enables:

• All solo, co-op, and group play allowed, AND/OR

• one of these allowed / focused into, as/if wanted

These systems already enable multiple configurations:

• PvPvE extraction

• Co-op PvE roguelite

• PvE-only

• Social raid structures

The important insight:

The game is not the product, the system is.

New Games & Experiences:

From futuristic setting to e.g., modern techy setting, using same “experience” / game (systems) base:

Systems can also enable multi-platform explorations:

Potentially, if your tech. choices allow, multi-platform exploration becomes a possibility to some extent, e.g., same systems but for mobile:

Tech Modularity: The Enabler That Changed

Historically, this level of systemization was extremely difficult. Like when we talk about modularity, I believe it’s something that has been tried to crack properly since 80s. It’s slow, costly, and time-consuming.

Building modular systems has so far required:

• large engineering teams

• long development cycles

• heavy upfront investment

• complex maintenance overhead

As a result, most studios defaulted to building one-off solutions tied to a single game.

This is now very likely changing. AI could be fundamentally shifting the cost structure of modularity under the hood. I’m not talking vibe coding your whole stack but rather than putting AI under the hood of these components, while you would be in control of the architecture. Also, just to put it out here as well, I’m not talking about replacing people by AI on this, as instead you can just amplify them and sustain proper dynamics culturally.

What AI Potentially Enables

As someone pointed for me, the belief is that AI allows you to:

• generate and maintain system variations

• support multiple configurations simultaneously

• reduce engineering overhead for system updates

• automate balancing and tuning processes

Instead of building rigid systems, you can build adaptive ones faster. Instead of maintaining one game, you can maintain a system layer across multiple experiences more efficiently.

The Outcome

Tech modularity becomes:

• faster to build

• cheaper to maintain

• scalable across multiple games

This might be the first time in the industry where true experience systemization is not only possible, but somewhat practical.

Beyond this, AI Can be Considered for e.g.,:

• balancing economies

• tuning matchmaking

• generating events

• adapting difficulty

• supporting live ops experimentation

This allows the system to evolve / be maintained continuously without requiring full manual intervention.

Compounding Systems as The Real Advantage

The biggest impact of experience systemization is economic.

Traditional model:

• each game is a new investment

• each feature is rebuilt

Systemized model:

• each system is reused

• each improvement compounds

• each game becomes cheaper to build

This creates:

• faster production

• lower risk

• scalable portfolios

A studio becomes a system that produces great games, instead of a team that builds them one by one with high risk-profile through traditional optimization means and methods. This way, again, genre-mastery compounds in a way no-one probably haven’t experienced it “the smart way”.

Designing for the Unknown

The most powerful aspect of experience systemization is not efficiency. It is adaptability. You are not designing for a fixed outcome.

You are designing for:

• unknown player behavior

• unknown genre evolution

• unknown monetization shifts

Instead of reacting to change, you are prepared for it.

Experience systemization is the bridge between:

• creativity and scalability

• design and economics

• games and platforms

It is how you:

• reduce cost

• increase speed

• unlock innovation

And most importantly:

It is how you build games that do not just succeed. You evolve along with that.

For many years, my day-to-day work has relied on using market intelligence tools. Over time, I had the chance to try a lot of well-known platforms that promised a high-level view of the mobile games market, e.g., revenue estimates, downloads, KPIs, category leaders, trend identification, and many more.

They were powerful, but also expensive, rigid, and sometimes too abstract for the kind of work I actually needed to do. My core challenge wasn’t access to data. It was a resolution. As a product leader, systems designer, and hobbyist angel investor, I rarely ask simple questions like, “Is this genre growing?” Instead, my questions tend to be more surgical:

• Is this specific subsegment within a genre growing or decaying?

• What monetization structures and strategies are actually working for those competitors on the inside and not just on the surface?

• Are live events being used as a core economic driver, or just as surface-level engagement boosts?

• Does a product’s observed KPI profile support a sustainable business case, or does it break at scale?

With previous tools, answering those questions required a lot of manual triangulation: exporting rough estimates, building parallel sheets over granular parts of the industry, and cross-checking assumptions with anecdotal industry knowledge… And still feeling that some questions were left unanswered.

The challenges in using them peaked at some point, when I realized that many were paying very premium prices for tools that were excellent at telling what was happening—on a certain level—but not on any level why, and definitely not how.

Note for readers: This article has been originally published on AppMagic’s site here.

Finding the Right Tool to Use

I first came across AppMagic through industry circles and peer recommendations. The positioning was interesting: more affordable, but also more focused on practical, granular category analysis, monetization, and live service insights rather than just dashboards after dashboards.

“I didn’t expect it to replace my existing tools at first. I expected it to be complementary. Instead, it quickly became central, as it had some comfying ‘magic’ to it.”

What made AppMagic stand out was how it allowed me to deconstruct markets and products faster and more effectively, rather than forcing me to dive deeper into higher-level perspectives. The level of categorization, down to genres, subgenres, monetization placements, and event structures, matched how I actually wanted to take quick yet insightful looks to support decision-making or time investments across different research topics.

Instead of, say, abstract “puzzle” labels, I could start slicing reality closer to subcategories, how they behave, and how products perform within them, on top of which I was given complementary information about monetization and events.

Monopoly GO! In AppMagic

Getting started with AppMagic was straightforward. There was no heavy onboarding process or mandatory training period. The UI and data structure were intuitive enough that I could jump directly into exploration.

Within days, AppMagic got integrated into multiple workflows:

• Early-stage opportunity evaluation

• Competitor deconstruction

• LiveOps and monetization benchmarking

• Benchmarking for validating new concepts

• KPI benchmarking for monitoring game progress and investments

• Personal investment research

• And much more

There is depth to the platform, and it is the kind you discover naturally as your questions become more detailed. Eventually, it became a multi-purpose lens I now use to analyze both products and markets, and I’m happy to share a nine-step framework that helps turn market research into real results.

Using AppMagic: Example Scenarios

1. Evaluating Opportunities Within a Genre

By drilling into very specific subsegments, I can assess whether an opportunity is genuinely underserved, growing, mature, or declining. Let’s see how this works with the example of one of the genres that showed a tremendous growth in 2025: Screw Puzzles.

I’ve looked at the Screw Puzzle segment before, and back in 2024, it was already clear that pure 2D Screw Puzzle games were declining. The Market Segment dashboard showed that the subgenre leader, Screw Jam, was losing momentum, with no other title poised to take its place. The reasons were fairly typical: copycat games failing to provide fresh takes, overly aggressive monetization pressure, and a general lack of new ideas.

Screw Puzzles on the Market Segment dashboard

Then, the introduction of 3D Screw Puzzle games gave the segment’s growth another push. However, that growth was concentrated only around one title: Screwdom. That’s why the segment still didn’t invite a straightforward business case consideration. Further still, if you dove deeper into Screwdom, you would notice that its downloads had been going down, whilst cumulative RpD had been on the rise.

This is clearly something one needs to monitor in order to understand how their UA strategy may have reprioritized LTV optimization with lower user numbers over sheer traffic volume—to sustain the current business case. But in order to do it right, you need to start with the bigger picture, and that’s what you can do just by looking at the market composition. Starting from here, you can go further into product analysis—as far as you like.

2. Monetization Strategy & Placement Benchmarking

Instead of guessing where monetization pressure sits, I can actually explore all the essential economy aspects of my game of choice:

• What type of monetization strategies and placements it uses

• Which IAP placements drive the most value

• What upcoming monetization methods and psychological tricks are connected to them

• How aggressively the competitors push their monetization and economy

For example, Monopoly GO! is the fastest-grossing game to surpass $6B in revenue, and it serves as a great learning platform for anyone working with monetization. Using AppMagic’s Monetization Intelligence, I can actually take a look at the game’s vast library of offers. Going into a more granular level, tracking their placements and types, I can learn a lot about the game’s success in IAP monetization.

Monopoly GO! offers in Monetization Intelligence

But most importantly, I can see how these offers are interconnected with other aspects of the game, including any ongoing LiveOps events, and with each other.

3. LiveOps Calendar: Types, Cadence, and Strategic Weight

One of the most interesting things for me has been tracking:

• How frequently events run

• What types of events dominate certain segments

• Whether events are used as core economic engines or secondary engagement tools

This feeds directly into designing LiveOps systems that aim for top-percentile performance, not just table stakes, because having a clear view of how others do things also reveals what it actually takes to reach certain percentile targets with your games.

Take, for example, the Merge games segment with its $1.6B IAP revenue and constant year-over-year growth. Despite how promising it might look, it is important to consider what it really takes to get to the top. And such requirements are big ones, especially for live events.

Gossip Harbor in the LiveOps & Updates Calendar

Even a quick glance at the LiveOps & Updates Calendar of Gossip Harbor, an undeniable leader in the genre, is enough to understand the scale of its LiveOps efforts. It’s packed with various simultaneous interconnected events telling a story of the resources you need to put into motion if you hope to sustain the possibility of getting closer to their level.

4. Investment Analysis (as an Angel Investor)

As a hobbyist angel investor in games, AppMagic helps me do the sanity check:

• Whether teams are targeting the right markets

• Whether their ambitions align with observable market realities

• Whether their differentiation claims hold up against existing competitors

In addition to the tools described above, it also helps to see a list of competitors in specific regions. Using the Top Publishers chart, I can review the list of competitors operating in the same country to better understand the company’s background, its professional environment, and the overall state of the games industry in the region.

Top gaming publishers in Türkiye

5. Tracking Emerging Games & New Phenomena

To stay up to date and track major trends earlier than others, I can, as wanted, set up a custom early opportunity/warning system that allows me to:

• Spot emerging games and trends

• Follow them over time to assess sustainability

• Identify genuinely new systems or segment shifts, not just reskins

For that, I rely on several tools: Advanced Search and Notifications. The first helps me track every new release in the niche, even if it hasn’t built a revenue or downloads track record yet, while the second helps set up custom alerts delivered directly to my email. For example, I can track when the game in a certain niche reaches particular revenue or downloads figures; thus, the alert could be set for “Hypercasual Puzzles with daily IAP Revenue of $10K or more” to track new Hybrid Puzzles.

Screw Puzzles in Advanced Search

6. Creative Tracking & Benchmarking

A proper analysis shouldn’t end with the product overview only. Sometimes, it can be even more important to take a look at the UA side of things:

• Spotting the highest-spending creatives by competitors

• Monitoring creative trends

• Network and regional data

Screwdom creatives in Ad Intelligence

If we look at Screwdom as an example, it’s clear that introducing 3D into the Screw Puzzle was not only about gameplay, but a UA decision, too. Its creatives are built around 3D puzzles, highlighting the game’s unique proposition and underscoring the importance of a marketable core gameplay for new Hybridcasual games. This allows the publisher to showcase actual or semi-actual gameplay for UA creatives and to cheaply scale the required volume of creatives.

“The biggest change after adopting AppMagic wasn’t a single “big win”. It was something more valuable: confidence.”

From these Ad Intelligence views, you can also build confidence in what works and what the segment-wide sentiment is. Like, if you’re not seeing fake ads, maybe you can somewhat confidently assume that you should not lean on them fully in your strategy.

Step-by-Step: How AppMagic Fits Into My Rhythm

With AppMagic, I reach conclusions faster, and they are supported by much stronger evidence. It helps me make confident decisions: from killing weak ideas early to doubling down on opportunities backed by real market signals.

That’s why I most often use the tool during the active concept or investment analysis phases. My typical flow would look like this:

1. Identify a question or hypothesis (product, market, monetization, system, etc.)

2. Slice the market down to the right level of granularity

3. AppMagic-deconstruct relevant competitors

   1. KPI ranges, monetization strategies, and live system patterns

4. Granular self-deconstruction, as required, including macro/product layers, and cross-checking against what the tool shows

5. As needed, validate marketability layers:

   1. Channels

   2. Creatives, including possible volume requirements

   3. Trends, risks, and opportunities

6. Feed those insights into validation models, design decisions, or investment theses.

Yes, this might take time and is always about creative thinking with data informing the work and interlinking. But it always translates into meaningful time savings, fewer blind spots at early validation stages, and better alignment between product strategy and actual market reality.

It also changes the quality of internal discussions: conversations become grounded in data rather than opinions, which makes decision-making clearer and more constructive. But most importantly, it helps overcome the biggest friction point in market analysis: the gap between macro-level data and actionable insight.

• We see talks about dynamically segmented events.

• We see talks about tailoring offers to specific cohorts.

• We see talks about AI-driven playstyle detection and behavioral clustering.

• We talk about live-ops engines that mutate the game experience per user.

And yes, in many ways, this direction makes sense. But the means to reach this direction properly? Many times not so much.

For example, mobile F2P, in particular, has reached a maturity point where improving retention and financial performance increasingly requires understanding playstyles at a granular level. AI and data-driven product management are pushing us toward systems that detect intent patterns and serve personalized content accordingly.

In many ways, this is progress. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: Hyper-personalization is often a lazy solution to a deeper design problem.

Hyper-Personalization Alone Is Dangerous

Heavy segmentation can:

• Increase production cost.

• Fragment the player base.

• Reduce cross-archetype exposure.

• Create event fatigue.

• Inflate live-ops complexity.

• Shrink systemic depth.

• Leave engagement and money on the table.

And worst of all:

It can mask weak core system architecture.

If your game requires hyper-personalized event design to keep archetypes engaged, that’s often a signal that your systems aren’t intrinsically elastic enough.

So, instead, before building systems that split players into increasingly narrow silos, you should always ask:

Have we designed systems and/or interconnectivity that naturally serve multiple archetypes at once?

Because if you haven’t, you’re patching over shallow design with algorithmic band-aids. This is something where multi-archetype systems design approach and mindset grows importance over single-purpose design approaches.

The Multi-Archetype Design Mindset

Multi-archetype systems design means:

• One system serving multiple player archetypes through different engagement modes.

• Interconnected systems that progress the overall game even if players don’t deeply engage with all of them.

• Features designed with layered motivations instead of single-purpose funnels.

• Etc.

This is fundamentally different from some takes I’ve seen e.g., being talked on LinkedIn, like:

“Let’s create separate events for each playstyle and segment players by that.”

That path can be beneficial. But, many times with poor systems approach it still can lead to fragmentation, production overhead, event fatigue, and eventually operational complexity that in worst cases eats margin.

Instead, multi-archetype systems create structural elasticity inside the game, which is something many should have in place before going too deep, if not needed even past this point at all.

Multi-archetype systems allow e.g.,:

• Competitive players to compete.

• Social players to cooperate.

• Optimizers to min-max.

• Casual collectors to accumulate.

• Explorers to discover.

• And much more.

The best part, this all can be achieved within the same “macro-system”.

When done correctly, hyper-personalization could even become:

1. A minor optimization layer.

2. Or completely unnecessary.

Because… the system already adapts through player agency!

Light Examples

Monopoly GO’s Archetype Biasing

You can see early, lighter versions of this thinking in Monopoly GO!.

Take a team-based event, as an example. Despite fully leaning to team-based activities, players can technically also choose to play solo, even the solo option is visually secondary (placed below the team-building flow).

This placement order most likely matters for Monopoly GO!, as the default nudges players toward social participation, which is very likely seen through experiments improving engagement and monetization in solid manner. But, beyond that, solo exists, even in de-emphasized format, as there’s also meaningful results probably gained from that as well.

The system serves multiple archetypes / playstyles, and it does so without fully splitting the feature into isolated archetype-targeted variants. One reason Monopoly GO reached such massive scale is precisely because its overall design serves multiple archetypes simultaneously.

It’s not just a board game. It’s e.g.,:

• A collection meta.

• A competitive race.

• A cooperative event engine.

• A long-term progression economy.

There’s still, of course, room for deeper multi-archetype layering, but the structural direction is slightly better than many others directions are pushing developers and publishers to go.

ARC Raiders: Archetype Layering as a Pillar

On the PC/console side, I discussed in The Future of Extraction Shooters article how ARC Raiders builds one of its core success pillars around serving multiple archetypes.

Unlike many extraction shooters that heavily lean into hardcore PvP tension, ARC Raiders layers:

• PvE cooperation.

• Environmental scavenging.

• Long-term progression.

• Competitive PvP risk.

• Social squad play.

• Narrative / quests.

• Etc.

The result is a broader archetype surface area. Instead of segmenting these audiences into different single-purpose modes or events, the core loop itself supports them.

They show on some level quite well the difference between multi-archetype system architecture instead of leaning to reactive personalization. Beyond this and their success on this approach, I do think they could do a bit more still on this front, which will be seen through future updates if they go more on this direction or do something else based on strategies of their choosing (as they pretty much can choose and experiment past their success).

Multi-Archetype Design Across Genres

Past given examples, let’s go deeper on this through some (hypothetical) examples.

Modern Puzzle Games

Instead of:

• One competitive leaderboard event.

• One collection album event.

• One narrative mini-campaign event.

Let’s think about a new single meta-layer where:

• Competitive players push time-based leaderboards, whilst benefits flow to below points.

• Collectors climb same boards for cosmetics and seasonal artifacts, whilst benefits flow to other presented points.

• Social players contribute to guild / team-based puzzle-solving goals, which on same system may advance different reward routes / boards on top of their single contributions advancing above points.

• “Optimizers” theorycraft resource economies to maximize event multipliers, and take part as they want beyond that in single or social activities.

The same core play fuels multiple motivations and still progresses things further through interconnectivity.

Interconnectivity here ensures e.g.,:

• Playing casually still contributes to guild progression, if you’re part of one.

• Competitive engagement boosts other milestones and progression / reward paths.

• Collection unlocks modify gameplay expression in casual and social play.

No segmentation needed. Just multi-archetype targeting for system design. Same thinking can be applied to actual core and meta, and/or for events / live events as takes go.

Action-RPGs / MMORPGs

Let’s think about a dynamic world boss system approach.

Instead of:

• Separate PvP tournaments.

• Separate co-op raid events.

• Separate solo challenge ladders.

One integrated system could allow:

• Solo players to weaken world bosses over time.

• Guilds to coordinate final kills.

• PvP factions to fight over spawn control.

• Crafters to profit from drop-based resource cycles.

• Explorers to discover spawn patterns.

Interconnectivity in this rough example ensures that e.g.,:

• Even non-combat players influence outcomes / economy.

• Social and competitive layers collide organically.

• The system progresses globally without mandatory participation.

Extraction Shooters

Beyond ARC Raiders’ styled take, think about a seasonal “frontline” meta-layer where:

• PvP-focused players push territory control.

• PvE scavengers collect rare components.

• Social players coordinate and collaborate over PvP / PvE / PvPvE.

• Risk-averse players contribute via e.g., “logistics” and crafting.

• Hardcore players escalate on high-risk zones.

Everyone contributes to the same “macro”. But, no-one is intentionally “forcedF into every sub-loop, even though the typical risk-reward layer for extraction might stay same.

Strategy / 4X

One alliance war system can serve:

• Diplomats (negotiation mechanics).

• Economists (resource optimization).

• Military tacticians (battle planning).

• Saboteurs (covert mechanics).

• Social leaders (community coordination).

Interconnectivity > Isolation

Multi-archetype design rests on high-level on two pillars.

1) One System Serving Many Archetypes

Including e.g.,:

• Multiple interaction modes.

• Different reward surfaces.

• “Choice” architecture.

2. Interconnectivity Without Mandatory Participation

Players:

• Progress the macro layer even if they ignore or de-emphasize certain systems.

• Are exposed to adjacent loops passively.

• Drift between archetypes over time.

Full Ignorance Eats Engagement

If your strategy is heavy data- or AI-driven segmentation with archetype-targeted events, something dangerous can happen:

Players stop seeing adjacent motivations.

This means that by your strategy you reduce cross-pollination, and most likely extra engagement and monetization opportunities.

You train achievers to only play achiever events. Collectors to only show up for album events. Competitors to only care about ranked ladders.

Exposure disappears… and with it, business potential.

The Live Ops Implication

Live ops becomes dramatically more efficient under multi-archetype design.

Instead of:

• Producing multiple segmented event tracks.

• Designing bespoke mechanics per cluster.

• Managing complex targeting logic.

You simply can:

• Build few deeply layered seasonal systems.

• Tune reward routes, interconnectivity and weighting per vector.

• Plan economy multipliers and modifiers per route.

• Etc.

If the core design is strong, personalization becomes refinement and not repair.

The UA & Marketing Layer

There’s another overlooked benefit for user acquisition.

In Unlocking the Power of Intrinsic Motivation article, I discussed how intrinsic loops should shape our marketing narratives.

With multi-archetype systems, you can create truthful creatives for different archetypes, without building separate experiences.

From the same system:

• A competitive-focused creative shows leaderboard tension.

• A social creative highlights guild collaboration.

• A collector-focused creative showcases e.g., cosmetic progression.

• An optimizer creative emphasizes economy mastery.

You “hypertarget” through systems-born messaging. This aligns product and marketing, in which your unique selling points become archetype-specific value propositions drawn from the same core. No need to lean (at least that fast) to “fabricated” hooks for CPI optimization.

The Strategic Decision

What I’m writing and discussing here doesn’t mean hyper-personalization is wrong.

AI-driven playstyle detection.
Behavioral clustering.
Offer / event optimization.

These can be powerful.

But, honestly, they should come after:

1. Strong multi-archetype system architecture.

2. Deep interconnectivity.

3. Intrinsic motivational layering.

And I get it. For some games, especially smaller teams or tightly scoped designs, full multi-archetype layering may be too heavy. In those cases, segmentation experiments may be the right short-term lever. In some cases, maybe it’s too late to change the direction of a live product, if you have inherited one that isn’t designed or easy to adapt to that way. Sometimes there’s just lots of debt over tech., etc.

But strategically:

Multi-archetype systems create compounding structural advantage.

They:

• Scale better.

• Reduce content overhead.

• Improve organic retention.

• Support truthful UA.

• Enable light-touch personalization.

• Protect against archetype stagnation.

And… even if resources would be tight, I’d always argue that good systems are better investment for your money from scratch instead of realizing this past your first lever or failure.

So, all in all, the future of games is not just hyper-personalized. It is architecturally more multi-dimensional.

When you design systems that:

• Serve multiple archetypes.

• Interconnect without coercion.

• And expose players to adjacent motivations.

You don’t need to chase personalization with poor means. You’ve already built everything into the fabric of the game. And that is far more powerful than any algorithm.

What began as e.g., tightly scripted, replayable team experiences is steadily evolving into something more systemic, more persistent, and more unpredictable as we’re seeing and predicting fresh takes on the genre.

One soon realizing future sits at the intersection of two forces:

• Roguelike / roguelite systemic design.

• Co-op-first social play.

However, I believe this is just the beginning.

If things continue with this approach, I think we’re actually seeing at some point future games based on the intersection of three forces:

• Roguelike / roguelite systemic design.

• Co-op-first social play.

• Extraction-inspired DNA / PvPvE structures.

Individually, each of these has proven successful. Combined, they point toward new genre phases, one likely to define the next 3 to 5 years of multiplayer shooters, followed by a deeper evolution that could shape the direction of the genre for at least the next decade.

Let’s dive deeper.

AA / AAA Momentum: Roguelite Systems Enter the Shooter Core

One of the clearest signals of these directions comes from the AA / AAA space, where systemic replayability is no longer a niche experiment but a central design pillar for some studios.

A strong example is Housemarque, the Finland-based studio now owned by Sony. Their work has helped “normalize” roguelite mechanics in high-fidelity shooter experiences, starting from Returnal.

Returnal proved that:

• Roguelite loops can coexist with premium production values.

• Procedural and systemic progression can carry emotional narrative arcs.

• Failure can be reframed as forward momentum rather than punishment.

Returnal features trailer. (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKZV00Esu54)

Returnal’s Formula

Core Roguelite Loop

• Death resets most items, weapons, and run-specific currencies, but key upgrades and narrative progress persist.

• Procedural structure reshapes each run through shifting rooms / biomes, item placement, and encounters.

• Fast third-person combat built around mobility and bullet-hell experience with encounters and avoidance.

Systemic Build Variety

• Weapons with randomized stats, traits, alternate fire modes.

• Weapon Proficiency enabling stronger drops deeper into a run.

• Strategic decision layers:

  • Malignant items that offer power with risk.

  • Parasites that introduce trade-offs.

  • Adrenaline stacks rewarding skillful, damage-free play.

“Dual-layer” Economy

• Run currency for immediate decisions.

• Persistent resources that carry meta-progression across deaths.

Narrative through Repetition

• Story fragments, environmental storytelling, and progression unlocked over multiple cycles.

The Blend

This blend, permanent growth, temporary power, and systemic risk / reward, became the studio’s defining design identity.

Now, they’re escalating that identity.

Saros: Formula Escalation

Housemarque’s upcoming project, Saros, appears to deepen and intensify the same philosophy and formula they’ve invested once already in.

While the game isn’t released yet, the direction communicated so far suggests a stronger and deeper emphasis over the existing formula:

• Newly thought Roguelite comeback (“Death → return stronger” loops) mechanics.

• Shapeshifting biomes and level states., with a world-state escalation system (“eclipse”) that:

  • Corrupts the environment, escalates enemy systems, and raises audiovisual intensity and difficulty.

  • Improves rewards in exchange for higher risk.

  • Interacts differently with armor and weapon builds, in connection with the enemy system escalation.

• Permanent progression via armor, perks, and talent-like systems, with skill / talent tree styled approach.

• Modifier systems balancing protection vs. offensive power as well as world / enemy conditions.

  • Note: Manipulators are something as systems that I’ve predicted gaining popularity in one of my previous articles here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/41-manipulator-mechanics-new-frontiers):

• Continuation mechanics.

• And much more.

Compared to Returnal, these systems appear more depthful, layered and tension-driven, and less about a single run loop and more about shaping the world itself across repeated engagements. And, I think this is a great direction, and I hope they’ll do well with this game release, as from that they can get where I’m expecting roguelites and co-op direction going.

Saros Gameplay Overview Trailer going through its base systems. (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcLGdMG0L8Q)

As Returnal established the formula, Saros looks a step to evolve it into a bit more persistent and reactive ecosystem, focusing in building excitement and engagement through clearer power progression.

Note: As we’re covering Extraction DNA in the article a bit as well, power progression and systems depth is something I’m predicting coming for future Extraction Shooters as well. See article about this topic here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/57-the-future-of-extraction-shooters):

What Housemarque should / could build next? Well, if they do well, and my article ages properly, I’d say they should end up building a proper co-op and/or PvPvE game in this space, to continue multiplying their success.

Co-op Momentum

As AA / AAA side is building momentum over the roguelite side, at the same time, the market has shown a powerful trend: co-op and “friends-first” / friendslop games are surging more than the industry predicted many years back.

Remember when as a developer it was almost impossible to argue for co-op games’ success? Well, that has changed with there being lots of momentum over games like Peak, Repo, Phasmophobia, Schedule I, and such.

It seems we’ve inevitable ended up players increasingly wanting e.g.,:

• Shared fun.

• Shared tension.

• Shared risk.

• Shared reward.

• Shared win / recovery conditions.

• Social storytelling emerging from emergent and/or systemic play.

• …and much more.

Even ARC Raiders and many games have proven co-op really stands out in a shooter setting, even it includes PvPvE in its core. And, not to forget, Helldivers 2 is of course standing there leaning on co-op as well as if you look more into extraction space, Hunt: Showdown has also duo and trip setups.

Note: Interested to read more about the phenomena behind ARC Raiders, Helldivers 2 and Hunt: Showdown? Check my article here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/57-the-future-of-extraction-shooters):

How we ended here? There are lots of e.g., macro and micro economics as well as economics behavior conditions behind this all. On top of that, there are even, which you might not think much, lots of psychology and physiology behind these phenomena as well, on both on macro and micro levels. These are totally different article and discussion point themselves. For now, let’s just say that seeing overall where some part of the industry has puts its money, this side has “naturally” being craved by the other side, incl. players’ side, and from that overall I think we’ve ended seeing these games popping up and building success. Naturally we’ve also seen more curiosity and encouragement for going here and being bold about bringing our co-op visions to life.

Momentum Combination

The combination of currently growing co-op and roguelite momentum looks like a no-brainer, if you look both sides’ ends with simplistic lenses on; and, therefore, this makes it one predictable direction where co-op shooters can go.

When we look into some similarities, roguelite shooters already generate e.g., emotional spikes from e.g., failure, survival, unexpected builds, near-death moments. When those experiences become shared, they supposedly multiply in intensity and memorability.

This is why the next logical step is not just co-op or roguelite shooters alone, but co-op roguelite shooters. And, actually, momentum is building already to this direction.

The return of creators behind co-op shooter classics like Left 4 Dead, signals renewed interest in pushing cooperative shooter design forward again: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/4-loop/.

4:LOOP trailer. (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-5ieEtmgTc)

From PlayStation Official Site:

“Created by Mike Booth (Left 4 Dead) and the interactive storytellers at Bad Robot Games, 4:LOOP is a tactical, four-player co-op shooter crafted for endless replayability and infinite ways to build the ultimate team. Together, if you can learn from your mistakes, you might just fail to save the world.

Experiment. Improvise. See if you can beat the odds.”

4:LOOP in-game captured image. (Source: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/4-loop/)

In terms of us seeing really soon what’s coming on this side, I think the momentum will just continue building up.

Co-op Roguelite Shooter DNA

In one format, over how a co-op roguelite shooter could look, you can look into a multiplayer-first design built on systemic progression instead of scripted missions. Let’s dive deeper on this.

World Progression

• Teams unlock new regions and biomes over time.

• Global progression shifts the structure of future runs.

• Narrative emerges through world changes rather than linear storytelling.

Loop Tightening

• Each cycle increases stakes, difficulty and strategic demands.

• Systems react to player success / failure patterns.

Layered Progression

• Temporary run-based builds.

• Permanent meta upgrades.

• Potentially even team-level progression (shared unlocks, structures, tech.); permanent and temporary.

Risk vs. Reward

• ”Corrupted” zones offering higher payouts.

• Trade-off decisions impacting entire squad survival.

• Build synergy across teammates.

Adaptive world conditions

• Weather, “corruption”, faction activity, and AI evolution.

• Difficulty scaling tied to player performance.

• Combined manipulators.

Note: Read more about manipulators here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/41-manipulator-mechanics-new-frontiers):

Emergent gameplay

• Unexpected team roles.

• Improvised strategies.

• Player-driven “stories” instead of authored missions.

This is where co-op becomes more than a mode. It becomes the core operating system of the experience.

The Matchmaking Challenge: Roguelite Meets Multiplayer

A multiplayer roguelite introduces a critical design challenge: matchmaking.

Traditional lobbies assume many times parity, incl. similar skill, similar power, and/or similar progression. Roguelite systems, considering the systemic direction they’re going on AA / AAA side, will break this.

A successful system would need to consider e.g.,:

• Meta progressions and levels as well as build types.

• Run history and playstyle / progression compatibility.

• Social preference (friends vs. solo fill).

• World conditions’ adaptability.

• AI conditions’ adaptability.

• And much more, even considerations not around symmetric directions but also asymmetric directions.

The complexity raises up by this, incl. the importance of designing the matchmaker properly. Matchmakers can make or break your social game, see more about how you should approach them here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/42-matchmaking-the-hidden-engine):

However, despite the complexity on matchmakers, I believe early in a game’s lifecycle, concessions must be considered:

• Wider matchmaking tolerances.

• Assisted onboarding runs.

• Scaled enemy difficulty based on team composition.

…because overall if you’re wanting to onboard players and build proper DAUs / MAUs for the game, you’ll need to consider how you can sustain that past the whole journey. Having a successful game helps of course, but it’s something you cannot lean as even those games needs to be grown over time properly. And, good systems will help you on that.

Over time, matchmaking would evolve into a core design system:

• Pairing complementary builds.

• Balancing risk profiles.

• Creating intentional friction and synergy.

This becomes more about creating engaging tension to sustain a proper design, on top of fairness.

PvPvE: Where Extraction Design Enters the Picture as 3rd Pillar

Once roguelite and co-op systems stabilize over the co-op and current state roguelite pillars, PvPvE becomes the next frontier, and for that I believe we’re needing a 3rd, Extraction DNA, pillar.

Extraction shooters already introduced:

• Enter → raid → survive → extract loops.

• Persistent economies.

• High-stakes risk.

Combining that with roguelite progression and co-op / PvPvE unlocks powerful possibilities. This can formulate multiple scenarios, over which I’ll give two examples below.

Scenario 1: Jump-In World Spaces

• Multiple squads enter a shifting map.

• Areas open dynamically as well as by based on players’ in-game activities.

• Teams race to raid corrupted zones.

• High-tier resources require confronting elite enemies.

• Extraction becomes the climax.

Scenario 2: MOBA-like Persistent Worlds

• AAA-scale environments.

• Long-term territory control.

• PvE threats shaping PvP opportunities.

• Extraction loops feeding macro-progression.

This hybrid model keeps PvP from dominating the experience while ensuring constant unpredictability. The PvE world becomes the “third player.”

Single-Player Can Still Matter

Despite the multiplayer focus, these systems can on some games benefit from solo compatibility.

Different design pillars could coexist:

• Solo roguelite runs for mastery and experimentation.

• Co-op for shared and separated / combined progression.

• PvPvE for high-tension stakes.

Note: I’ve discussed about blending single / campaign vectors in the past with multiplayer vectors, which heavily lean on what I’m writing here. See more from my article here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/45-blending-vectors-designing-games):

Players could fluidly shift between “modes”, with shared progression tying the ecosystem together. This avoids fragmenting the audience and reinforces the idea of a single living world rather than separate modes.

The Real Opportunity: Systems, Not Modes

Whilst this article and discussion focuses heavily on specific directions, I believe beyond that the future of co-op shooters isn’t all about adding roguelite elements or PvPvE modes.

It’s about building:

• “Persistent” and/or “adaptive” worlds in combination.

• Systemic progression.

• Shared environments and conditions.

• Emergent game and team dynamics.

• Risk economies that feel meaningful.

Note: I cover some things like emergent and systemic mechanics in my past articles, which relate heavily to where I think games are going. Whilst the article what I’ve written focuses on F2P games, these games can be also premium or premium + microtransactions based. Read more here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/28-systematic-and-emergent-gameplay):

Studios like Housemarque are already showing how high-production shooters can adopt roguelite DNA without losing emotional or cinematic impact. The next leap is socializing those systems (which and Bad Robot Games is looking to showcase) making progression shared, tension communal, and outcomes unpredictable because other players exist inside the same systemic web.

That’s where co-op shooters stop being content-driven experiences and become living ecosystems.

Not just mechanical power (e.g., DPS, levels, gear, rank), but social power. Who gets to shine within your social systems. Who gets listened to. Who sets the tone. Who influences the economy. Who defines what “meta” even means. Who overall has power and equity on social side.

As more and more games can evolve (if designed right) into persistent ecosystems rather than isolated products, social equity has quietly become one of the most important (/and sometimes least intentionally designed) progression layers in modern game development.

It exists in its simplest form around three overlapping spaces:

1. Inside the game

2. Around the game (systems & meta layers)

3. Outside the game (community, creators, and culture)

And, within each of these, there are both tangible and intangible forms of power.

With great social power and equity comes great responsibility.

Understanding this is no longer optional for developers. It is a core part of how games grow, stabilize, fracture, or even in some circumstances collapse.

What is Social Equity?

Social equity is a player’s accumulated power through systems as well as influence, trust, recognition, and authority within a game ecosystem.

It is by some form of definition a combination of:

• Systemic power

• Reputation

• Authority

• Credibility

• Access

• Network position

• Cultural relevance

It compounds over time, much like wealth or skill. And like any economy, it has visible (tangible) and invisible (intangible) forms.

Social Equity Inside the Game

This is where design can intentionally shape power.

Tangible Social Equity in the Game

These are system-recognized markers of influence, such as:

• Guild leadership roles

• Raid leaders and strategists

• High-ranked PvP players

• Economy controllers (traders, crafters, auction manipulators)

• Territory owners

• Clan founders

• World-first achievers

Some genres where this thrives:

• MMOs / MMORPGs

• Extraction shooters

• Sandbox RPGs

• Strategy and survival games

System-driven Examples

Guild ecosystems:

• Guild owner controls access, direction, and social hierarchy.

• “Officers” gain trust-based power.

• Recruitment decisions shape player pipelines.

Raid leadership:

• Knowledge = power.

• Strategy creators become “institutional memory”.

• Social equity accumulates through success repetition.

Economy dominance:

• Players controlling crafting chains become indispensable.

• Auction house experts dictate supply flows.

• Resource “cartel” behavior emerges.

Extraction shooters:

• Shot-callers determine team survival.

• Route planners hold tactical authority.

• Trust networks determine squad inclusion.

Designers can actively enable this:

• Visible leadership ladders

• Reputation scoring

• Guild (legacy) systems

• Economy influence tools

• Social progression tracks

These mechanics transform players from consumers into actors in a social power structure.

Intangible Social Equity in the Game

This is harder to measure, but often very powerful.

• “That player who always helps newbies”

• “A friend with whom I always like to play”

• The strategist everyone trusts

• The calm voice during raids

• The person who never tilts

• The lore / theorycraft expert

• The culture-setter

These players in some games:

• Hold no formal rank

• Own no territory

• Have no mechanical dominance

Yet they anchor communities. They are social infrastructure. Design sometimes acknowledges them, sometimes not.

Possible system supports:

• Endorsement systems

• Mentorship rewards

• Social commendations

• Community contribution metrics

Social Equity Around the Game

This is where power starts to escape pure gameplay.

It exists in e.g.,:

• Discord leadership within superfans

• Strategy creators

• Build theorycrafters

• Modders

• Tool creators

• Data miners

These actors shape:

• The meta

• The narrative

• The perceived “truth” about the game

And their power can rival developers’ power.

Example Drivers

MMOs

• Theorycraft communities dictate builds

• Guild recruitment channels gate progression access

Extraction shooters

• Route maps spread across communities

• Risk/loot strategies normalize through social sharing

RPGs

• Optimal build creators define “correct play”

These systems produce social power and quity, as well as sometimes things like knowledge power. And, if you get knowledge power, it often translates to social equity. Designers can either, ignore it, fight it, or build for it. Building is the future.

Examples of design support for building it with the ones owning social equity and power:

• Official theorycrafting tools

• Public API data access

• Creator sandbox environments

• Community guide integrations

• Player knowledge hubs inside the game

• Involvement campaigns / events

• Etc.

Social Equity Outside the Game

This is where the phenomenon becomes explosive, in a good (or bad) way. Creators, influencers, and community leaders operate in an entirely separate power layer.

This is one layer that can:

• Uplift a game

• Redirect audience

• Expose its weaknesses

• Break its economy

• Define its public perception

And crucially:

Developers do not often control it.

Of course, not controlling it is not always the pure fact as you can build e.g., social and community proximity systems to support the overall systems design approach of the game; however, even with this approach, there’s a strong emergent nature of things into which developers cannot still affect in full.

Note: Interested about social and community proximity systems approach? Read more about it here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/59-the-power-of-proximity):

Creator-Driven Power

Influencers today act as:

• Sentiment engines

• Watchdogs

• Amplifiers

• Meta-setters

• Cultural translators

They accumulate massive social equity.

Examples

Investigative Creators

Creators like TheBurntPeanut builds authority within ARC Raiders by:

• Exposing bugs

• Revealing exploits

• Demonstrating macro abuse

• Showing duplication or system manipulation

This generates:

• Trust from players

• Pressure on developers

• Authority over the game’s “truth”

They become part of the governance layer. Not officially, but functionally if there are no means to control it even partially.

Growth Catalysts

Some creators hold so much social equity they can directly affect a game’s trajectory.

Large creators can:

• Reignite dormant titles

• Shift sentiment overnight

• Legitimize returning to a game

• Normalize new metas or updates

When a creator invests emotionally into a game, their audience often follows. This is what for example Jynxzi has done for Clash Royale (more about this below in an example of where things have gone from lucrative growth “collab.”).

This can:

• Drive organic growth

• Increase retention

• Revive cultural relevance

But it also creates a dependency risk.

The Dangerous Side of Social Equity

Here’s where developers often underestimate the phenomenon. Social equity is fragile, and relational.

If players feel:

• Ignored

• Unrecognized

• Used

• Disrespected

The backlash is amplified by those who hold social power. A single high-equity creator feeling dismissed can trigger e.g., community fragmentation, negative narrative loops, distrust in developers, and/or sentiment collapse

And once social equity flips from positive → adversarial, recovery is slow.

Recent Example

As a recent example, over how things can escalate, Supercell did just publish its CEO’s yearly review, which acknowledged both the multi-billion dollar growth and enormous profit, incl. Clash Royale’s (CR) growth in 2025.

The yearly review included highlights of e.g., how CR achieve big growth last year, with big thanks to its team, and such. But, what was missing was the players’ and creators’ side totally; especially, the side where one of the creators / influencers, Jynxzi, had played part of reigniting the title’s growth.

There’s a great analysis by Matthew Emery on LinkedIn (Analysis / post here on his LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/matthewemery_1-activity-7402024878297747456-Ppsk) around how Clash Royale’s growth can be tracked being partly thanks to Jynxzi’s efforts. I recommend you all reading and checking it through to understand the phenomena better.

A snapshot of Matthew’s deep dive and analysis on how Jynxzi played part in reviving Clash Royale in 2025. (Source: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/matthewemery_1-activity-7402024878297747456-Ppsk | Credit: Matthew Emery, Turbine Games Consulting)

So, a creator / influencer can drive enormous growth through social power and equity. And, it can be both, very lucrative, and/or dangerous.

What followed Supercell CEO’s announcement, was “a spit on Jynxzi’s” face, as he put it himself via X:

Jynxzi’s post on X about Supercell’s latest yearly review. (Source: https://x.com/jynxzi/status/2021283304649970153)

I’m not sure where this leads. This post has received quite a lot of attention, incl. other influencers such as MrBeast:

Mr Beast’s comment on X to Jynxzi’s post. (Source: https://x.com/MrBeast/status/2021308068856754612)

Overall, despite not knowing how this escalates, if not at all, I’m sure, anyhow, that this is something that could have been completely avoided, especially if the player / community layer would have been kept fully in mind. Of course, life is sometimes a lot about learning, so I’m hoping the learnings from this will be taken properly into account for future statements.

What happened here is of course anything new. Even bigger publishers in the market tend to ignore many times the players’ and creators’ side, which has caused similar things to happen.

We can plan and do better definitely, as the growth of certain individuals’ social equity and power is not going away any time soon, and it should be treated well.

Recognition Matters

There have been moments in the industry where:

• A game’s resurgence is driven by community energy

• Influencers re-legitimize a title

• Players rebuild cultural momentum

But official narratives sometimes credit only:

• UA campaigns

• Updates

• Internal teams

…Leaving out community drivers.

Even if growth is multi-factorial, which it always is, omission matters. Because to high-equity contributors: recognition = respect. And respect sustains alignment.

Ignoring social equity doesn’t neutralize it. It weaponizes it. And, usually, it would be best to weaponize yourself with it instead having your players turning against you.

Designing for Social Equity

The key point for developers: stop treating social power as accidental. Instead, start treating it as a designable progression layer.

Systems Growing Social Equity Intentionally

Player-level Examples

• Reputation ladders

• Mentorship paths

• Knowledge contribution rewards

• Social achievements

Guild-level Examples

• Legacy systems

• Inter-guild diplomacy

• Governance mechanics

• Cultural identity building

Community-level Examples

• Creator programs

• Transparent recognition loops

• Player voice

• Shared roadmap input

• Collaborations, incl. event collabs.

Meta-level Examples

• Social systems

• Player-driven economies

• Strategic knowledge networks

• Territory and influence layers

Note: Related articles:

The Core Truth

Players don’t just grind power.

They grind:

• Influence

• Recognition

• Authority

• Identity

Social equity becomes in many cases:

• The real endgame

• The real retention driver

• The real emotional glue

In MMOs, RPGs, extraction shooters, and social strategy games, players stay not because of content, but because of their position in a social structure. You’ll shine when that structure is enabling and honoring them, and they leave when that structure disappears.

The next generation of successful games will not just design:

• Progression systems

• Economies

• Combat loops

They will design social hierarchies, influence pathways, and recognition systems. Because the true persistent resource in live games isn’t gold, loot, or gear. It’s a lot about social equity.

And the studios who understand how to nurture it, inside the game, around it, and outside it, won’t just build games. They’ll build living games with long tails.

Snapshot from Merge’s continuous growth (Source: AppMagic).

They proved that players are not just willing to optimize systems; they actively enjoy doing so when the interaction layer is tactile, readable, and emotionally framed.

At the same time, simulation games, from farming and factory builders to tycoon-style experiences, have remained as durable and scalable products in e.g., mobile and PC. These games are built on production chains, expansion, optimization, and infrastructure growth. Their strength has always been systemic depth. Of course, they might lack things like emergent gameplay, which I’ve covered here previously (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/58-emergent-gameplay-and-social-depth):

Yet, despite both genres’ parallel business case feasibility, the industry has largely treated merge and simulation as separate genres.

At a systems level, merge games and simulation games are strikingly similar; arguably more similar than most designers have explicitly acknowledged. And when viewed through that lens, a new subgenre begins to take shape: Simulation Merge.

Not a merge game with simulation features, and not a simulator with a merge mechanic. Simulation Merge is a unified design philosophy where e.g., merging becomes a production interface, and simulation becomes the macro-layer that gives that production meaning (there can be other points of views to approaching this as well).

Structural Similarity

The surface differences between merge and simulation are obvious.

Merge games present:

• Boards

• Generators

• Item tiers

• Delivery orders

Simulation games present:

• Factories

• Supply chains

• Infrastructure

• Expansion

When you step away from the interface and look e.g., at the economy sheet, the actual systemic logic, the similarities are almost one-to-one.

Both genres rely on:

• Inputs → outputs

• Recipe discovery

• Tier escalation

• Unlock progression

• Resource gating

• Demand loops

• Optimization

In simulation:

• Resources go into a factory.

• Factories output components.

• Components feed upgrades, construction, and/or deliveries.

In merge:

• Generators output items.

• Items combine into higher tiers.

• Outputs fulfill e.g., customer demands.

The interaction model differs. The system underneath is fundamentally the same. This is where merging and simulation can interconnect naturally, as they are already variations of the same economic grammar.

Unified Genre

Simulation Merge emerges when we stop treating merge as a content mechanic and start treating it as a production interface (again, there can be other points of views to this); AND, similarly, when we stop treating simulation as a background economy and start making it playable through merging.

The hybridization opens up a new design space that extends beyond:

• Classic grid merge

• Isometric merge

…and infuses them with:

• Production chains

• Infrastructure

• Workforce systems

• Expansion

• Automation

• Logistics

The result is not simply “more features.” It is a shift in how the player interacts with economies. Merge becomes the tactile layer, and simulation becomes the systemic layer. Together, they can be structured to form a continuous loop.

The Core Simulation Merge Loop

A foundational loop for the genre could look like this:

1. Generate:

   1. Generate e.g., items or resources through fields, factories, workers, and/or generators.

2. Merge:

   1. Merge outputs like items or resources into higher-tier materials and products.

3. Deliver:

   1. Deliver to customers, contracts, macro objectives, etc.

4. Expand:

   1. Expand land / areas / fields, factories, infrastructure, industrial capacity, tycoon, etc.

5. Unlock:

   1. Unlock new recipes, tiers, factories, tools, areas, and production logic.

6. Combine systems:

   1. Combine merge outputs with simulation systems, e.g., mechanics from above to later expansion, automating, etc.

With this core loop, merging is no longer a contained board activity. It becomes part of a living production ecosystem.

Theme Expansion from Casual to Midcore

One of the most powerful aspects of Simulation Merge is how naturally it scales. Heck, it could go even that far that you can formalize new sub-genres of these as well, when you think about the possibilities.

Farming

Grow crops → merge produce → process in factories → sell → expand farmland → manage workforce.

Luxury production

Merge components → craft jewelry / fashion → manage storefronts → unlock brands → scale distribution.

Industrial factories

Extract resources → merge components → build machines → optimize supply chains.

Fantasy / Strategy

Produce weapons and armor → supply armies → conquer territory → manage logistics.

Push this further, and Simulation Merge begins to approach e.g.,:

• 4X-lite systems

• Guild economies

• Territory control

• MMO-like experience with 4X and/or supply networks

  • Or, maybe, this could be one of the new marketing-friendly onboardings to a 4X experience. No limits, what you do with this info, it is up to you.

Merge evolves from a casual mechanic into a systemic production interface, with possibilities to formalize new sub-genres beyond Simulation Merge.

Generators, Factories, and Hybrid Production

The most interesting design space lies in combining merge-native and simulation-native production. Generators produce merge-ready items. Factories require merge outputs. Hybrid nodes convert between both systems.

Progression unlocks:

• New generator types

• Specialized factories

• Infrastructure multipliers

• Production synergies

The player begins orchestrating systems rather than operating isolated mechanics; achieving entertaining systems extravaganza.

Automation and the Question of Control

Simulation Merge can also lean toward automation.

Workforces, managers, and idle systems allow:

• Production without constant input

• Strategic prioritization

• Tycoon-level decision making

But this introduces a key tension: How much should the player do manually? How much should the system do for them? Too much automation removes tactile satisfaction. Too little prevents scale.

The strongest progression likely evolves across phases:

• Early:

  • Hands-on merging.

• Mid:

  • Hybrid play.

• Late:

  • Orchestration and optimization.

The player moves from mechanic to tycoon manager.

Monetization: Two Economies, One Strategy

Simulation Merge inherits monetization vectors from both genres.

Merge brings:

• Energy

• Board expansion

• Generator upgrades

• Event boards

Simulation brings:

• Production acceleration

• Infrastructure upgrades

• Workforce optimization

• Expansion gating

Usually both also have similarities, from timers to other economic means. Combined (all above incl. similarities), this could be used to create a monetization surface that can be deeper than either genre alone.

The opportunity is not simply to stack monetization. It is to align it with progression orchestration where players invest not to skip actions, but to shape systems.

Marketability: Multiple Entry Points

Hybridization unlocks marketing advantages.

A Simulation Merge game can communicate through:

• Merge gameplay

• Simulation fantasy

• Production systems

This provides multiple creative vectors from day one. Instead of relying on e.g., misleading creatives to reach broader audiences, the product itself contains multiple truthful entry points. Proper marketing extravaganza!

UA can test:

• Tactile interaction

• Tycoon fantasy

• System optimization

• Etc.

The genre starts with breadth.

Live Ops as a System, Not a Layer

Live operations in Simulation Merge can interconnect systems rather than decorate them.

Examples:

• Temporary factories

• Event production chains

• Merge boards feeding global goals

• Economic disruptions

• Seasonal industries

• Etc.

Events affect production, production affects merge, and merge affects expansion. The game becomes a living economy rather than a rotating content schedule, if you systematically approach this the right way, which feeds your core loop as well as economy (and, furthermore, monetization).

Scale: From Simple to Tycoon to New Sub-Genres

Simulation Merge supports dramatic scaling.

A farm evolves into:

• Multiple regions

• Logistics networks

• Equipment systems

• Workforce layers

• Industrial processing

And, from this, eventually, the experience resembles a tycoon game. As also stated above, you can go even more far from this, e.g., if you bring 4X / Strategy / MMO-like elements to the combination, you can formalize actual sub-genres.

Themes Beyond Renovation

The genre is not limited to cozy or narrative-driven themes.

It can support:

• Candy and pastry empires

• Racing team production ecosystems

• Theme park operations

• Train, ship, and airline logistics

• Industrial megafactories

• Retail ecosystems

• Sci-fi colonies

• Fantasy themes

• Etc.

Each theme reshapes the economy while preserving the loop, on top of which you could systematically, as stated multiple times, approach new sub-genre possibilities from this.

Why the Subgenre Hasn’t Fully Formed Yet?

The pieces exist. Merge mastered content pipelines and emotional framing. Simulation mastered systemic depth and scale.

But they evolved in parallel. It makes sense, in terms of business cases. However, with raising competition and evolving consumer tastes, I’d say strategies need to evolve with more bolder takes.

Simulation Merge requires designing both layers as one system from day one. Not feature stacking. Not surface hybridization. Systemic integration. Proper game and systems designers with economy and monetization understanding to build it right.

This is blue ocean with many fish and whales to go for, when you combine marketability / UA, product engagement, monetization, live ops, and growth right.

Simulation Merge as Its Own Category

If executed fully, Simulation Merge can easily become its own category (I believe one or another way, it’s inevitable. And, actually, as this is economically and from systems point of view very straight-forward, I would be surprised if we wouldn’t already have games leaning on this side).

Simulation Merge can be defined by:

• Tactile production

• Systemic economies

• Casual entry

• Midcore scalability

• Multi-layer monetization

• Multi-vector marketing

• (Multi-vector) Live economies

And most importantly: A structure that grows with the player. From merging to managing to orchestrating. A genre where interaction and systems are not separate layers, but the same language expressed at different scales.

That is the promise of Simulation Merge.

In modern game and systems design, proximity shouldn’t be thought about being just about distance. When you dive deeper into it as a topic, it’s actually more of a driver of e.g., tension, sociality, economy, and emergent play.

Whether players virtually close in a gunfight in an extraction shooter or physically meet for an event (e.g., in Pokémon GO), the relative closeness between agents, human and/or AI, can be designed to e.g., trigger mechanics, influence decisions, and shape event entire economic systems. Unlike many flat mechanics, proximity can be designed to bridge core gameplay, meta gameplay, social interaction, and monetization into a spatially anchored experience.

In the context of what I’ve explored in my blog, from social and systemic design to hybrid emergent economies, understanding proximity isn’t just an incremental tweak; it should be thought actually as a paradigm shift in how we architect compelling interactive worlds.

Note: Some of the mentioned explorations can be found from here:

Proximity’s Dimensions in Game Design

At its simplest, proximity refers to spatial relationships between elements, e.g., characters, objects, events, players, etc. in a game world and how those relationships matter to experience and outcomes.

Designers use proximity to e.g.,:

• Trigger interactions (e.g., alert AI, engage combat).

• Influence detection and stealth (e.g., whether an enemy sees the player).

• Shape tactical decision-making and risk/reward trade-offs.

But, I don’t think proximity is just about geometric distance.

It’s perceived closeness / presence, social relevance, and (temporal) anticipation of action. In social design patterns, proximity can be set being one of the fundamental catalysts that turn strangers into acquaintances by regularly bringing them into shared spatial contexts.

In a shooters, proximity increases tension, e.g., enemies heard around a corner boost excitement. In strategy, proximity to contested objectives shapes e.g., alliance behavior. In narrative puzzles, proximity of story threads draws players deeper into world logic and narrative through spaces you can decorate and co-work (usually very light (puzzles, you can do better!), but proximity-based design can be still be seen used).

These are design levers that intersect core loops, meta systems, and economic incentives.

Proximity Across Genres: Core Gameplay and Meta Economics

Extraction Shooters

In extraction shooters like Hunt: Showdown or ARC Raiders, proximity determines risk and reward.

Approaching a contested space isn’t just spatial, it’s an economic decision related to core gameplay and experience: stay back, avoid conflict but risk extraction delay, or move close and engage for e.g., loot but risk loss. These dynamics tie proximity directly into the core loop and core and meta economic sides.

Here, proximity isn’t just conceptually abstract as well. For example, audio layers such as proximity mic / chat increase social dynamics by letting you hear and react to players based on distance and direction, creating tension-filled friend / enemy encounters and deeper decision systems.

4X Strategy

In 4X and MMO strategy, proximity isn’t literal on the map; it connects behaviors.

Being near an enemy faction’s territory prods diplomatic choices, joint guild action, and/or opportunistic raids. These are spatially influenced economic and political decisions. In hybrid systems proximity can trigger emergent conflict, alliance multiverse outcomes, and resource scarcity shocks.

In my work on social systems, I’ve explored how e.g., group monetization and collective decision-making evolve directly from gameplay mechanics, with proximity sometimes acting as the connective tissue that turns individual actions into shared economic pressure. More of this can be found e.g., below links.

Puzzle & Narrative

Even in very casual and non-spatial genres like match-3 or merge puzzles, proximity can be abstracted into narrative co-location, meta events, and world-composition systems.

Players might unlock story arcs when their progression paths align through a form of narrative proximity that fuels progression economies one or another way. Puzzles are still, though, pretty light on this, and they could do much better.

This ties to some of the concepts I’ve wrote about (again, what I’ve wrote, you can start exploring from previous section’s links), extending proximity beyond tactical spatial pressure into e.g., emergent narrative loops.

Faces of Proximity

Virtual Proximity

Virtual proximity encompasses e.g., perceived, relational, and emergent closeness in digital universes: whether visually (e.g., NPCs approaching players), tactically (e.g., objectives converging), or socially (e.g., shared zones). In multiplayer spaces, a sense of co-presence and social proximity significantly affects engagement and retention, especially when playing cooperatively over competitive play.

This has direct implications for emergent economies: spatial bottlenecks become trade hubs, contested zones become market arbitrage opportunities, and proximity-induced tension can create organic demand cycles (e.g., evacuation missions, limited-time safe zone, etc.)

Physical Proximity

Whilst it’s a very small probability to have this being successful addition to a game, physical proximity mechanics have in some unicorn cases (unicorn cases means also they’re very rare to happen, incl. facts that many have failed on this) proven themselves commercially viable in games like Pokémon GO (of course, they could do much more here given the success of the game), where e.g., GPS / location/map-based proximity drives gameplay interaction.

These systems, when done properly, usually blur into daily routines along with play, tapping into psychological proxemics, the inherent distance humans maintain in social settings, and translating it into persistent play motivation. Real physical space can become a game experience, transforming everyday movement into emergent economic systems.

Mixed Proximity: Bridging Physical & Virtual

Whilst physical proximity alone is interesting as a concept, in my opinion mixed proximity as a concept retains much more business potential than many thinks about.

Mixed proximity blends physical presence and virtual dynamics into seamless experiences. This is all about, for example, hybrid systems where proximity unlocks virtual guild missions when players are near each other, or where strategic military maps update based on real world proximity of squad devices. Some of these solutions exists or have been tested already, whilst some are waiting for someone to implement them (e.g., in some strategy/4X titles lots of mechanics could be tied to a mix of all of this).

Mobile platforms and cross-platform interactivity can further enable this fusion, through tying real physical presence to virtual system states, emergent events, and collective monetization opportunities that aren’t purely pay-to-progress but pay-to-cohere, reinforcing belonging and shared agency.

These mechanisms don’t need to be also fully location-dependent as well. I think it is good to have optionality and/or systems-based approach to this, which allows for participation from the main place where you’re playing normally, instead of moving around. Mechanics supporting this can be as simple as e.g., convoy mechanisms being based on a mix of virtual and physical presence, where e.g., on a pseudo 4X game setting you could have physical location being setting time-based durations for your convoys towards other players.

(Abstract) Systems Proximity

Beyond those straight-forward proximity examples, there’s more. One of the most underexplored aspects of proximity in game design is (abstract) systems proximity, which isn’t measured in meters, tiles, or coordinates, but e.g., in systems state or systems “nearness”.

Systems proximity exists when players, groups, or entities become “close” to each other through:

• Progression state / phase.

• Shared objectives or dependencies.

• Economic exposure.

• Narrative alignment.

• Systemic interdependence.

In these cases, proximity is not about where you are, but about how entangled you are.

Two players in a merge game unlocking the same world chapter are not spatially close, but systemically, they are. Players positioned in a leaderboards can be close to each other. Two guilds competing for influence in a 4X map might be geographically distant, yet economically and politically adjacent because their actions directly affect each other’s outcomes. Proximity here can be defined by e.g., impact radius, not physical distance.

This kind of proximity is especially powerful because it can scale across genres that lack strong spatial gameplay, and on the other side feeds into meta systems, economies, and social structures through systems state point of view.

Systems proximity allows designers to create pressure without forcing confrontation, connection without forced co-play, and tension without constant conflict. It is proximity as latent potential, not constant action.

Social Proximity

Closely related, but usually left unexplored as well, is social proximity.

Most games treat social systems as binary:

• You’re in a guild or you’re not.

• You’re friends or you’re strangers.

• You’re matched together or separated.

But proximity allows social systems to be more of something I’d call “gradient-based”, not binary.

Social proximity can be designed around:

• (Frequency of) direct/indirect interaction.

• Shared exposure to events or risks.

• Partial economic dependencies.

• Overlapping goals without full alignment.

• Etc.

This is where strangers become familiar, familiar players become rivals, and rivals sometimes become allies. Not because the game told them to, but because systems repeatedly brought them near each other in meaningful ways.

Importantly, social proximity doesn’t require constant communication. In fact, some of the strongest social bonds in games emerge through:

• Seeing the same names repeatedly in contested spaces.

• Competing over the same resources across cycles.

• Contributing asymmetrically to shared outcomes.

• Existing in each other’s “economic shadow”.

This kind of proximity is especially potent for future social systems, where community formation, group monetization, and collective decision-making emerge from gameplay rather than being layered on top of it.

Here, proximity becomes the mechanism that:

• Converts individual play into collective pressure.

• Turns communities into economic actors.

• Allows monetization to operate at the group level without explicit coercion.

In other words, social proximity is what allows games to monetize belonging, influence, and shared fate, and not just time or power.

Systems & Social Proximity: New Mindset for Economies

When proximity becomes abstract / systems initiated, and social, economies can turn a page.

Instead of asking “How close are players to content?”, games begin asking: “How exposed are players to each other’s decisions?”

This enables e.g.,:

• Soft competition instead of zero-sum conflict.

• Emergent cooperation driven by system incentives.

• Scarcity created by overlapping demand, not fixed limits.

• Monetization that reinforces social cohesion instead of breaking it.

Systems proximity is something that can allow certain economies to feel alive; responsive to (social) player behavior rather than scripted progression paths. It is also what makes emergent systems legible: players understand who they are close to and why, even if they never share the same physical space.

Systemic Relationship Matters

Most games already use proximity, but mostly at the surface level:

• Combat ranges.

• Trigger volumes.

• Matchmaking pools.

The real opportunity lies deeper: designing proximity as a systemic relationship, not a coordinate. As games continue to move toward with this mindset, we can see:

• Persistent worlds.

• Social-first economies.

• Emergent live operations.

• Group-based monetization.

Abstract and social proximity can, at right hands, become one of the most important design tools we have, even if players never see it labeled as such.

Community Proximity

Beyond social proximity between players inside the game, there’s a another and increasingly powerful layer: community proximity.

Community proximity is about how close the game itself feels to the player’s everyday life through social and community based point of view, even when they are not actively playing. It describes the perceived distance between the player and the wider game community: how visible it is, how present it feels, how easily the player can “step back in.”, and how easily you can engage / play with the community around your game. This isn’t proximity between individual players. It’s proximity between the player and the living ecosystem around the game.

A game with strong community proximity doesn’t disappear when you close the app.

Community Proximity as Engagement Engine

One of the most underestimated drivers of long-term engagement is not content cadence or progression depth, but how often the game comes back to the player in meaningful ways. Community proximity can be used to achieve exactly this.

When players:

• See clips, memes, or strategy discussions in their feeds.

• Get pulled into Discord conversations about ongoing events.

• Watch Twitch streams or YouTube breakdowns.

• Read Reddit threads reacting to balance changes or emergent moments.

They are re-entering the game mentally and socially, even if not mechanically.

This lowers the friction of returning / increases the overall engagement. Logging back in no longer feels like “starting again”; it feels like continuing something already in motion. The community keeps the game warm.

From a systems perspective, this acts as a meta retention loop:

• Play → Engage with community → Stay contextually close → Return to play.

Importantly, this loop is often stronger than direct notifications or live-ops prompts, because it’s socially mediated rather than system-pushed. However, even said it’s mediated socially, it actually can be tailored from systems point of view to be a phenomena, that initiates from it and self-feeds itself.

Community Proximity as Marketing Vector

Community proximity also reshapes marketing. When a player engages with game-related content on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube, algorithms begin to move the community closer.

The game’s ecosystem starts appearing:

• In e.g., Facebook reels.

• In short-form clips.

• In recommended videos.

• In comment threads.

• As recommended content on your feed.

At that point, the community doesn’t just exist “somewhere else”, it literally shows up on e.g., the player’s phone. This is a different form of proximity than traditional UA:

• It’s persistent, not campaign-based.

• Contextual, not interruptive.

• Social, not transactional.

From a design lens, this means community proximity can function as a soft acquisition and reactivation system, driven by relevance rather than spend.

This is at least how it usually goes as a soft acquisition and reactivation system. But, thinking beyond that, can it be tailored to happen as a phenomena? I’d say yes, if you systematically approach it and can get your community to engage in content creation for this purpose and sharing it the right ways with proper frequency and volume. With the era of agentic AI as well, I’m pretty sure, even this is clearly on the grey zone, you could drive this pretty effectively around various networks through AI agents.

Discord and the Shrinking Distance Between Community and Play

Discord gets a bit more mentions here. It’s no longer just a chat / community tool, it’s becoming a proto-platform for games themselves.

Discord allows:

• Game sessions to be initiated directly from servers.

• Players to move from conversation to play with almost no friction.

• Communities to organize around events, modes, and social roles.

In some cases, the boundary between “being in the community” and “playing the game” becomes almost invisible. This is still surprisingly underexplored still as far as I know. Of course, many do it, but it’s still unleveraged front.

Most games treat Discord as:

• A support channel.

• A broadcast tool.

• A moderation channel.

Very few treat it as a systemic extension of the game layer, where proximity to the community directly affects when, how, and with whom you play.

Yet the potential is obvious:

• Community-driven session formation.

• Proximity-based invites (“people active right now”).

• Event triggers originating from community activity, not just in-game states.

There’s of course many implementations of aiming to do this same for games initiated from other platforms than it, like Hunt: Showdown and many games do community contests and things like that, that aim to bridge the community proximity.

Community Proximity Beyond the West

Game and community initiation / engagement topic around community proximity becomes even more interesting when looking at Asian markets.

Platforms like:

• LINE.

• WeChat.

• KakaoTalk.

Already function as hybrid social–platform ecosystems, where games, payments, identity, and community overlap far more tightly than in most Western stacks.

In these environments, community proximity is often:

• Default, not optional.

• Embedded into daily communication / life.

• Closer to the player than the game client itself.

Games launched or integrated into these ecosystems benefit from an always-on sense of closeness: the game lives where players already are.

This points to the systems side that community proximity isn’t just a content or marketing challenge, it’s a platform strategy question related to systems thinking.

From Underdesigned to a Norm

Despite its impact, community proximity is rarely treated as a designed system.

Most games:

• Measure community size, not community distance.

• Optimize engagement inside the client, and light layers around it.

• Separate “marketing” from “systems design”.

But, if you think about it the right way: community proximity sits exactly at that intersection. When designed intentionally, it can:

• Reduce churn without adding content.

• Increase return frequency without notifications.

• Turn communities into retention and discovery engines.

• Make the game feel alive even during downtime.

In other words, community proximity doesn’t just support the game; it extends its playable and perceivable surface.

Proximity as a Lever for Emergence, Systems Design & Monetization

As emergent and systemic design gains traction (at least when designers realize its potential and start to pick it up more), proximity can be a core agent of progression and economy, not just a mechanic.

Intrinsic & Systemic Economies

When proximity triggers meaningful social interaction, like collaboratively capturing a stronghold or pooling resources, it becomes economic (at least in games involving actual social gameplay with interdependencies).

Players invest time, skills, and sometimes currency into shared proximity states / systems that e.g., unlock group rewards. These taps into intrinsic motivations (competence, autonomy, relatedness); a theme I’ve explored deeply in my articles covering intrinsic strategies and monetization.

Note: Some of the related articles can be found from here:

Monetization Futures

Proximity isn’t just about core or meta sides. Proximity-activated mechanics can spawn new monetization vectors such as:

• Proximity passes; unlock benefits when co-near guildmates.

• Emergent event boosts; triggered when players cluster near objectives.

• Location-linked cosmetic unlocks; exclusive to real world or virtual zones.

These tie into broader Social Group Monetization frameworks championed in my recent systems design explorations.

Note: Some sources to start with:

The Next Frontier of Interactive Proximity

Proximity isn’t simply about distance as we’re moving forward with our designs. It’s a design substrate for e.g., tension, social systems, emergent economies, and monetization.

By integrating proximity into the fabric of game systems much deeper (and/or just by understanding it more deeply), designers can craft experiences that feel dynamic, socially rich, and economically meaningful.

As platforms, devices, and player expectations go, proximity should already be a central pillar of systemic design, supporting everything from core loops to e.g., as far as cross-platform emergent ecosystems go. This is how games become living worlds, and where more of the next generation of monetization, engagement, and community depth can emerge.

In my earlier writing, I have returned many times to the idea that great games are not content machines but system engines. Places where meaning emerges from interaction rather than from scripted outcomes. Builder, tycoon, and simulation games historically understood this intuitively, like with environmental hazards and events. Somewhere along the road to scale and F2P monetization, much of that confidence was lost. As my industry connection wrote (when we discussed about this together, which also sparked idea to write this article): “It was to a degree a deliberate choice as not to endanger value of IAPs made by players.” We both agreed to this that this has been a very simplistic way of seeing things, and lots of depth lies within the emergent side.

This article is about reclaiming what was once lost, and expanding the conversation beyond economies into emergent gameplay as a whole. Knowing what emergent design and gameplay means nowadays, there lies lots of opportunities for many to take. These opportunities are actually that big that there is even a possibility to form new types of emergent sub-genres inside builder, tycoon and simulation genres.

The Roots of Emergence in the Genre

Early builder and simulation games trusted the world to push back. Environmental hazards were not special events or opt in challenges. They were constants. Floods, fires, disease, worker strikes, supply shortages, collapsing trade routes, and pollution spirals were not punishments. They were consequences.

In early city builders, transport simulations, and colony management games, players were never fully in control. Systems overlapped and interfered with one another. A decision made for efficiency in one layer often created fragility in another. The joy came from observing the system, forming mental models, and adapting under pressure.

Tycoon games taught players that optimization always carries risk. A perfectly tuned factory was efficient but brittle. A diversified and slightly messy operation was often more resilient. Simulation games taught lessons about economics, ecology, logistics, and social systems not through tutorials, but by letting players fail in believable ways.

This acceptance of loss and instability was not niche. It was foundational. Audiences embraced it because failure felt earned and recovery felt meaningful. Emergent gameplay was not an added feature. It was part of the core experience.

When F2P Arrived, Emergence Went Quiet

When F2P became dominant, especially on mobile, a design fear crept in. Loss became dangerous. If players could lose progress, efficiency, or systemic advantage, then IAPs would feel unsafe. The response was to sand down volatility and constrain emergence.

Environmental hazards became cosmetic, scripted, or optional (or, well, in some games, they went to total zero). Social friction was minimized or removed in some cases as well. Systems were isolated from one another to prevent cascading failure states. Gameplay became more deterministic, more reversible, and less expressive. Economies became linear and inflationary rather than cyclical and self correcting.

This was not incompetence. It was a deliberate choice. Protect the perceived value of IAPs. Avoid states where a spender could feel regret or loss connected to money.

There’s a but: this framing is simplistic. It assumes that value is only stored in persistent accumulation. It assumes that players only tolerate positive progression. It ignores decades of evidence from strategy, simulation, and competitive genres where players, including spenders, routinely accept loss if the rules are clear and the systems are transparent on this. In some games, players can invest heavily and still lose territory, units, or advantages through poor decisions or social conflict. The spending is not invalidated. It is contextualized. Mastery, decision making, and adaptation still matter.

The same logic can apply here as a reference, when we enter the new emergent era for builder, simulation and tycoon games.

Emergent Gameplay Does Not Have to Destroy All Value

The key mistake is tying all value directly to fragile and loss exposed resources. If every IAP reinforces a single economic or power node, then any systemic loss threatens monetization. But, as an example, if value is layered (of course, you need to be careful in layering systems), expressive, and partially abstracted, then emergence becomes safe.

There are many design paths to achieve more opportunities on this front:

• One approach is separation. Environmental and systemic volatility operates on layers that are not directly purchased. Weather, labor morale, supply chain instability, political pressure, or ecological collapse affect efficiency, reach, or priorities, not ownership. The player still owns what they bought, but must continuously reinterpret how to use it.

• Another approach is indirect coupling. A disaster might destroy output or force a shutdown, but unlock reconstruction opportunities, recovery arcs, prestige projects, or social leadership roles. Loss becomes a narrative and systemic transformation rather than a deletion.

• A third approach is reframing IAPs away from raw power and toward optionality, resilience, and expression. Players do not buy immunity from systems. They buy tools, lenses, and levers that allow them to respond creatively and uniquely.

• And much more.

This is where emergent gameplay and monetization can reinforce each other instead of colliding.

Note: I have wrote about systematic and emergent gameplay in the past. Interested to read more about the opportunities these design directions offer? Check my article here:

Examples of Emergent Gameplay Systems

Imagine a city builder where climate patterns slowly evolve over decades. Heat waves increase energy demand, water scarcity pressures agriculture, disease spreads differently across districts, and migration flows reshape neighborhoods. These systems interact continuously, not as scripted events. None of this deletes player purchases. Instead, it reshapes priorities, forces tradeoffs, and creates new player stories.

Monetization in this context does not sell protection from heat or disasters. It sells advanced planning tools, specialized infrastructure archetypes, long term policy frameworks, or advisory systems that help players interpret complexity. Spenders feel more capable, not more protected.

Another example. Think about a logistics tycoon where labor dynamics are fully emergent. Worker morale, unionization, skill migration, and cultural identity arise from wages, safety, commute times, and regional competition. A hyper optimized exploitative setup might be extremely profitable in the short term, but increasingly unstable.

IAPs here could unlock governance philosophies, corporate culture systems, training doctrines, or symbolic investments that influence behavior across the system. These do not guarantee success. They bias outcomes and open strategic space.

When looking further, in terms of examples, a colony simulation with emergent gameplay could lean to e.g., alien ecosystems, seasonal resource shifts, predator prey dynamics, or long term terraforming feedback loops. Players who over exploit trigger cascading consequences that reshape the world rather than simply reducing numbers.

Monetization can live in expedition doctrines, research paradigms, legacy blueprints, or cultural memory systems that persist across colonies. Even if a colony collapses, the player gains long term identity and systemic capital.

Loss is not punished. It can be transformed.

Social Systems as Emergence Multipliers

Social gameplay is still one of the most underused amplifier of emergent gameplay in this genre.

When players share a world directly or indirectly, systems gain meaning. Infrastructure decisions affect others. Environmental damage becomes a social externality. Risk becomes shared. Responsibility becomes visible. This is also something what builders, simulation and tycoon games can take from various MMOs.

Guilds, cooperatives, or factions can function as living systems themselves. One group over produces while another under invests. Trade imbalances form. Political pressure emerges. Conflicts arise not from scripted PvP but from systemic friction.

Crucially, social loss is more tolerable than solitary loss. When a shared project fails, it becomes a collective story. When a rival outmaneuvers your group, it feels earned rather than arbitrary.

Social monetization here becomes intrinsic. Players invest to support group identity, coordination capacity, reputation, and legacy. Prestige is earned through stewardship, recovery, leadership, and long term contribution, not just accumulation.

Examples include shared megastructures, regional infrastructure, disaster response systems, or cultural landmarks that require coordination, planning, and trust rather than spending shortcuts.

IAPs can enhance visibility, contribution clarity, historical recognition, and long term social memory within these systems. They do not bypass emergence. They sit inside it.

Note: Interested about social monetization and the depth it provides? See my articles about the topic here:

Intrinsic Monetization Inside Emergent Worlds

When systems are deep enough, players pay to engage, not to skip.

They pay for clarity in complexity, for expressive control, for identity persistence, and for long term narrative continuity.

In emergent builder and simulation games, this can take the form of historical records, advanced analytics, simulation lenses, scenario tools, legacy modifiers, or generational progression that survives individual failures.

Players might lose cities, factories, or colonies, but gain lineage, influence, philosophies, and reputational weight that shape future play.

This is where monetization aligns with meaning rather than fighting against it.

Note: Interested about intrinsic monetization strategies? Start here:

Why the Opportunity is Larger Now Than Before

We understand emergent and systemic design better than ever. Or, well, some proper designers do.

We have decades of examples from simulation, strategy, MMOs, and sandbox games. We know how feedback loops behave. We know how players read systems. We know how social pressure reshapes value perception.

The tools are also better. Live operations allow slow systemic evolution. Data enables tuning without flattening complexity. Communities are more willing to engage with depth when systems are legible and fair.

And, F2P no longer has to mean safe, static, and sterile.

If designers shift effort from protection to possibility, entirely new sub-genres can emerge. Social ecological city builders. Political simulation tycoons. Cooperative systemic worlds. Competitive stewardship games. Heck, even Extraction Shooter/RPG type of simulators (like imagine ARC Raiders simulator game, in which you send Raiders for looting to gather resources for your colonies). Sky’s the limit when we forget limitations and encourage innovation.

Closing Thoughts

Emergent gameplay was not a mistake of the past. It was a promise.

By avoiding it, many games, especially F2P builder and simulation games, traded depth for certainty. But certainty is not what keeps players engaged in the current state of the industry / market. Meaning does, in addition to immersive experiences.

The future of the genre lies in worlds that e.g., remember, react, and resist. In systems where loss teaches and recovery defines identity. In social spaces where value is shared, contested, and earned.

Monetization does not need to fear this. It can grow from it.

When we let worlds push back, players lean in.

Titles like Hunt: Showdown and Helldivers 2 have de(/re)fined the formula, emphasizing tension, high stakes, risk vs. reward, and emergent PvP / PvE drama. But such games have rarely dived deeply into e.g., persistent progression systems, player archetypes, or meta-systems beyond loot, basic unlocks, or gear — until now.

Enter ARC Raiders; Released in 2025 by Embark Studios, with a PvPvE extraction-shooter core, ARC Raiders brings more systemic, RPG-style progression and meta-systems into the mix. In doing so, it points to a possible future for the genre, towards one that blends extraction-shooter intensity with e.g., RPG / MMORPG / roguelite-inspired breadth and depth.

In this article, I analyze the depth of ARC Raiders’ “systems-orientation”, compare it against Hunt: Showdown and Helldivers 2; and, furthermore, explore how the genre could evolve further by more fully embracing RPG / MMO / roguelite design patterns: from e.g., classes, professions, and specialization paths to e.g., social hubs, persistent worlds, quests, professions, and emergent long-term progression.

Why ARC Raiders Already Feels Like a Hybrid Shooter-RPG

Persistent Progression & Skill Trees

In many extraction shooters, like in Hunt: Showdown, the progression is relatively light: you unlock weapons, items, and traits across play sessions, but core character growth beyond that is limited. In Helldivers 2 things go a bit further with some elements, yet remain light on some ends.

However, in contrast, ARC Raiders goes one step further:

• After raids, players earn XP which contributes to a permanent “raider level.” Even if you die and lose your raid loot, that XP isn’t lost.

• Leveling grants skill‐points to allocate into a three-way skill tree (Survival, Mobility, and Conditioning).

• These skill upgrades affect many aspects: loot detection, resource-gathering efficiency, movement / stamina / parkour, combat proficiencies, and even crafting / interaction with objects.

• Beyond that, there is a crafting and workbench system: extracted loot and schematics allow you to build and upgrade gear, weapons, tools, and even upgrade your workshop back at “base.”

• At higher meta-level, there is an “Expedition Project” mechanic — essentially a prestige / reset option: you can choose to wipe much of your progress (characters, gear, workshop upgrades), in exchange for long-term / permanent rewards.

This is an improvement for extraction shooters. Rather than treating each raid as standalone loot-runs, where death always resets everything, ARC Raiders gives players long-term sense of progression and growth. But more importantly: it gives choices. The optional prestige/reset system recognizes that different players value progression differently (some like permanence, some like clean-slate challenge).

Snapshot from SteamDB, showcasing ARC Raiders’ good start — showing player love towards the game and assumably its system-level choices and depth.

This layering of persistent RPG-style progression on top of moment-to-moment extraction tension is perhaps the most important genre-blending move ARC Raiders has made.

Player Archetypes, Playstyle Diversity, and Mixed Motivations

ARC Raiders doesn’t just layer RPG system. It opens space for different player archetypes and motivations to coexist, in ways less seen in extraction shooters.

• Whereas some extraction shooters focus predominantly on PvP + loot + fear-of-loss (for example, high-stakes duels like in Hunt: Showdown), ARC Raiders’ design allows for a range of motivations: some players might enjoy high-risk PvP raids; others might favor PvE cooperation, looting & crafting, or slow-burn progression through the skill tree. The mixture of PvPvE, crafting, and persistent progression caters to many archetypes and motivations.

• There are quests / mission-chains (through “Traders” / mission-givers) in addition to pure loot runs, giving the game more structure, narrative hooks, and meaning beyond “loot or die.”

• Crafting and base-workbench upgrades add yet another axis of engagement: players who like building, tinkering, optimizing, or experimenting with gear can enjoy that, not just shooters who like combat.

• The concurrent “battle-pass” (or reward-track) and multiple progression tracks (loot, gear, crafting, skills, quests) allow different kinds of players to prioritize what they enjoy; reducing grind fatigue and increasing agency.

In short, ARC Raiders embraces, to a considerable extent, the core design philosophy of RPGs or MMOs: that different players have different motivations, and that the “game” should support many possible ways to play, specialize, progress, and enjoy.

Comparing to Earlier Extraction Shooters

Hunt: Showdown — Minimalist & Tense

Hunt: Showdown (and earlier extraction shooters) built their tension largely around risk. In the game you find clues, hunt bosses, fight other hunters (incl. solo / duo / trio gameplay), and try to escape alive. The progression tends to be modest: weapon unlocks, items, and character traits. Additionally, there’s also a prestige progression (which just, though, grants you skins and light rewards, and nothing much more permanent — having it staying quite light vs. what prestige systems usually have in them) path you can go for. But overall the core identity stays around “gear-fear” and “moment-to-moment tension.”

This design works well for a game like Hunt: Showdown (they’ve been able to consistently maintain good active user counts through expanding content and running events) — but it also constrains the type of players who enjoy it. It’s less welcoming for people who prefer things like gradual progression, experimentation, crafting, or long-term investment.

Snapshot from SteamDB, showcasing Hunt: Showdown’s ability to keep its community engaged through years.

I have ~550 hours on Hunt: Showdown and enjoy playing it a lot. It has lots of good things on it, whilst it lacks lots of systems-orientation in terms of various possibilities it could have. Obviously I’m pretty sure Crytek knows this. However, with a game of so invested fan base (some of Hunt’s fans literally tattoo things from the game on their skin) it’s hard to make drastic changes to the equation that works; as there’s always a risk involved in changing a working equation drastically (even when the intentions would be good).

Of course, at some point some new choices might be needed to be made, as overall the competition grows in the market and games like Hunt might need to re-think their approach from onboarding to systems better, or studios running these games need to expand their IPs through introducing new things in the form of new titles.

Helldivers 2 — Co-op Shooter with Extraction Trappings

Helldivers 2 adds co-op + PvE against hordes of enemies, with stratagems and gear loadouts, but its core loop is a bit more mission-based rather than leaning that deep on loot-extraction-loop.

Given this, according to some critics and developers, Helldivers 2 doesn’t always “clearly fit under the extraction-shooter label” — on which I tend disagree; as there’s always variety within a genre.

Snapshot from SteamDB, showcasing Helldiver 2’s sustainability and how e.g., events / updates complement the game’s sutainability. Lots of players tend to enjoy of the game.

Helldivers 2’s emphasis is on tactical teamwork, equipment choices, and emergent side — not persistent loot-based progression or that deep meta systems. And, even by this, it’s enjoyable game — I’ve enjoyed playing it a lot as it has lots of fun points in it, in addition to bringing the nostalgia up from various references they use, incl. Terminator, Starship Troopers, Zombies (Left 4 Dead, etc.).

It will remain interesting to see how Helldivers 2 and ARC Raiders compete over time against each other, as they clearly have very differentiating takes on them, whilst on some levels the games look and a lot like same ones.

I would also hope ARC Raiders would put a Helldivers 2 meets ARC Raiders “lovechild” levels out there, where players would face more mass-fight type of PvE — and that we would get new enemy types to fight against instead of ARCs.

What Was Missing (for a Broader RPG/MMO-Inspired Evolution)

• No deep persistent character development beyond loadout or stratagem selection.

• Little to no “meta progression” (skill trees, persistent stats, crafting, base or hub building, long-term specializations).

• The social/structural systems tied to long-term commitment, such as clans, guilds, social hubs, economies, were rarely present.

• Few options for different playstyles or long-term investment outside “get good / extract / repeat.”

Hence, while the core extraction-shooter loop remained compelling, the “live-service / meta / RPG” dimension remains underdeveloped.

ARC Raiders as a Proof-of-Concept: Extraction + RPG/Systems Sustain Greater Potential

Given the contrast above, ARC Raiders stands out as an advanced attempt to merge extraction-shooter dynamics with RPG-inspired systems. Its strengths suggest multiple directions the genre might evolve, and hopefully goes towards to.

What Works Well in ARC Raiders

1. Persistent, Player-First Progression: The XP + skill-tree + crafting + workbench + optional prestige resets give players a sense of growth that persists beyond individual raids.

2. Multiple Motivations & Archetypes Supported: PvP-hunters, loot-scavengers, crafters, explorers, meta-progression grinders; all find something to do.

3. Accessible Entrance + Low Barrier for New Players: Despite systemic depth, the base mechanics (shooting, looting, extraction) remain familiar, and players can opt-in to deeper systems over time. This helps lower the entry barrier, whilst of course they could do a bit better on the FTUE and onboarding still, as the systems-level depth can be still overwhelming (but I don’t think Hunt: Showdown or Helldivers 2 do any better).

4. Meta Feedback Loop: The interplay between raids, crafting, base upgrades, skill-tree progression, optional resets (prestige), and rewards creates layered incentives and long-term engagement.

All this demonstrates that extraction shooters can indeed evolve beyond “shoot-loot-extract-repeat,” without losing their core tension and identity.

Potential Future Roadmap for Extraction Shooters

If developers are inspired by what ARC Raiders did, and push further, here are ways extraction shooters could evolve toward full-fledged hybrids of shooter + e.g., RPG / MMO / roguelite:

1. Class / Profession / Specialization Systems

Instead of a generic “skill tree + loot,” future games could introduce defined classes or professions (e.g. Scout / Medic / Engineer / Heavy / Hacker / Survival-Specialist / Looter), each with unique progression trees, abilities, roles, and even exclusive end-game paths.

• Professions could interplay with team composition and squad strategy.

• Specializations could lead to “crafting professions” or “base-building professions” (architect, technician, medic, etc.).

• Long-term progression could mean mastering a class — unlocking unique abilities, gear, or social roles (guild-level perks, prestige titles, leadership roles).

• Prestige systems could benefit from all things related to classes and specialization.

This is what traditional MMOs and RPGs do well, and the extraction-shooter loop of risk, loot, and tension could be enriched by the layering of class-based identity, role diversity, and social interdependence.

These classes / professions could be more pre-defined through selection of the path at the beginning — or if someone wants to go wild, all of the specializations could be coming in play through more advanced and complex systems like open skill / talent trees, etc. instead of fixed choices.

2. Persistent Social Hubs, Towns, Safe Zones, Player Bases & Economies

Rather than every session being a raid and a risk, there could be persistent “home bases,” towns, or hubs where players return between runs. In these hubs:

• Players trade, craft, customize gear, build social spaces.

• Guilds or factions could form, with shared resources, shared workshops, clan-specific progression paths.

• Players could build individual strongholds, crafting stations, or even contribute to shared structures (e.g. communal facilities).

• Economy mechanics (crafting materials, trade, supply-and-demand, markets) could emerge, making the meta-game about more than just personal loot.

This would mirror MMORPG / MMO design, but within a risk-driven, extraction-loop context. These systems also open up paths to social and intrinsic monetization strategies, whatever the business model would be (premium + microtransactions, or F2P).

Note: Interested about social and intrinsic monetization and their possibilities? Find more about the topics here:

3. Roguelite-Style Cycle + Layered Progression

Taking inspiration from roguelites, the genre could invite players to treat extraction runs as “runs” within larger campaigns:

• Temporary runs where failure has consequences, but success or partial success yields incremental meta-progress.

• Permanent unlocks across runs: skills, blueprints, base upgrades, cosmetic rewards, even reputation or faction-based rewards.

• Optional prestige and reset systems, with richer takes: e.g. unlock “hard mode raids,” “elite dungeons,” or “legacy paths” that only unlock after certain achievements — and much, much, more.

This could combine the thrill of per-run risk with long-term investment; a powerful draw for both “hardcore” and “casual but committed” players.

4. Blended Game Worlds: Open World + Instanced Raids + Risk/Reward Zones

Future games could adopt a hybrid world structure:

• A persistent “overworld” (open world or semi-open world), incl. hubs, safe zones, towns, wilderness, safe pathways, etc. where players can explore, trade, socialize, craft, plan, and so on.

• Instanced or semi-instanced “raid zones”: high-risk areas for loot, PvP, PvE — extraction shooter loops, but with progression gating (difficulty tiers, unlock requirements, recommended player levels or gear, etc.).

• Multiple difficulty layers & gating:

  • entry-level raids for newcomers;

  • mid- and endgame raids for veterans;

  • procedure-based or narrative-driven raids; and

  • dynamically scaling challenges based on party size, past performance, world state, etc.

This structure would combine the freedom and persistence of open-world RPGs / MMOs with the high-stakes risk loop of extraction shooters.

5. Deep Crafting, Professions, and Player-Driven Economy

Progression need not be limited to character + gear. Games could offer:

• Crafting professions: weaponsmiths, engineers, medics, alchemists, makers of gadgets or deployables.

• Resource gathering, base building, logistics: encouraging cooperative play, social interdependence, and long-term goals beyond individual loot.

• Player-driven economy and trading: players trade crafted goods, gear, resources, services; potentially even run shops, workshops, or guild-based production chains.

• Meta-progression anchored to economy, not just player stats: e.g. owning a workshop or facility, owning shares in a guild’s communal base, or “territorial control” zones, stable crafting buildings, etc.

Such systems would deepen the sense of “living-world,” give more non-combat activities, and allow players with varied motivations to find a niche. They would also open up more social and intrinsic monetization opportunities.

Where ARC Raiders Falls Short — and Why the Genre Has Room to Grow

All above laid out and said, even ARC Raiders doesn’t go as far as the ideas above. There are clear limitations, and some show what needs improvement if the genre is to evolve.

• According to some reviewers and players, many skill-tree upgrades feel like small stat bumps rather than meaningful, transformative specializations.

• The crafting/loot economy and “junk” resources have been criticized as underwhelming: many players report that much of the loot feels like scraps, which aren’t satisfying “epic finds.”

• While the skill tree exists, core extraction-shooter tension remains: loot and gear are still lost on death (unless carried in safe pocket, or unless you opt out via expedition reset). This means that for players prioritizing high-risk loot runs, loss remains punishing. That duality limits how “safe” and social the game can be.

• The “home base / hub / social world” dimension is mostly absent: there’s no persistent world with towns, social economy, guild/faction meta, or player-housing/workshops shared among groups. That’s a missed opportunity — but also an opening for the future.

• The narrative / lore dimension is reportedly thin: one review described story as “barely registering”; with vendor dialogue and mission snippets hardly giving world-building weight.

• The prestige system looks more punishing than rewarding, and potentially asks for very high dedication after first opt-in, which doesn’t look attractive (Extraction Shooters overall fall short on this, like in Hunt: Showdown past 10th prestige reset the rewards are quite poor — whilst overall the system grants skins and some in-game currency, which also falls light).

• Live events cadence / non-existence of live events — at least for now they don’t have much exciting going on (compared to e.g., Hunt: Showdown having some heartbeats on this side in place in okay manner; though growing a bit repetitive in terms of not introducing much new exciting gameplay and systems — on top of which Helldivers 2 has some, but the cadence and repetition is still light).

Some of the above points could be related to the swap from F2P to Premium + Microtransactions; as if it’s true that the game was first aimed to be F2P game, it would probably carry over some level of mindset debt from that first choice, which hasn’t fully gotten rid of completely by the new monetization direction. It’s possible to do a systemic game with Premium + Microtransactions take, that honor the F2P ideologies, but carry the game beyond that in more self-sustainable and self-feeding way. I’ve written about such type of systems design approach here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/46-building-a-premium-first-game), from which ARC Raiders could benefit more:

Additionally, there are tradeoffs with adding depth: adding deep systems and persistence risks increasing complexity, raising the barrier for new players, diluting the core tension of raids, or pushing the game toward grind, especially if not carefully balanced. On some terms, ARC Raiders has a casual touch on introducing its depth for players, but could do it a bit better as there are lots of learning you need to do as a player by reading everything and going through the game ongoingly. The tradeoffs around depth and mass reach are not insurmountable. They simply show that genre-blending must be approached thoughtfully. Barriers of entry matter; complexity shouldn’t be feared about, as with low barrier of entry even complex things can be taught for players.

What Extraction Shooters Could Become: A Vision for the Future

If the genre chooses to lean into the RPG / MMO / roguelite-blending path, here’s what I envision as possible next evolutionary steps:

A Full-Blown Extraction-RPG/MMO Hybrid

• Defined classes or professions, with specializations, roles, and long-term progression distinct from mere gear.

• Persistent hubs or safe zones where players socialize, trade, craft, build bases or workshops, form guilds or factions, and plan raids together.

• A player-driven economy: resource gathering, crafting, trade, supply/demand dynamics, maybe even player-run shops or markets.

  • Of course, goes without saying, one can ruin player-driven economy pretty much by design, so proper systems and economy understanding would be required to nail this down properly.

• Mixed PvE / PvP plus PvE-only zones: some zones where players cooperate against AI, others where PvP and extraction tension is high — giving players the choice of risk & rewards profile.

• Story / Quest systems + world progression: not just isolated raids, but meta-campaigns, world-states, persistent / semi-persistent changes, territory control, long-term community progress.

• Roguelite-style cyclical progression: optional resets, legacy unlocks, meta-rewards, “new game plus” style runs that keep content fresh while rewarding long-term investment.

• Better prestige systems: Yeah, these are definitely needed.

• Social structures and clan / guild systems: not just as cosmetic or social add-ons — but as meaningful progression, resource pooling, shared bases, maybe even communal crafting or territory control.

• Social and intrinsic monetization: Social and intrinsic monetization strategies would be able to raise their heads up.

• Live event rich: More systems allow much larger and in-depth live events, which the genre urgently needs in my opinion.

Why This Matters For Players & For the Genre

• Wider Appeal and Broader Audience: By supporting many motivations (loot-seekers, grinders, socializers, crafters, risk-takers, explorers, etc.), extraction shooters could appeal to a much wider audience; not only hardcore PvP/loot fans.

• Longer Lifespan & Engagement: With layered progression, social systems, and meta-economics, games can sustain player interest far beyond the “novelty period” of extraction tension.

• Greater Design Depth & Richer Player Experiences: Emergent stories; not only from raids, but from social dynamics, guild politics, player-driven economy, base building, crafting, etc. can emerge. These are the kinds of experiences traditional RPGs and MMOs do best, but rarely exist in shooters.

For persons like me, interested not only in monetization models, but in systemic design, emergent gameplay, and player motivations, this hybrid path offers a blueprint for a more sustainable, innovative, and player-first direction for live-service shooters.

Ambition & Willingness

Of course, building these kinds of hybrids is not trivial. It requires:

• significant design ambition, wisely invested resources, and long-term commitment;

• balancing complexity with proper barriers of entry (so you don’t scare away newcomers);

• building social, economic and meta-systems which are stable, robust, and resistant to exploitation or grind-fatigue; and

• ensuring that persistent progression and meta-systems don’t kill the core tension and risk-reward identity of extraction shooters.

But given what ARC Raiders shows is possible (and where it still falls short), I believe extraction shooters are on the cusp of a potential transformation: from niche high-risk shooters to deeper, broader, more systemic shooters.

The Path Ahead for Extraction Shooters

ARC Raiders may not yet be a full RPG- or MMO-styled take, as it has trade-offs and design solutions deviating still from that. But it already represents a significant step forward: to me it’s a proof-of-concept that extraction shooters can support persistent progression, meta-systems, crafting, skill-trees, variety of motivations, and long-term engagement, which resemble RPG / MMO and similar genres’ systems.

If developers and studios take inspiration, and are willing to push further, the next generation of extraction shooters could blur (or even dissolve) the boundaries between shooters, RPGs, and MMOs. We might see games where players don’t just raid — they build, craft, trade, socialize, specialize, plan meta-campaigns, form communities, and carve out long-term identities.

That kind of evolution could open the genre to far more players; not just for those who live for the adrenaline of loot-and-extract, but also for those who love systems, crafting, social dynamics, long-term progression, and potential emergent game economies. Also, there’s potential for vice versa effect as well; MMORPGs could benefit from the extraction core as well, which would be a totally different topic to be discussed and opened about.

For fans of the extraction shooter genre, and for designers who care about systemic games with depth and player agency, I believe the future direction I’m describing is worth fighting for.

Meanwhile we’re waiting these types of games, see you at the Top / Bayou / fighting for the Democracy!

Sometimes this happens intentionally, when corporations, publications, or influencers try to push a narrative. Other times it happens unconsciously, as groups buy into a sentiment because it feels safe, popular, or “the right side of history.” Whether explicit or implicit, sentiment programming shapes not only how we work but also what we build, how we market, and what survives. Very often, it also shapes who will make money in the process, giving also opportunities for followers, on top of which it also shapes who will lose money in the process.

This post looks at how sentiment programming plays out in the games industry — through direct and indirect means, intentional and unintentional forces — and how its ripple effects influence everything from monetization and hiring models to creativity and innovation. The sole intention of this post is to raise awareness of influence and how it can affect your day-to-day work and decisions as an industry professional (nothing more, and certainly not to point fingers at anyone).

How Sentiment Is Programmed and Enforced

1. Direct & Intentional Sentiment Programming

Some groups deliberately shape sentiment to drive their own agenda. For example, when a CEO or influential figure announces a new “must-follow” model, whether it’s hybrid work, Web3 gaming, or AI-powered production, the statement isn’t just descriptive; it’s prescriptive. The sheer weight of their position turns opinion into mandate.

2. Indirect or Unintentional Sentiment Enforcing

Other times, sentiment spreads unintentionally. Developers, marketers, or even players absorb a viewpoint because it makes them feel part of the right group. For instance, teams may adopt certain monetization practices simply because everyone else is doing it, even when those practices aren’t aligned with their player base or product vision.

This herd effect means people may end up enforcing a sentiment on themselves and those around them, mistaking popularity for truth.

The Illusion of Coordination: When Multiple Parties Drive the Same Sentiment

Let’s explore some of the “truths” we’re currently (/have recently been) being programmed towards to intentionally and unintentionally. Sound familiar, right? Ever doubted them, or just accepted?

1. The Hybrid / On-site Work “Comeback”

In the post-pandemic years, multiple industry publications and corporate leaders declared hybrid / on-site as “the model.” The timing often made it look coordinated.

Was it? In some cases, (maybe) yes: boardrooms wanted performance and comfort, to drive things back to pre-pandemic (believing results they achieved then would come back, ignoring the fact that world has changed on top of which we had remote pre-pandemic with results and performance being top par by people who worked in such ways). In other cases, no: writers and consultants were reflecting the same zeitgeist.

But the outcome was the same; workers were programmed (/enforced) into believing (/”accepting”) this was the inevitable truth. The outcome of this can be good for some, but there are also outcomes clearly visible where people are in real trouble given the macro dynamics we’re living it. Everything on this level has an impact.

2. User Acquisition: From Creativity to Volumization

The way how I look at things, mobile UA most likely is another striking example. The industry didn’t wake up one day and decide “fake creatives” or “misleading ads” were the way to go. Instead, data-driven performance marketing showed that they worked. This performance signal, combined with loud voices in marketing circles and blogs, compounded into a sentiment: volumization beats originality.

But we must ask, how far can this take us? Why isn’t it trendy anymore to discuss deeply original content, meaningful player archetypes, or gameplay-first design? The sentiment has shifted, intentionally and unintentionally, toward efficiency and volume rather than meaning — affecting to innovation and just being bold and original in messaging. And yes, I know, we’re literally printing money with current means, whilst I’m seeing via different channels and social media that many industry professionals are beginning to question the healthiness of things.

The way also some games maximize their ROAS for the combination of things, through e.g., aggressive Ads strategy, is an effective way to make money, definitely. But, every time I’m thinking myself downloading a game for my kids to play, I’m horrified with the fact that there aren’t anymore “safe” free options to go with (no surprises in your credit card bill, no malware surprises on your device, no new app installation surprises — I want to keep my devices clean), as everything in even kids’ games (yet to mention all other games) are fine-tuned to most aggressive means possible.

3. Web3 & the Hype Machine

Web3 and crypto gaming represent one of the clearest cases of sentiment programming. Companies hyped, influencers amplified, players bought in, and the cycle fed itself.

For example, I think it should be already e.g., a known thing that Axie Infinity’s boom and bust can be literally mapped to these sentiment waves — behind the hype was a feedback loop of programmed belief, compounded (multiple times when looking the game’s highest peaks) until the rug was pulled (again, and again).

4. The Fractional CxO Model

Another rising sentiment is the “fractional CxO” as the future of leadership. Many companies buy into it, but peel back the surface and it’s essentially consultancy dressed up with authority. The sentiment is sold, bought, and circulated, until enough people believe it’s the norm.

Is this good for your company? It highly depends. In a certain point of view, it can be a life-saver if you have vetted the people who you work with. In some point of view, it can be also sentiment-programmed outcome you’re getting without knowing how it plays out for good and longevity of things.

5. AI: The Promised Tool

AI sentiment is another battleground. Executives trumpet its transformative potential, mass layoffs are justified under its promise, and headlines reinforce the story.

Yet, practical implementations often lag. Here, sentiment isn’t just programming — it can be also a cover. Cover for what? For example, for a healthy business foundation missing caused of the accelerated growth during pandemic.

6. VC Cycles and Trend Chasing

VC investments follow the same sentiment waves. Funds move from games to Web3 to AI to gamified apps, often chasing hype rather than fundamentals.

Investors themselves play dual roles: both shaping and riding sentiment. Sometimes they influence also through their networks, including people owning publications and blogs with large follower counts. The outcome? Studios struggling to raise cash in mobile games not because the fundamentals are bad, but because the sentiment tide has shifted elsewhere (I’ve literally had VCs commenting to me saying their LPs would be asking why they invested X, Y, and Z when the sentiment was already elsewhere…). Same time, funds will get new LPs and cash in to once again figure out where they’ll be investing (now and next).

7. Extrinsic-Driven Monetization

For years, sentiment inside companies has been programmed around extrinsic monetization: maximize ARPDAU, optimize for revenue, chase whales. Intrinsic design — rewarding play for its own sake — has been sidelined as “not trendy.” Innovation suffers when revenue-first sentiment becomes the only guiding star.

8. Trending Countries

Quite a lot, lots of sources talk about the high growth of the industry within certain countries. For some purposes, it can be good for the industry, and for some purposes, it can be also over-influencing for people already invested in into these countries.

When things compound together, the good side for this is that we’re investing into hungry and ambitious people, when on the other side we’re disinvesting from existing countries, driving unemployment and hardships in the equation, at the cost of potential innovation and creativity.

9. Toxic Positivity

A big topic I could talk about, but I think this is something we all recognize causing lots of troubles. It happens within companies, and also on macro level.

I think it’s clear how it happens within companies, but, as I see it, for many it might come as a surprise how it plays out at macro level, e.g., some countries’ scenes are over-positive and over-comfortable while things are compounding for the negative side of things, incl. everyone from industry’s agencies driving positive agenda whilst a constructive outlook to things needing fundamental core issue fixing might be healthier topic to discuss about.

And, I get it, you need to stay positive to have money flowing in, but wouldn’t it be better if we would have just better-performing companies surviving the test of time, right?

Performance-Driven vs. Fear-Driven Sentiment

Much of sentiment programming stems from performance (what works in data), but a significant amount is also fear-driven. Fear of missing the next wave. Fear of being left behind. Fear of being on the wrong side of the industry zeitgeist. Fear of the day-to-day leadership for what your staff demands. Fear of looking into your churning numbers and KPIs.

The pandemic magnified this. Many misread the boom in player numbers and spend as permanent, not contextual. Now, in the post-pandemic slowdown, the industry is paying the price. Consumer behavior shifted dramatically, as it always does after major events. As an example, after wars, historically, people poured resources into home decoration, leisure, and nesting, resulting to certain trends being born. Similarly, after the pandemic, consumer behavior changed, but the industry was slow to recalibrate — and was just too deep in, for which we’re paying currently the price.

Psychology & Physiology Behind Sentiment Programming

Sentiment programming is not just cultural, it’s human psychology.

People want to belong, to reduce cognitive dissonance, and to minimize risk. On a physiological level, our brains are wired to follow herd signals. This biology is why industry waves catch so quickly and why dissent feels costly.

AAA vs. Mobile: Two Worlds, Same Patterns

In AAA, sentiment programming often takes the form of “big swings”: cinematic storytelling, massive open worlds, live-service pivots. When one studio succeeds, others replicate.

In mobile, it manifests in data-driven optimization: UA trends, monetization loops, and/or ad integrations. Sentiment spreads not through prestige but through spreadsheets.

Both reflect the same dynamic: a few successes shaping sentiment for an entire ecosystem.

Why Understanding Sentiment Programming Matters

As industry professionals, we must learn to read sentiment programming and its influence at both macro and micro levels. Blindly following it can lead to chasing trends at the expense of fundamentals. Ignoring it can mean missing opportunities for growth and relevance.

The healthiest path lies in identifying your own truths; grounding decisions in research, player understanding, and experimentation. Sentiment can be fuel for innovation when used consciously, but it can also slow us down if we let it dictate uncritically.

Food for Thought

Sentiment programming and enforcing is inevitable in any industry, but in games, it carries special weight: it shapes what we make, how we market, and how we sustain.

For some, it’s a growth engine. For others, it’s a trap. It can be even a trap that results making money big time (or losing it all).

The question is not whether sentiment will be programmed; but whether we, as creators, leaders, and thinkers, are willing to see it, understand it, and decide when to ride it or when to resist.

The future of games depends not on blindly following programmed sentiment, but on knowing when to step outside it. Being original, truthful for your own business, and bold on that is the new cool.

I believe we can do better through opening more layers for systems-wide interconnectivity, through a new design paradigm for live games.

Note: Readers should keep in mind that this article can be interpreted in several ways. On one hand, it explores the next systems-level evolution by positioning a Pass System, or Pass-like System, as a “centerpiece” for how live games could evolve — leveraging what works in Battle Passes and taking it further. On the other hand, the Meta Pass discussion here is primarily a form of “theory crafting,” intended to highlight new ways of designing live games through deeper, more meaningful systems-level interconnectivity. Reading and interpreting requires meta.

From Battle Pass to Meta Pass: The Evolution of Progression Layers

The Battle Pass (along with Event Passes and their equivalents) is an elegant solution to a specific moment in F2P design: how to keep players engaged in a live service economy without relying entirely on generic systems like loot boxes or basic reward vectors. It works because it is simple. You play, you level up, and you unlock rewards. Players understand it, and studios can build live ops around it with predictable cadence and monetization.

Battle Pass’ strength, a clear, time-boxed progression track with visible rewards, addresses short-term engagement needs. But it’s still a short-term cycle; one that players repeat season after season, or experience in parallel as developers stack multiple Passes together. In that sense, the system has solved short-term engagement by building a repeatable loop for long-term engagement — which is, to be fair, a perfectly valid and often effective strategy.

But can we build something that tackles mid- to long-term engagement in a deeper way? I believe we can.

Meta Pass

Across genres, I see space for what I call the Meta Pass; a progression system that isn’t just another layer or a cosmetic reskin of the Battle Pass. Instead, it’s a way of layering and/or interconnecting progression across multiple dimensions of a game, creating a sense of permanence and compounding “mastery” (/compounding effect, or compounding equity building) that the original Battle Pass was never designed to deliver as a standalone system.

In practice, even sounding as a single system; it’s not just a single Pass System in all cases. It most often calls out for a new design paradigm in how we perceive and design live games.

What is Meta Pass All About?

The Meta Pass is not about stacking more Passes on top of each other. It’s about building a progression ecosystem within the game itself, one that e.g., ties together seasonal loops, evergreen mastery, player equity increase, and the meta economy that develops over time.

For example, think about an extraction shooter where your Meta Pass runs e.g., alongside a mastery path for weapons, a reputation system, and a persistent collection layer tied to your account. Each system feeds into the others, creating a sense of both short-term momentum and long-term investment. You are no longer playing for just this season’s rewards, as you would normally do through regular Battle Pass. You are building a legacy inside that game through interconnections.

In a 4X strategy game, the Meta Pass could emerge naturally from the systems already in place. Seasonal events reward tactical engagement in the moment, but long-term research trees, diplomacy standings, and historical achievements stack to create a deeper “arc” of progression. The key is that each layer informs the others, and players feel that their time is never wasted, even if they take a break between seasons.

Systemic Shift in Design with Meta Pass

The move from single Battle Pass system to Meta Pass requires a broader shift in how we design progression with live ops in mind.

The Battle Pass is transactional. Play matches, earn XP, get rewards. The Meta Pass is relational. It understands that players engage with games at multiple depths and across multiple time horizons; and it builds its Pass and cyclical systems around this compounding interconnectivity, resulting into a wider ecosystem of its own.

For action RPGs, this could mean in simple terms seasonal ladders feeding into permanent account-bound mastery systems. For MMORPGs, it can about layering horizontal progression; crafting, housing, and social prestige, alongside vertical power climbs. In extraction shooters, it might look like persistent progression / rewards systems, reputation systems, or even player-driven core (micro) economies that survive seasons.

What unifies these approaches is that they create a sense of compounding effects (/equity / identity) instead of just basic accumulating rewards through reward unlocks. Your profile in the game stops being a snapshot of your cyclical history and starts becoming a reflection of your entire journey. That deepens the emotional connection players have with the game and gives designers far more levers for meaningful engagement.

How a Meta Pass Lives in Systemic Interconnectivity

The real power of a Meta Pass emerges not from its rewards alone, but from how it lives inside the game’s systemic fabric. It is not a standalone ladder that players climb in isolation. Instead, it is woven into the loops, layers, and vectors of progression that define the game. For example, seasonal events, mastery paths, reputation systems, and collection layers all feed into each other, giving players a sense that every action — from completing a short-term quest to mastering a complex system — contributes to a broader, ongoing journey.

A well-designed Meta Pass doesn’t need to enforce a single way to progress. It can flexibly accommodate both a free track and a paid track, allowing players to engage at their own pace. The free track ensures accessibility and broad participation, reinforcing intrinsic engagement. The paid track, whether structured as a subscription, premium Pass, or optional purchase, offers e.g., additional opportunities, expression possibilities, and/or progression paths, but never at the expense of the game’s systemic integrity.

Designers can also choose to make passes earnable through gameplay, if fitted for the business case. For example, players might unlock the premium pass via extended play, completing specific milestones, participating in seasonal challenges, and/or accumulating certain currencies for that. This approach respects players’ time and commitment, reinforcing the idea that progression is a holistic system rather than a purely transactional one.

Ultimately, the Meta Pass is not just a reward ladder; it is a binding agent, linking disparate progression systems into a coherent experience. When done right, it gives players the feeling that every interaction, every session, and every season contributes meaningfully to their evolving identity within the game.

The Balance Challenge

It should go without saying, that layering progression and/or systems (even accidentally, which this type of paradigm can cause) comes with its own risks. The Meta Pass is not just “more progression layered.” Done poorly, it collapses under its own weight. Systems bloat.

The sense of clarity that makes the traditional Battle Pass system so successful can get lost. The craft here lies in restraint, and not really in layering.

The most successful future implementations of the Meta Pass will feel organic, because they grow from the core loops of the game (which, again, calls for a new design paradigm for perceiving and designing games with this in mind).

In ARPGs, those loops are about loot, builds, and mastery. In 4X games, they’re about expansion, optimization, and meta-strategy. When the progression systems align with those core motivations, they reinforce the fantasy instead of fighting it. And, from the systems point of view, there’s a clear red line to follow and go through, instead of created systemic chaos.

Looking Ahead

The Battle Pass solved the problem of engagement in a single slice of time. The Meta Pass solves the problem of continuity. At its core, it acknowledges that players don’t want to start over every season. They want their time to matter, to build toward something that persists beyond the current patch or meta.

As games lean more heavily into systemic design, especially in genres where complexity and depth are strengths, the Meta Pass can become less of an experiment and more of an expectation over time. The studios that get this right will be the ones that treat progression not as a monetization mechanic but as the scaffolding for a living, breathing world where every session, every decision, and every season leaves a lasting mark.

Who is already building something like this? Are you ready to level up your game?

Regarding its success, the main question everyone has probably asked themselves at some point is: How can I approach building a game like this? Would it be complex because of the RNG mechanics involved, or are there other strategies?

Monopoly GO!, Coin Master, and Dice Dreams, Revenue (Source: AppMagic). Want to build successful games like this? One way to approach them would be considering strategies I’m discussing in this article. Keep reading!

I can give you a small head start on building a game like this, using some very simple fundamental methods. Specifically, systems design methods — because designing games like this requires scalable, configurable, and live-operatable systems, all viewed through a user experience lens.

Disclaimer: Readers should acknowledge, while I’m introducing a simple progression vectors-based approach here to building a game like this, from a very basic systems design point of view, that there can be various other means and methods to build a game like this. And, once again, the use of this presented approach and insight I’m providing here should be used always with a grain of salt — and it would be always on my readers’ responsibility to carry over all risks and opportunities associated with using the methods I’m presenting in my articles. This article presents a theoretical approach for designing games like these, with no direct association to the games or companies making these games I’m using as references and examples. Thank you for understanding.

Progression Vectors: The Anchors of Game Structure

At its core, this type of a game can theoretically thrive on a small set of interlinked progression vectors — primarily e.g., just by Location progression and Net Worth accumulation — which two can serve as the backbone for everything, including e.g., player progression, core gameplay controls, core gameplay scaling, economy, monetization loops, and live events. Below, I’ll dissect these systems from a basic systems design perspective, including keeping in mind modularity to other genre leaders like Coin Master and Dice Dreams; and offer a strategy on how to scale systems from MVP to a full, high-frequency event live game like Monopoly GO! is.

Location Progression

Definition: The sequential unlocking and upgrading of “Boards” or “Cities” (Locations) that form one of the the primary long-term objectives.

Purpose: Provides a macro layer of progression that anchors the player’s sense of achievement and completion.

Control Point: Each Location_ID in the config files becomes a master key for defining e.g.,:

• Required Building upgrades and costs.

• Board layout / Tile setup and rewards tied to them.

• Tutorial / FTUE / narrative triggers (incl. their beats).

• Bot / Player pool compositions for social features.

• Dice Roll outcome weighting for Board layout / Tile setup.

• IAP offer segmentation / contextualization.

• Store offer (incl. Store layout) segmentation / contextualization.

• And much more.

Net Worth Progression

Definition: The sum of player assets across all locations; a meta-measure of progress that scales linearly or exponentially depending on economy and progression design.

Purpose: Creates a universal scaling metric that can tie into e.g.,:

• Core gameplay feature unlocks (e.g., automated Dice, Dice multipliers)

• Tile income (/penalty) increases.

• Reward scaling for both core loop and events.

• And, again, much more.

Building the Economy: Sinks & Sources Around the Strategy

The heartbeat of the game and its curves can reflect e.g., two primary economic control philosophies:

Option 1: Exponential Sinks, Linear/Smooth Sources

• Sinks: Costs for upgrades, events, and progression rise exponentially.

• Sources: Dice Rolls, income, and rewards grow at a slower, smoother rate.

• Effect: Creates a permanent “chasing” dynamic where players are always behind, driving monetization pressure (mainly through Dice Rolls).

Option 2: Mixed Scaling

• Both sinks and sources scale with a mix of exponential and linear growth, but sources lag e.g., 1–2 progression steps behind.

• Creates catch-up bursts but still maintains the long-term gap that fuels monetization.

Monetization Implication: In both approaches, Dice Rolls remain both the core heartbeat as well as the bottleneck resource — granting the ability to earn, progress, and participate in Events as well, as they are introduced — making them the perfect monetization target.

Monetization Design & Store Strategy Basics

You can use Location and Net Worth as vectors for scaling, contextualizing, and segmenting everything, incl. IAP offer and Store layout/offers basics as well as Events.

Offer & Store Layouts

Event-Driven Stores: Store contents shift based on live events, offering:

• Event-boosting bundles (e.g., Dice Rolls + Event Tokens).

• Specific upgrade packs.

• Progression multipliers.

• And such.

Contextualization / segmentation by Location_ID & Net_Worth:

• Players in early Locations see cheaper, time-limited bundles.

• Deep players get high-value packs scaled to their sink requirements.

• And much more.

Event Integration for Monetization

You can drive monetization-led integration for your events through your vectors.

In a nutshell:

• Events serve as short-cycle “heartbeat spikes” in player activity.

• Early entry events give generous Dice Rolls to hook players.

• Carry-over Mechanic: Rewards from one Event provide a head start in the next, creating a perpetual loop of participation.

Live Events as Economy Drivers

Heartbeat Effect

• Event spikes map directly to peaks in player engagement and spend.

• Between events, activity settles at a sustainable baseline, keeping churn low.

Scaling with Progression

• Event difficulty and rewards could theoretically scale with your vectors, Location and Net Worth, ensuring relevance / contextualization.

• Event sinks could be are layered on top of location sinks, maintaining pressure on Dice Rolls.

Config-Level Mastery: How to Operationalize the System

Using Location_ID and Net_Worth as configuration anchors allows for e.g.,:

• Dice Outcome Tables: Control RNG by weighting key outcomes per Location (less random, more predictable balancing).

• Progression Curves per Location: Adjust sink/source balance dynamically without reworking the whole game.

• FTUE & Narrative Control: Tailor tutorials, challenges, and rewards for optimal early retention.

• Board Layout & Tile Setup: Dynamically adjust board difficulty and pacing based on player progression.

• Bot & Player Pools: Match players against AI or real opponents suited to their current scale.

• IAP Offer Configs: Offer IAP offers based on progression contextualization.

• Store Configs: Adapt Store layout and offers based on progression contextualization.

Configuration Table Examples

I always like to have a fully scalable, and configurable games being made, with systemic interconnectivity. For a game like Monopoly GO!, it’s achievable, as explained, pretty easily. Below you can see few imaginary examples of how you could build simple configuration tables for easily configuring and scaling everything through your backend.

Example 1. Configuration table example for Board Layout controlling. Location_ID / Location-based Progression acts as main anchoring point. Parameters and numbers here are thrown out from thin air to the table.

Example 2. Configuration table example for Building mechanic (scaling) controlling. Location_ID / Location-based Progression acts as main anchoring point. Parameters and numbers here are thrown out from thin air to the table.

Example 3. Configuration table example for imaginary Store layout configuration (following e.g., Location_ID anchoring for contextualization). With having a layout configuration table like this, in addition to changing the store and its layouts and sections based on Progression contextualization and ongoing Events, you can place e.g., via other interconnected configuration tables your offers (Bundle_IDs) to these placements (to their representative sections). And, if you use e.g., pools for rewards pooling, you could use e.g., Pool_IDs (representing different reward pools you’ve created) to place your pools consisting of offers / rewards into these sections. Parameters and numbers here are thrown out from thin air to the table, and the imaginary layout isn’t actually what’s represented in Monopoly GO!, but it’s acting as an example of how you can build configurability / modularity / contextualization for your Stores.

Coin Master, Dice Dreams, and Other Games

These games can also use identical vector anchoring strategies:

• Location progression serves as the macro driver.

• Equivalent vector to Net Worth gates reward scaling, mechanics, and such.

• Dice Roll / Spin resources act as the primary monetization lever.

• Events echo the main progression curve, reinforcing core loop monetization.

The Role of Mathematical Modeling and Control

While advanced economy modeling is ideal, this system allows for:

• Lightweight Implementation: Designers can define progression through e.g., pre-set Diceo outcome tables and scaling curves per Location_ID.

• Data-Driven Refinement: Live data will reveal where sinks/sources need adjusting, and where segmentation for player archetypes becomes necessary.

Whilst there are some space for math, there are also options where you can do a lot without advanced math with this vector anchoring approach. These games can be in a simple format super simple to build and optimized without heavy math, whilst they sustain high revenue potential. Complexity of course raises as you advance with your take, when Events, segmentation, and other things take in place.

Plus, when / if you go in using Seeds, which might give you some leverage, there are lots of other considerations you need to count for. But do you need them? Technically you can benefit from them but also on the other side you could control things with other means instead of Seeds as well, or Seeds-like systems / configurations achieving the same, as you want. Seeds could be also used only for some necessary parts of the overall systems-based approach, e.g., offer logic and game behavior, but same things could be also triggered by kind of the same means as you would be able to configure things with the fundamentals of where you can go from simplistic interconnectivity.

Key Takeaways

Location and Net Worth, if you like to strategize the game from systems perspective this way, can indeed serve as universal scaling levers for the game. Early MVP can function with simple exponential sink + linear source curves; whilst full-scale live ops can layer complex scaling, segmentation, and event hooks.

Dice Rolls are the ultimate monetization currency — control them carefully through progression and events. Live events not only engage players but also synchronize economy pressure with monetization opportunities.

This is how you can, in one way, approach building a game like this. Can you use similar methods for other games? I’d say yes, and you can read about such a thing here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/51-designing-around-progression-vectors):

It will be interesting to see what types of games we’ll be seeing in this segment as the days pass. Coin Master - Board Adventure is one of the most fresh takes on the segment, whilst I see there are more great opportunities ahead. Mechanics can vary, as you can use these strategies and methods for building a high variety of different types of games.

But here’s the thing: most games still treat skins as cosmetic wallpaper; a monetization checkbox resulting to poor performance, or strange outcomes.

The truly great implementations make skins part of the living, breathing ecosystem of the game. They connect to core gameplay, influence meta systems, and tap into intrinsic player urges. The bad ones? They sit in your inventory, barely visible, disconnected from what you’re actually doing moment to moment.

When Skins Click with Core Gameplay

Crytek’s Hunt: Showdown 1896 recently introduced "Thundershower", a dynamic rain mechanic that changes visibility, sound, and enemy AI behavior in matches. Alongside this, they offered stealth-oriented skins with muted tones and camouflage patterns.

Here’s what’s clever:

• No direct advantage — your hitbox didn’t shrink, your stats didn’t improve.

• But the context changed — the new weather system made stealth and visual blending feel more relevant, raising the intrinsically perceived value of those skins.

• The twist — both rain and camo skins were not brand new mechanics for Hunt. The rain was a reintroduced environment modifier, and camo skins had been in the store before (in a slightly different OG format). The magic was in interlinking two “old” elements in a way that made them feel fresh and relevant together.

This is intrinsic integration: the skin isn’t just a cosmetic, it’s a narrative and gameplay-adjacent choice that feels anchored in the world — adding depth to the core gameplay “economy” of the game where different action-based and meta-based “economic” decisions are ongoingly needed to be made by the player to succeed in the game.

When Skins Miss the Mark

In mo.co, skins are one of the main monetization vectors. That’s not inherently bad. Cosmetics can be powerful drivers of revenue when they’re visible, expressive, and connected to play.

But here’s the challenge:

• When mo.co entered invite-only beta, the core gameplay was chaotic. Dozens of enemies, multiple players on-screen, heavy VFX; and, as a result your skin is rarely noticeable in the moment-to-moment.

• There was no meaningful connection between skins and the combat loop. No gameplay modifiers, no environment interactions, no reason beyond vanity to choose one over another.

• The itemization strategy is light. Players can’t progress or customize a skin beyond owning it.

This isn’t fatal, but it needs to be iterated. And, Supercell has the iteration chops to fix it. But, as the game entered the market, skins felt not baked-in.

Note: Interested to read a full analysis of mo.co by Supercell? See my article about it here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/39-supercells-moco-a-constructive):

The Default Playbook for Skin Monetization

Most games sell skins through one (or several) of these channels:

• Bundle Offers – High-priced, high-urgency packages in the store.

• Battle Passes / Event Passes – Seasonal rewards tracks that mix skins with e.g., currencies and boosters.

• Limited-Time Shops – Rotating inventory to create FOMO.

These work, but they’re also predictable. Players know what they’re getting and when. The opportunity for the next generation of live games is to make skins matter more.

Evolving Skins into Gameplay Systems

Here’s where the real opportunity lies: moving skins from surface decoration to deep systems.

Skin Progression

• Linear – Skins that level up visually over time (like evolving armor or aging characters).

• Open Progression & Customization – Players unlock alternate forms, animations, or colorways based on achievements or playstyle.

Gameplay-Influencing Skins

• Stat Modifiers – Small boosts or trade-offs (e.g., +2% reload speed, -5% sprint speed).

• Environmental Synergy – Skins that interact with specific weather, lighting, or map elements.

Itemization Layer

• Skins as fully-fledged equipment: rarities, perks, socketed mods, set bonuses.

• Integrates with meta-economy — crafting, trading, upgrading.

Theorycraft Skins

• Players experiment with skin combinations for meta and/or core gameplay benefits — turning cosmetics into a light buildcrafting layer.

Narrative Skins

• Cosmetics that reflect ongoing events in the game world — scars after a war event, dust from a desert expansion, frostbite in an ice season.

Further Ideas: Skin Crafting & Evolution Loop

• Base Skin Acquisition – Players earn or purchase a common-tier skin.

• Material Drops – During matches, enemies or events drop cosmetic “essence” tied to visual traits (e.g., “Ember Shards” for fire motifs, “Verdant Silk” for plant-based looks).

• Crafting Station – Players combine base skins with essences to unlock visual variants (e.g., changing a leather jacket’s trim to molten gold, or adding moss and vines to armor).

• Stat Synergy Layer – Fully evolved skins provide light, meta-relevant perks — like +1% crafting speed, faster stamina regen, or small trade-offs.

• Prestige Cycles – Maxed-out skins can be “prestiged,” resetting appearance while granting rare visual effects (glowing patterns, dynamic textures) that signal mastery to others.

Beyond the Store: Next-Gen Skin Monetization Models

From my previous Games Alchemy explorations, here’s where skins could evolve:

• Intrinsic Monetization – Skins tied to in-game milestones, where monetization is part of the emotional payoff (unlock premium variant upon mastering a skill).

• Social Group Monetization – Guild-exclusive skins unlocked collectively, or skins that change based on team performance. Additionally, synergy mechanisms would be exciting in driving intrinsic and social monetization efforts on this front.

• Stashing Mechanisms – Skins as collectibles you “bank” over time, unlocking tiers in progressive e.g., “piggy bank” systems.

• Subscriptions – Monthly skin subscriptions, chained subscription series that expand a theme across months, and/or tiered subscriptions that upgrade existing skins.

• Spectatorship Monetization – Viewers in competitive or streamed events vote on special effects or skins for players mid-match.

• VIP/Tiered Battle Passes – Passes with skin progression layered over regular rewards, where higher tiers grant unique visual evolutions.

Note: Interested to explore these monetization methods further? See following articles from my blog:

The Future: Skins as Player Identity Systems

Skins are already a statement of identity, but in most games they’re static; a snapshot of one purchase. The real leap is in making them living entities: evolving, reacting, unlocking because of how you play, who you play with, and what’s happening in the world.

When skins are tied to core mechanics, meta systems, and social identity, they stop being a monetization checkbox and start being part of the game’s beating heart.

Cosmetics can be throwaway decoration, or they can be a form of interactive storytelling, light theorycrafting, and intrinsic motivation. Hunt: Showdown showed us the power of old elements reconnected in clever ways. And, mo.co showed the risk of beautiful skins without depthful context. The opportunity ahead is to make skins as playable as the game itself.

After all — if you’re going to have skin in the game, make sure it means something.

As a continuation to the exploration of subscription model innovation, I’m diving deeper into what I call as Subscription 2.0 — and, specifically on this side, to Chaining Subscriptions. As I see this, chaining opens possibilities for advanced models that e.g., fuse tiered subscriptions with chain offers, dynamic passes, and behavior-driven perks; opening new types of possibilities for monetization design.

Note: This article is continuation article for article 49. Subscription Innovation in Games (you can find it here: https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/49-subscription-innovation-in-games).

Chained Subscriptions: Tier Meets Trajectory

The core idea behind chained subscriptions is usually simple:

The more consistently you subscribe, the more you get; not just in quantity, but in quality.

Instead of a static tiered model (e.g., Bronze, Silver, Gold), players are offered a progressive path through:

• Base Tier Entry: Standard monthly perks.

• Chain Level 2: Subscribe again next cycle → unlock bonus cosmetics, upgraded currencies, or double yields.

• Chain Level 3+: Consecutive purchases begin unlocking unique modifiers — exclusive missions, higher pass efficiency, or access to prestige-only content.

The system remembers and rewards continuation, much like a loyalty program, but infused directly into game systems. Players are incentivized to maintain streaks or commitment chains — not just pay once and forget.

Optional reset mechanics (e.g., missing a cycle resets your chain progress) increase FOMO and deepen decision points without turning punitive. These mechanics amplify in several cases the endowment effect as well — meaning, once players have built up a streak or unlocked higher-tier benefits, the perceived value of their progression increases. Losing it feels costly, not just in perks but in personal investment. This psychological anchoring enhances retention, as players weigh the emotional cost of breaking their chain against the relatively small commitment of continuation. There are, of course, good and “evil” execution possibilities for these psychological mechanisms, which every designer should be aware of.

Pass Fusion: Subscriptions Meet the Battle Pass Era

Where do battle passes fit into Subscription 2.0? Through fusion (and of course with things I’ve already stated on article 49. Subscription 2.0 Innovation in Games (see more: https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/49-subscription-innovation-in-games)).

In order to explore pass fusion, think about a game where your subscription level determines your relationship with the battle pass:

• Chain-linked Unlocks: The longer you stay subscribed, the more retroactive content is unlocked from past passes, and/or you get access to alternative reward paths otherwise not being there for you.

• Perk Scaling: Buying e.g., 3 consecutive passes unlocks a permanent passive perk (e.g., 5% more currency from missions, bonus drop rolls).

• Evolving Tracks: Instead of a one-size-fits-all pass, players unlock different variants, e.g., Combat Pass, Builder Pass, Explorer Pass, based on their play patterns and subscription tier.

Players are no longer just paying for access. They're potentially (by design) investing into a personalized ecosystem of rewards that evolves with them.

Premium Time Fusion: Beyond Boosts

Premium Time, in “a hidden”, or visible format, (for which I’ve covered a proper baseline already on article 49. Subscription 2.0 Innovation in Games (see more: https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/49-subscription-innovation-in-games)) can also evolve through chaining:

• Tiered Premium Time: Basic → Advanced → Elite time packages that unlock additional benefits (e.g., crafting boosts, gameplay advantages, faster event timers, or cross-mode synergies).

• Premium Time Trails: Continue stacking Premium Time days to unlock milestones (e.g., 5-day streak = bonus chest; 15-day = cosmetic skin; 30-day = temporary god-mode event access).

• Auto-fusion Benefits: Have an active subscription + Premium Time? Fuse into temporary super-state: double XP + exclusive side quests + cosmetic aura for squad.

This transforms Premium Time into a temporal strategy layer, where planning and continuation unlock exponential gains.

Intrinsic Monetization: Owning the Journey

A core innovation opportunity in Subscription 2.0 lies in aligning monetization with intrinsic motivation.

Rather than simply buying perks, players are buying into an evolving identity framework:

• Subscriptions unlock custom narrative arcs or prestige meta-progression tied to their values (exploration / autonomy, mastery / competencies, creativity / relatedness).

• Chained perks reward the player’s long-term growth goals — think mastery tiers, habit rewards, or avatar evolution.

• Progress isn’t only about speed or yield; it’s about recognition, contribution, and agency.

The longer you subscribe and participate, the more your account reflects who you are in the game world — not just what you’ve paid for.

This makes monetization a natural byproduct of emotional investment.

Note: You can read more about Intrinsic Monetization here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/intrinsic-monetization-alternative):

Social Group Monetization: Monetizing Belonging

Chained Subscription doesn’t have to be a solo endeavor. One of its most powerful frontiers lies in group-based value chains:

• Guild Subscriptions: Members subscribe to unlock global buffs, shared reward pools, or upgraded guild features.

• Chained Social Boosts: If X% of your squad subscribes consecutively for Y weeks, everyone gets passive bonuses.

• Spectator / Supporter Layers: Non-core players (or even fans) can subscribe to follow teams, creators, or clubs, unlocking fan-specific rewards, live commentary access, or passive rewards.

This creates cooperative monetization pressure — an environment where spending contributes to collective progress and recognition, rather than individual dominance.

The result: higher retention, increased social glue, and a model that scales horizontally across player cohorts.

Note: You can find more about Social Group Monetization here:

Why It Can Work

• Psychological Continuity: Players feel rewarded for their past, not punished for not doing more.

• Design Depth: Systems like chain subscriptions and pass fusions create meta-layers of optimization, similar to build crafting in RPGs.

• Revenue Stability: Recurring spend with variability and upgrades = predictable monetization, exciting to players.

Retention meets Monetization

Subscription 2.0 isn’t just a monetization evolution — it’s a retention machine. By rewarding sustained engagement, chaining commitment across systems, and fusing previously isolated purchases, it creates a rich, living economy that players feel a part of — not just customers of.

If you’re building a live game and want to break the mold of flat subscriptions and standalone passes, these models might just be your new foundation.

This article explores how progression vectors, when treated as system-driving parameters rather than passive meters, can become the backbone of scalable game experiences, personalized economies, and smart live operations.

I’ll dive into examples across genres — from MMORPGs and extraction shooters to puzzle games and 4X strategy — and explore practical frameworks for designers, product persons, and live ops teams.

What Is a Progression Vector?

A progression vector is a directional, measurable representation of a player's growth — a time-evolving (or stage-evolving) metric or set of metrics that reflects their advancement across one or many dimensions, e.g.,:

• Level (player level, power level, character level, game levels, etc.)

• Character Progression (skills / talents, gear, level, etc.)

• Campaign Progress

• Collection Completion

• Time Spent / Skill Mastery

• Social (Social Status, Guild Rank, etc.)

• And many others

When you contextualize and systemically apply these vectors across gameplay, meta, economy, and monetization, you can create a game that responds to the player's journey — rather than simply present a static content stack.

Core Idea: Vector-Based Game Design

Traditional progression systems focus on gates and milestones — e.g., "you hit level 20, unlock World Tier 3." Vector-based design instead asks:

"What experience should we deliver to a player on this vector trajectory right now?"

It’s about designing your whole game lifecycle around the evolving “data” of player progression — a principle with deep implications across:

• Live ops configuration

• Storefronts and economy controls

• Content segmentation

• Personalized monetization

• Meta game rhythm and sync points

• Custom gameplay tuning

One Vector vs. Multi-Vector vs. Hybrid Experience Design

Let’s break down three ways to use progression vectors in practice:

1. Single Progression Vector Design

A clean example: a linear puzzle game like Candy Crush where the level number could be the core vector.

Use Case:
Tailoring daily offers, difficulty, and lives-to-refill pacing based on the current level range.

Puzzle Game Example:

• At levels 1–100, players get infinite lives events, faster retries, and aggressive reward pacing.

• At 100–200, monetization pressure increases (e.g., booster scarcity), but tailored packs show up based on the types of boosters most used.

Strengths: Simplicity, clean segmentation, predictable tuning.

2. Multi-Vector Design

Here, you track multiple progression paths and use them in combination to tailor experience. This is ideal for games with layered metas.

Example Vectors:

• Player Level (XP)

• Character Progression

• Campaign

• PvP Rank

• Collection Completion

• Guild Participation

MMORPG Example:

• A player at high combat level but with poor life skills gets targeted with events and bundles that boost e.g., fishing or trading.

• A crafter who’s never done PvP might see PvP tutorials, but not PvP store deals.

Benefits:

• Enables truly custom player journeys

• Reduces feature fatigue by hiding irrelevant systems

• Allows economy tuning per sub-audience

3. Progression Vector + “Experience / Engagement Vector” Hybrid

This advanced approach combines where a player is in the game with how they engage.

Experience vectors may include:

• Session Length

• Time Between Sessions

• Retention

• Monetization Activity

• Ad Engagement

• Win Rate / Frustration Levels

• Feature Usage

Looter Shooter Example:

• Two players at the same Power Level and Campaign Stage behave differently:

  • One plays 3 hours/day, pushes endgame, and watches e.g., YouTube builds.

  • The other logs in weekly and avoids PvP.

By pairing progression vectors with engagement style, you can tailor:

• Reward pacing (slower for casuals, faster for grinders)

• Store offers (premium cosmetics vs. utility boosts)

• Event participation incentives

• Content notifications and UI prioritization

This model allows even AAA games with limited tooling to deliver soft personalization without formal segmentation.

Note: Vector blending with these systems design approaches could be interesting in terms of mixing campaign and multiplayer modes together. You can find inspiration for this from this article here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/45-blending-vectors-designing-games):

Applications Across Systems Design

Let’s look at how vector-based design influences core systems:

1. Progression & Gameplay

• Difficulty scaling by player skill or trajectory

• New feature introduction based on usage, not just level

• Unlock sequences that adapt to player preferences (e.g., PvE vs. PvP pathing)

Extraction Shooter Example:

• Players who lose most of their raids get matched in a different pool

• Scav runs have better loot for struggling players

• Weapon upgrade systems scale friction based on kill/death ratio over time

2. Meta Game Rhythm

• Time-gating, battle pass pacing, and sync events vary per vector segment

• Reduce live ops fatigue by offering alternate progression paths based on player’s habits (e.g., collection vs. competition vs. creative build-making)

3. Economy Design: Sources, Sinks, and Storefronts

• Tailored resource drops: sink-heavy players get sources, hoarders get sinks

• Storefronts can shift inventory based on:

  • Power level vs. enemy scaling

  • Time since last upgrade

  • Inventory bottlenecks

4X Strategy Example:

• Players low on gold but with excess stone may see trade packs or special deals

• Store auto-shifts toward missing upgrade currencies based on current city build level

• Alliances that struggle in war events are given special rally rewards

4. Monetization Tailoring

• Offers match current trajectory (e.g., catching up, completionist bonuses, grind-skip bundles)

• First-time payer conversion packs tuned to player psychology (slow & steady vs. competitive burst)

5. Live Ops Configuration Files Built Around Vectors

Rather than static, calendar-based configurations, games should design their live ops backend systems to interpret:

• Progression ranges

• Activity metrics

• Prior monetization or churn risk signals

You’d define rules on your configuration sheets based on these vectors, e.g., using Level_ID as anchor for your tables if you would be using Level Progression as your main vector for tailoring your systems.

This way, every system is context-aware and scales content automatically.

Other Vector Strategies You Could Consider

Here are three additional vector strategies beyond progression and engagement:

1. Friction Vector

A derived metric that tracks how much resistance a player feels: fail rate, retry count, currency shortfalls.

Usage:
Dynamically lower difficulty, increase generosity, or trigger help overlays.

2. Social Vector

Tracks cooperative play, guild involvement, chat frequency, or gifting.

Usage:
Trigger guild-centric events, cross-player rewards, or encourage social pressure monetization.

3. Intent Vector (Predictive Behavioral Modeling)

Built from player telemetry, these models predict player archetypes: grinder, explorer, achiever, monetizer, etc.

Usage:
Powerful tool to drive narrative choices, UGC systems, or tailored live events based on behavioral clusters.

Why Many Games Still Miss This

Despite being foundational in e.g., mobile F2P, many AAA or midcore PC / console live games:

• Lack proper A/B testing or segmentation tools

• Are not built with configurable live ops files — they hardcode experience

• Don’t track engagement or friction vectors in meaningful ways

• Rely too much on “one-size-fits-all” design thinking

For these titles, vector-based tailoring offers a lightweight way to test features or economics organically — with no extra tech investment.

You just need a few smart variables, and a backend that responds to them.

Experience is the Hidden Frontier

What’s most undervalued is the experience vector — not progression, not monetization — but how it feels to play.

That feeling is a function of e.g.,:

• Friction

• Reward loop pacing

• Clarity of purpose

• Perceived agency

Designers should start modeling and tuning for that experience as actively as they model economies or balance.

Very few games — even today — personalize the tone, pressure, or tension of gameplay based on player context. That’s a missed opportunity.

Note: How much have you thought about use of Tension for Game Design? Find more about such a topic here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/35-the-use-of-tension-in-game-design):

Final Thoughts

Progression vector scaling isn’t new — but its full potential is rarely unlocked. Whether you're building a live puzzle game, a looter shooter, or a 4X strategy title, designing around how players move through your systems — and how they behave while doing so — lets you deliver something modern players crave:

A tailored, responsive, and emotionally resonant game journey.

It's not personalization for its own sake — it's personalization that scales your economy, improves retention, and respects the player’s path.

Let’s build more games this way.

Together, these OS concepts (theoretically) promise to redefine not only player experience (/UX) but also game systems, monetization models, live operations strategies; and, potentially, the very architecture of future game ecosystems. More importantly, they aim to offer a transformative business layer: a “reusable / convertible” engine powering new kinds of player-world and multiplayer-world symbiosis, all while potentially scaling from one-offs on enabling modular, multigame ecosystems under a unified universe.

I believe this is where most gaming startups harnessing AI should concentrate their efforts, rather than on incremental business ideas centered around narrative or NPC systems (which most I see ultimately leading to fail without transformative layers in place).

Note: This post as a continuation post (/fetching inspiration mainly from it) for my previous article about Autonomous Systems, Strategic AI, and the New Frontier of Game Design (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/47-autonomous-systems-strategic-ai):

What Are Player OS and Multiplayer OS?

Player OS acts as “a personal” AI-driven “profile / personalization” and “behavioral” engine. It, for example, tracks, adapts, and anticipates the player’s preferences, skills, and playstyles.

• Possibilities for use cases are not just within a single title, as it could be tailored to support multiple games / shared universe(s).

• It’s a systems-level innovation that personalizes engagement dynamically, from e.g., difficulty scaling to emergent mechanics — to events tailored to player-specific context, incl. monetization offers based on certain contextualization.

Multiplayer OS sits atop the social and multiplayer layers, managing e.g., matchmaking, emergent group dynamics, faction alliances, competitive ecosystems, and cooperative economies.

• Rather than static, siloed multiplayer instances, it’s an ongoing engine managing persistent multiplayer ecosystems that evolve organically, powered by player behavior and systemic game data.

Underlying Transformative Engine — A New Paradigm

Traditionally, games are siloed: each title has separate user profiles, static matchmaking, and isolated live ops. Sometimes they share same IP and/or universe to some extend, bringing them “closer”; but they’re most often, still, siloed experiences, as overall I don’t believe we’ve seen really successful takes on shared universe strategies out there, transforming between games fluently / naturally.

Player OS and Multiplayer OS can break this “old mold” by serving as underlying systemic engines, offering on top of its capabilities also things like:

• Persistent player models adapting as the player progresses, offering customized UX, adaptive / emergent challenges, adaptability to player-defined world re-structurization, and dynamic live ops and monetization cycles at a granular level.

• Multiplayer ecosystems that grow beyond the individual game’s lifecycle, enabling e.g., factions, alliances, and/or economies to persist or evolve through transformative methods, incl. live operation models and their evolved states.

• Systemic empowerment for mixed ecosystems blending vectors around both single / campaign and multiplayer experiences (see related article below for more: https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/45-blending-vectors-designing-games).

• Seamless integration layers where titles built on this OS can share data (from profiling / segmentation to progress to itemization, and such), enabling e.g., cross-title / in-universe rewards, progression / emergence carry-over, and unified player identities.

This shifts game development towards a modular “plug-in” approach: core systemic engines (Player OS and/or Multiplayer OS) making games (/game ecosystems / shared universes) more scalable, adaptable, and deeply personalized.

Transformative Business Layer: Player-World and Multiplayer-World Symbiosis

At its core, these OS layers facilitate something I call as “symbiotic relationships” between players and their worlds, and between multiplayer groups and ecosystems.

This symbiosis enables, without limitation, e.g.,:

• Dynamic, intrinsic monetization tied to real-time player context and systemic progression, not static store catalogs.

  • For example, personalized offers triggered by Player OS insights into individual spend propensity, combined with Multiplayer OS data on social capital or guild dynamics.

• Adaptive live operations that respond not only to macro events but also to micro-systemic changes: a sudden shift in multiplayer faction power might trigger unique, limited-time events or monetization offers.

• Enhanced player retention and lifetime value through persistent ecosystems that reward long-term engagement across titles, encouraging deeper investment into the broader universe.

This business layer is transformative because it treats players and/or multiplayer groups as active ecosystem participants — not passive consumers — enabling monetization and live ops models that emerge naturally from systemic engagement rather than intrusive prompts.

Basically, you could even create an experience where live ops could be just the core these OS models provide for you, referenced to this article (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/46-building-a-premium-first-game):

Multigame Layer: A Strategy for Unified Universes

When Player OS and Multiplayer OS are applied across a multigame ecosystem, especially within a shared universe or IP, the strategic possibilities multiply:

• Unified player profiles and progression let players carry skill, reputation, or inventory across multiple games seamlessly.

  • A player known as a strategist in a space RTS could bring that reputation into a multiplayer RPG under the same universe, unlocking exclusive content or matchmaking privileges.

• Cross-title live ops and events can dynamically influence multiple games.

  • For example, a multiplayer war in one title triggers resource scarcity or narrative shifts in another, managed centrally by the Multiplayer OS.

• Aggregated monetization models leverage combined player data for tailored offers spanning titles, boosting ROAS by reducing redundancy and increasing relevance.

• Systemic social dynamics evolve beyond single games — alliances and rivalries persist across the ecosystem, creating emergent economies and social capital that fuel deeper engagement.

Such an ecosystem becomes more than the sum of its parts — an organic, living universe driven by systemic design and persistent player / multiplayer data engines.

Final Thoughts

Player OS and Multiplayer OS are not just buzzwords — they are foundational engines, which could be built already with existing tech., heralding a systemic revolution in how games are designed, monetized, and live-operated.

By underpinning one-off titles with adaptive, persistent systemic layers, and, furthermore, enabling symbiotic player-world and multiplayer-world dynamics, they unlock new levels of engagement and monetization. Applied across multigame ecosystems and unified universes, they form the backbone for next-generation game universes — alive, evolving, and deeply personalized.

For studios and product teams aiming to innovate beyond the incremental, embracing these types of OS layers would be key to unlocking the future of gaming.

Are these type of OS engines / models cheap to make? Yes, and no — meaning, there is always a risk vs. reward profile you need to look into; and/but, the better you understand systems design and technicalities to build something like this, the better your chances are on making it happen. You shouldn’t also go all-in immediately, as over time I think proper transformative incrementalism through iterations can be achieved on building something like this, when you do it properly.

And after years of observing, sometimes testing, and writing about economies, systems, and hybrid models — it's about time I give it a proper spin myself. Especially now, as it looks subscription models are over, and over, again being talked more openly about on multiple occasions, incl. events, LinkedIn conversations, 1-to-1s with other designers, etc. It’s fascinating how things always goes in cycles — and, for this one, I believe it’s time to give it a new spin.

So, let’s talk about where subscription models have been, where they are now, and where they could go.

From Service Layers to In-Game Advantage

Today, most basic subscription models in games fall into two buckets:

1. Service-based subscriptions — Xbox Game Pass, Apple Arcade, or Netflix for games. Pay a monthly fee, get access to a library (Woo-hoo! Also sometimes great places to bury bad games).

2. In-game VIP / subscription passes — A premium lane inside a F2P game, usually offering daily gems, faster progression, exclusive missions, or QoL perks.

These models are familiar. They work decently well — sometimes poorly. But, well, they rarely scratch beyond the surface.

They’re transactional in nature. Pay 5 or 10 USD / month, get a predictable yield of soft currency, maybe a little XP boost, and/or the removal of ads. Some games go a step further, tying subscriptions to itemization and progression speed (one step usually better, when done right). The player essentially opts in to a “wealthier” version of the same grind.

But here’s the rub: that grind is still usually tuned around classic F2P decay curves, retention cliffs, and monetization triggers. Subscriptions in this form are more like lubricants to old engines than the engine itself.

The Hidden Layer: Evolving Tiers and Player Identity

What if a subscription wasn’t just about removing friction, but became a persistent, evolving identity layer within the game? Imagine that (very AI term).

A progressive, tiered subscription model could chance the game:

• Tier 1: Access to e.g., cosmetic perks and daily soft currencies.

• Tier 2: Exclusive co-op PvE content / systems, social club tools, expanded features, and/or daily premium currencies.

• Tier 3: Advanced progression mechanisms, special token access, and/or early content access before e.g., Event Passes.

• Tier 4: Influence over governance features, access to economy-shaping tools, or direct participation in developer feedback loops.

• And so on… basically for whatever you want to define it for.

Totally different. Game changer. Definitely transforms a subscription into more than a “VIP pass” — it becomes an RPG-like meta-progression system not gated solely by spend, but by ongoing commitment and ecosystem engagement.

Social Subscriptions: Belonging and Contribution

Monetization often focuses on individual gain. But social-driven monetization shifts focus toward collective identity and shared progression.

Subscriptions can evolve into social contracts:

• Unlock shared benefits for guilds or factions.

• Reflect team commitment in seasonal content.

• Provide access to exclusive collaborative events and rewards.

Think of subscriptions as contributing to a shared economy, where your participation benefits a larger community and reinforces long-term investment.

Note: Interested to learn more about social group monetization strategies? Read following articles next:

Integrating with the Battle Pass Era, and Innovating on Top of It!

We already live in the era of passes — Battle Passes, Event Passes, Collection Passes. They’re time-limited subscriptions with defined ROI.

The next evolution? Integration:

• A base subscription that automatically enrolls players in all seasonal passes.

• Higher tiers offering retroactive access to past passes’ content.

• Subscription-generated currency used to unlock pass milestones.

• Subscription-generated tokens to progress faster on other events, with proper systems loop integrated driving user back to core-focused progression and spending.

• And further yet: multi-tiered and multi-type passes:

  • Multi-tiered passes provide optional progression lanes for players of different commitment levels:

    • A Bronze Pass might offer basic perks and soft currency.

    • Silver adds cosmetics and event boosts.

    • Gold unlocks legacy content and new modes.

  • Multi-type passes can cater to different playstyles (each with distinct progression, rewards, and value systems):

    • Combat Passes.

    • Builder Passes.

    • Social/Club Passes.

    • Exploration Passes.

Subscription-like Microtransactions

Additionally, I believe we’ll be seeing the rise of subscription-like microtransactions: purchasable event passes or limited-time tracks that mimic subscription structures without the recurring billing.

These systems often use stepwise incentives — every milestone you unlock nudges you toward the next purchase. Players are encouraged to keep buying “just one more” segment to complete the reward chain or unlock the final legendary item. Or maybe just opt-in through fancy discounts, if you get that working.

These designs tap into commitment escalation while offering flexibility in purchase cadence.

Hidden Subscription Model

Some designs even create a "hidden subscription" experience. Instead of recurring payments, players purchase time-limited boosts — like premium account time or content unlocks — that provide enhanced rewards, faster progression, or better efficiency.

These purchases don’t auto-renew, but psychologically behave like subscriptions, incl. time duration (e.g., 1 day, 30 days, 90 days). Players feel compelled to maximize their benefits while active, creating recurring engagement loops — players feel a need to log in and play regularly to “get value” from their premium time, whilst the game rewards consistent activity during that window; leading naturally players to chain purchases through buying the next round of premium time before the current one expires. The result is a soft commitment model turned hard: subscription in behavior, but microtransaction in form, with a behavioral habitation pattern.

When layered with events or limited-time goals, they can drive playtime and monetization rhythm without overtly asking for a monthly fee — layering premium time with events, seasonal content, and reward tracks (you’re playing on a high-efficiency “track”) that are far more efficient to complete with premium benefits.

Why players stick? Basically lapsing on these models would mean falling behind in progression, missing content, or getting lower yield per play session.

Progressive mix with hidden subscription model could be also interesting direction to explore.

Subscription-Based Amplifying

Blending these into the broader subscription model can create hybrid ecosystems where players toggle between fixed monthly value and dynamic, event-based participation.

This integration positions subscriptions as both foundations and amplifiers within modern monetization frameworks.

Note: Interested about evolved strategies over Battle Passes (incl. other types of Passes)? Read more from following articles:

Experimental Spins on Subscription Design

Some forward-thinking ideas worth exploring:

1. Faction-Based Subscriptions: Players subscribe to a faction, influencing its power, reach, or economy in real-time competitive or cooperative settings.

2. Narrative Subscriptions: Episodic storytelling driven by subscriber engagement. Choices are influenced by collective votes or seasonal participation.

3. Creative Patron Tiers: Players at certain tiers submit cosmetics, participate in closed betas, or vote on design directions.

4. Subscription Gifting: Players sponsor friends or new players into higher tiers, unlocking viral k-factor growth and goodwill-based progression.

5. Spectatorship: Subscriptions granting enhanced access to live-style events or persistent world developments, giving spectating / passive players tools to observe, influence, or interact socially with high-stakes play.

6. Evolution from a “hidden subscription”:

   1. Dynamic Duration Pass: Premium status earned or extended by activity, not just purchases.

   2. Guild-level Premium Effects: One member’s premium time benefits the whole group.

   3. Seasonal “linked time” boosters: Players who subscribe during overlapping periods unlock synergy rewards (e.g., bonus loot for both players).

A New Foundation

It’s time we stop treating subscriptions like loyalty cards and start treating them like meta-systems — identity frameworks, social amplifiers, and long-tail economic engines.

Done right, subscriptions can become:

• Long-term engagement anchors.

• Signals of commitment and community.

• Ecosystem-friendly alternatives to shallow IAP-driven design.

There’s much more to uncover, and this is only the beginning. Subscriptions aren’t just recurring revenue. They’re “recurring relationships”. Let’s build with that in mind.

In this post, I’ll dive into the structural and philosophical design tensions between the micro and macro, and how these manifest across genres like extraction shooters, looter shooters, ARPGs, MMORPGs, and 4X games. I’ll also discuss how systems design, meta game structures, economies, monetization, and live ops can become more expressive and interconnected when both levels are acknowledged — not just for F2P but for premium games as well.

1. Meta Game: The Macro Brain Layer

Macro-level meta game is where players zoom out and engage with their long-term identity, goals, or optimization strategy. It’s the mental dashboard they consult between sessions, often the emotional glue between short-term wins.

Micro Examples

• In an extraction shooter like Hunt: Showdown 1896, players fine-tune their characters and loadouts with granular micro-decisions: primary weapon, secondary weapon, ammo type, equipment, traits.

• In an ARPG, the timing of skill rotations, positioning, and cooldown management are intense micro experiences.

Macro Evolution Opportunities

Most of these games still underplay their macro layer. Think about:

• Persistent macro roles in extraction shooters (medic, tactician, trader) that evolve across weeks, with e.g., social group missions or territory ownership.

• Build archiving and performance trajectories in ARPGs that unlock new narrative paths or social status — e.g., if you clear something within certain threshold in 10 different builds, new lore arcs open.

• Think about a system on 4X game, where intergalactic political classes or social contracts emerge across campaigns — e.g., after 3 conquests with a militarist strategy, your civilization permanently gains a “Warmonger Memory” trait that limits future diplomacy unless expunged through narrative quests. These long-memory macro roles make each run feel cumulative and distinct

Monetization Tie-In

• Unlocking these macro roles could use intrinsic monetization: you pay to express mastery, not to gain power.

• This could also evolve into spectator-fueled ecosystems: top macro players acting as strategists, analysts, or commentators for squads — rewarded via progression-linked recognition, exclusive customization options, etc.

2. Systems Design: The Frame

Systems are where macro and micro become intertwined. Good systems allow micro inputs (click, fire, evade) to ripple upward into macro consequences (XP earned, roles unlocked, markets impacted).

Micro-Level System Design

• Gunfire noise in extraction shooters is a form of micro economy: choosing to shoot reveals your location and triggers an enemy AI pathing recalculation or another player’s trap.

• In looter shooters, reload speed and bullet spread create friction for moment-to-moment agency.

Macro-Level System Design

• Faction systems in MMORPGs could be overhauled into asymmetric economies — where factions rely on different gameplay styles to survive (PvP dominance, trade route monopolies, spiritual shrines).

• In ARPGs, rarity tiers could evolve into ecological systems — you consume too many undead hearts and the world becomes plagued, which opens new areas or closes off others.

Design Opportunity

Designing interconnected systems that allow micro input to have cascading macro effects opens the door for:

• Emergent monetization: selling skins, passes, or stories that evolve based on what system states the player has altered.

• Premium game replayability: think about a grand strategy-RPG hybrid where your choices in individual battles (such as whom you spare, what units you field, or whether you burn down a village) accumulate into sweeping political and geographical changes by the endgame, changing future campaigns entirely.

• Introduce micro decisions with unexpected macro consequences, like pollution mechanics in a futuristic 4X where burning forests now increases short-term industry but triggers ecological backlash across regions — altering diplomacy, citizen morale, or even spawning global climate events.

Note: Emergent and systemic systems hold ton of potential in game development and design. Here’s more about the topic (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/28-systematic-and-emergent-gameplay):

3. Game Economies: Macro Valuation vs. Micro Choice

Economies exist at all levels. But most games either go hard on micro (currency for convenience) or hard on macro (prestige / seasonal goals). Let’s examine where both can coexist better.

Micro-Level Economies

• Extraction shooters: Every bullet has weight and cost. Do you risk using your last high-penetration round to kill a looter, or sneak past?

• MMORPGs: Do you tip a player-crafted buff vendor for their service?

• In 4X, deciding whether to harvest luxury or strategic resources with a worker unit — or delaying it for tech unlocks — is a microeconomic choice with strategic depth.

Macro-Level Economies

• In ARPGs, gear crafting could tap into shared macro resources — materials gained by whole player regions or events, not just individuals.

• Looter shooters could have global loot pool shifts: if too many players farm an area, it’s depleted and loot tables degrade. Forces movement and exploration.

Monetization Models

• Social group monetization: In MMORPGs, a guild might collectively purchase a caravan system that allows for safer, faster resource transport — only unlocked with group effort or pooled resources. Even non-paying members benefit from faster trade and protection. Furthermore, in 4X, Social monetization via federations would allow player-created alliances to pool cosmetic budgets to unlock shared empire themes, map reskins, or seasonal political statues across member capitals.

• Multi-subscription: e.g., premium crafting pass, guild war participation pass, live event archive pass — players pay to participate in specific macro layers.

• Spectatorship: events where most players watch, cheer, or support a few active participants — like tournaments or mass raids.

4. Monetization: Deep, Intrinsic, and Social Group

As monetization has been mentioned already couple times, let’s explore more of it next. In terms of micro and macro, classic monetization separates player from money via abstracted friction: currencies, battle passes, season resets. But a new wave of design looks to intrinsic and social monetization — where the player pays not to win, but to master, belong, express, or contribute.

Micro-Level Monetization

• Cosmetic idle animations in an extraction shooter.

• Players pay to unlock advanced challenge tiers or “master mode” quests that reward unique cosmetic titles or badges reflecting high skill.

Macro-Level Monetization

• Social group monetization in MMORPGs: your guild buys a shrine that enables world bonuses, creating a co-dependent economy. Non-contributors still benefit (passive role), but active ones set the direction. In 4X, you could allow federations or multiplayer leagues to jointly build mega-structures — available only when pooled social effort is detected (like a galactic parliament, interstellar highway, or AI-controlled peacekeepers).

• Intrinsic monetization: paying to unlock lore, history, or a living world’s meta evolution.

Potential Systems

• Spectatorship: A looter shooter where e.g., 5-person squads have a 6th member, a strategist — watching in real time, calling shots, spending team-earned resources. Monetization becomes a social funnel of orchestration.

• Progressive passes / subscriptions: In a looter shooter, players subscribe to a tiered “Season Pass” system where each level unlocks progressively deeper access.

• Multiple subscription choices: In an MMORPG, players can subscribe to different content streams simultaneously.

Note: Interested about Intrinsic and Social Group Monetization? Read more about them here:

5. Live Ops: Sustaining Macro and Refreshing Micro

Live Ops has been mostly wrongly typecast as skin drops, dailies, and limited-time modes. Thus, I believe it's the perfect scaffold for refreshing micro layers and e.g., evolving macro arcs.

Micro-Level Live Ops

• Time-limited modifiers in extraction shooters: low oxygen zones or radioactive storms that require different weapons or behaviors.

• Temporary skill swaps in ARPGs to encourage unorthodox builds.

• Time-limited events like meteor storms in 4X that cause micro-evacuations or spawn rare tiles, forcing fast adaptation in tactical placement or resource strategy.

Macro-Level Live Ops

• Community-driven narratives: factions vote on political assassinations; the result shifts questlines and character motivations for months.

• Event economy resets: one faction wins a war, their items get buffed while others’ are blacklisted. Forces re-balancing.

Live Ops as a Monetization Accelerator

• Live Ops could evolve also to a subscription to dynamism: players pay for the right to influence macro decisions, participate in large-scale simulations, or get early access to event-changing tools. Or, players subscribe to a “Galactic Chronicle Pass”, which lets them participate in shaping canon events, vote in diplomacy crises, or gain early access to emergent systems — like dark matter crises or inter-dimensional trade.

Note: Interested to boost your Live Ops? Fuse your current efforts with intrinsic and social tactics (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/33-intrinsic-and-social-live-ops):

The Future of Macro-Micro Game Design

Designing around macro and micro is not just a balance act — it’s a creative explosion. We’re only scratching the surface. Genres like ARPGs, MMORPGs, and extraction shooters are ripe for more intricate macro structures and systemic monetization that respects depth.

Future games may no longer think of monetization as an afterthought or an F2P necessity. Instead, it becomes an expression of participation, culture, and identity — and that applies equally well to premium and free games.

At the intersection of moment-to-moment micro and saga-spanning macro lies the true alchemy of games. And in that space, players become more than just players. They become citizens of worlds that live and evolve — with them, for them, and often because of them.

Note: Interested to explore micro and macro more deeply with further inspiration? Read these articles through next:

In this post, I’m exploring how high-level AI and large-scale logic systems are reshaping the way we build, balance, and imagine game worlds. Not through flashy NPC dialogue or overhyped generative tricks, but by embedding e.g., reasoning systems into the very operating layer of games themselves.

Potential New Operating Model: Games as Autonomous Systems

A New Operating Model: Games as Autonomous Systems

Traditionally, games are reactive: players act, the game reacts. But increasingly, modern games — especially those with persistent worlds, hybrid economies, and/or systemic (/emergent) multiplayer — are becoming living systems.

Here, AI isn't about replacing game designers. It's about giving them systems to author rulesets, behavioral logic, and autonomous agents that run, adapt, and evolve the game within defined boundaries.

We can frame this shift in at least two tiers:

1. System-Level AI: Used to run the game (economy, balance, pacing, LiveOps).

2. World-Level AI: Used to inhabit the game (co-op partners, factions, player personas, etc.).

Let’s look at both.

Note: There is lots of potential in systemic / emergent gameplay and systems. Interested to learn more about how I perceive these opportunities? Check out this article here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/28-systematic-and-emergent-gameplay):

Use Case 1: AI-Cooperative Extraction Gameplay

Imagine an extraction shooter where the player doesn’t just squad up with matchmaking, but with strategically growing AI companions.

Each mission starts on a strategic map. The player chooses which characters (from their roster) to deploy where. These characters are AI-driven, with behaviors shaped by customizable traits and learned styles on the metagame layer — e.g., aggressive pushers, stealth scouts, risk-averse snipers, and such.

The player controls one at a time but can jump between them mid-mission, using tactics to pivot between positions on the fly. In the metagame, players develop these characters like squads in an RTS or RPG — enhancing gear, unlocking traits, and refining behavioral styles.

These companion agents are powered by lightweight AI logic hosted on the game server. This doesn’t require a massive cloud LLM — it can run using local reasoning logic, trained heuristics, or open-source models fine-tuned on combat or behavior trees.

The result? A deeply tactical experience where the player doesn’t just shoot — they orchestrate.

Can something like this be orchestrated for real player co-op / PvP / PvPvE settings? Can you leverage these for monetizing games in traditional and new ways (incl. social group monetization, intrinsic monetization strategies, and such)? Most definitely yes. Obviously, on some of these applications, some layers of monetization would need to be deeply interconnected to the player(s)-to-player(s) interaction vs. player-to-AI interaction, to make most of it.

Note: interested to learn about e.g., group monetization, intrinsic monetization, and related topics? Check these articles out:

Use Case 2: Autonomous Economy Control

In a genre-spanning LiveOps game — be it an MMO, builder, or idle-clicker — the economy often swings out of balance. Gold inflation, item hoarding, drop-rate abuse, content bottlenecks.

Now imagine if an autonomous system was monitoring this in real time. It observes, models, and adjusts economy sinks and sources within safe guardrails. It rate-limits itself, logs everything, and makes sure no change is too drastic or irreversible.

The LiveOps team can still step in, review, revert, or guide — but they don’t have to micromanage. The system runs independently, with oversight.

This AI doesn’t need to be a large model. It could be a modular logic engine trained with structured prompts and real data. The changes are auditable, the decisions are explainable, and the system is trustworthy.

Think of it as a self-tuning game world: a sandbox that refines its own rules, within the rules you wrote for it.

Beyond making and designing this “safe”, I’d say you would need to have these in place to make best out of it:

• AI “diminishing” / “increasing” controls / thresholds.

• Clear rulesets / parameters to follow, incl. thresholds.

• Fallback systems to go a step back.

• Fallback systems to take a control of one or many parts, incl. proper configuration table infra to take over the control.

• Analytics plan to follow and monitor to identify from data yourself what works, and what didn’t; to stay on top instead of not understanding what A has caused to X.

• And such.

Additional AI-Enabled Game Features

Beyond co-op partners and economic balance, here are two more speculative systems that reflect some themes from my blog:

Player Personas and Narrative Factions

Let’s think about a multiplayer ARPG where players don’t just choose a class — they choose a persona. This persona is built as a semi-autonomous mirror: it watches how the player behaves and starts suggesting side quests, mission types, or factions that fit their style.

This AI agent can also represent the player in faction wars or long-running quests. Not in the sense of automated gameplay, but as a narrative actor: writing letters, making political decisions, pledging allegiances.

It extends the player’s identity into asynchronous systems, all while deepening immersion.

AI-Led Event Design

In many hybrid-monetized games, events drive re-engagement and monetization. But what if some of these events were designed, scheduled, and tested autonomously?

You can imagine a system that:

• Learns from past event data

• Proposes new event formats

• Suggests schedule pacing

• Auto-adjusts difficulty based on cohort performance

The result is a semi-autonomous LiveOps system that handles the long tail of content management. It’s not replacing the designer — it’s scaling their intent.

Note: AI can potentially enhance intrinsic and social strategies for LiveOps. Want to learn more what I mean with intrinsic and social LiveOps? Check my article about this topic here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/33-intrinsic-and-social-live-ops):

High-Level Tech Setup: Modular, Scalable, Autonomous

These systems don’t all require cloud-scale AI. Here's a simple mental model for where and how to run them:

Use Cases and Example Setups

Economy balancing: Run a logic/AI engine server-side, inside a container or orchestration layer (e.g., scheduled cron jobs or microservice loop) with telemetry as input and game config as output.

Co-op AI agents: Lightweight behavior logic infused with learned traits; run as part of dedicated game server or as a companion AI module.

Narrative agents or faction AI: Small memory agents trained with progression rules and player behavior, stored per-player and activated as needed.

Event planning AI: Back-office dashboard tool with constrained generation engine and designer prompt-tuning layer.

Most of these systems can run on your own servers using open models or bespoke logic trees, without exposing anything to third-party APIs or platforms.

AI as Game Substrate, Not Feature

The future of AI in games isn’t about flashy gimmicks or magic NPCs that “feel alive.”

It’s about embedding intelligence into the substrate of games. Systems that learn, refine, and adapt. Agents that collaborate with players rather than replace them. Autonomous rulesets that evolve, but don’t go rogue.

Game designers aren’t just artists anymore. They’re architects of living systems.

Note: Interested about how AI will enable game makers rather than disable? Here’s my view on this topic (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/43-the-ai-accelerated-game-maker):

And with the right constraints, transparency, and tools — we can make games that think, listen, and grow; as well as provide player-value vs. ruin it.

The challenge, however, is significant. How can you build a premium game that sustains itself for years, without the constant drip-feed of content updates or FOMO-inducing mechanics? The answer I’ve seen usually has been that studios opt-in for these approaches in order to build games that are fun to play, for the time they get played — and that’s kind of it. Some studios will do well with these, alone or through the partners they have; and it will be all good for them. But for most? I’d say they should take a more deeper approach, about which I’m discussing more on this article. Also, thinking about the challenges here — it’s quite exciting to provide a take on something where some doors and windows are closed, e.g., F2P, and live service.

As a product person and systems designer; and someone passionate about game economies, progression, and long-term player motivation, I believe one answer lies in applying the best systemic principles from F2P and live service models to premium-first games — without the baggage. Instead of pursuing frequent monetized events, we focus on building robust systems, meta loops, and emergent gameplay structures that allow the game to evolve, propagate, and thrive naturally, through player agency and systemic interactivity.

This article outlines how to approach such a premium-first business model from a systems design perspective, borrowing and blending best practices from various genres — like Extraction Shooters, Roguelites, MMORPGs, and 4X — and the monetization psychology of F2P/live service models. All with the goal of crafting a self-operating ecosystem of long-term engagement and value. As, if you do this right, you’ll still make plenty of business without the need to live service, or opt-in for F2P / Hybrid models.

Why Premium-First Is a Design Opportunity

The move toward live services has led to a reactive and frequently exploitative mindset in game development — games that are incomplete at launch, filled with short-term retention hooks, or designed to require constant intervention. This is expensive, both creatively and operationally. But a well-designed premium game can live for years without needing that.

If its systems are:

• Deeply replayable, incl. emergent / systemic takes.

• Socially engaging

• Mechanically variable, incl. emergent / systemic takes.

• Progressionally rich

• Balanced with long-term player expression in mind

Then you have something that can propagate itself organically through community, gameplay discovery, and personal mastery.

Systems Design Philosophy: Blending the Best of All Worlds

Let’s break down how different genres and business models can inform premium-first systems design.

From F2P Games:

• Retention Systems: Daily goals, long-term quests, multi-track progression (horizontal and vertical), habit-forming loops.

• Meta-Layers: Character upgrades, cosmetics, persistent economy, crafting, home bases.

• Soft and Hard Currencies (Optional), and/or Resources Driving Same: Used not for monetization, but for strategic pacing as well as progression on certain progression vectors.

• Limited-Time Content Philosophy (Optional): Use as a design tool (seasonal content) rather than pressure hook.

From Live Service Games:

• Live-Lite Model: Build modularity into content and systems (e.g., weekly challenge structures, player-driven quests, randomized seeds).

• Community Tools: Embed sharing, social meta, and inter-player gameplay (asynchronous options included).

• System-Based Extensibility: Make sure new features can slot into existing loops without rebalancing the whole game.

From Extraction Shooters:

• Risk-Reward Loops: Add friction and excitement to resource accumulation.

• Loadout Investment: Making every mission matter.

• Evolving World States: Player actions impacting global conditions or meta-economy.

From Roguelites:

• Procedural Variety: No two runs the same; use this for encounter, reward, or narrative variation.

• Run-Based Economies: Session-driven design that feeds a persistent meta loop.

From MMORPGs:

• Social Systems: Asynchronous or synchronous grouping, guilds, economy.

• Specialization and Roles: Identity-driven long-term playstyles.

• Dynamic World Evolution: Factions, resource control, event triggers.

• Living World: Just a living world with presence (actual / simulated / asynchronous) of other players could be enough for some takes.

From Action RPGs and RPGs:

• Deep Buildcrafting: Let players express creativity through synergies.

• Narrative-Laced Systems: Build story into your upgrades, economy, and exploration.

From 4X:

• Tactical Depth Meets Strategic Long-Term Goals: Plan, manage, iterate.

• Turn/Time Pressure: Incorporate meaningful pacing.

• Ecosystem Interplay: Build systems where emergent behavior arises from player actions.

Genre and Systems Blending: The Power of Cross-Pollination

As explored in my recent blog post 45. Blending Vectors: Designing Games at the Intersection of Campaign, Mixed, and Multiplayer Modes, genre boundaries are dissolving, and with them come rich opportunities for vector blending.

Cross-Vector Examples:

• Roguelite + Extraction Shooter: Risk-reward structure from extractions, variability from roguelites.

• MMORPG + 4X: Factional politics mixed with world conquest systems.

• ARPG + Social Co-op: Deep buildcrafting enhanced by social asynchronous systems (e.g., echoes, ghosts, PvPvE layers).

Two-Vector Mode Blending:

• Campaign + Multiplayer:

  • Asynchronous: Player-created challenges, echoes, resource battles.

  • Synchronous: Tactical raids, PvEvP.

  • Hybrid: Shared world state where your solo actions contribute to factional progression.

These blends allow premium games to feel infinitely more alive, interconnected, and dynamic.

Self-Operatable Ecosystems: The Holy Grail

To build a self-sustaining premium game, your systems need to:

• Encourage Player-Led Content: Build in social, emergent, and creation loops.

• Provide Systemic Variety: Make sure systems remix themselves over time (randomization, AI seeds, rotations).

• Create Open-Ended Goals: Think evergreen mastery, not fixed end states.

• Use Systems for Balance: Instead of patching, make counterplay and ecosystem balancing part of the design.

When done right, your game doesn’t need live ops to remain engaging.

It evolves because:

• Players find new builds, strategies, or paths.

• Systems interact in unexpected ways.

• Community shares and innovates.

• Multiplayer or async interactions create a meta.

Cost-Efficient, System-Rich, Premium-Only Games

Designing these experiences doesn’t have to mean exorbitant costs.

With clever systems design:

• A map can be reused with procedural seeds.

• A set of skills can create thousands of builds.

• One system can power both campaign and multiplayer.

It’s about making systems that scale with player creativity, not just with developer effort.

Examples:

• A PvPvE mode with build persistence and role-based utility, encouraging repeat sessions and emergent group tactics.

• Narrative unlock systems based on world state rather than linear plot, allowing discovery to pace itself.

• Economy systems that allow trade, scarcity, factional control, crafting loops—all without requiring new content every quarter.

References You Can Use on This Type of Quest (With Premium-First Point of View)

And many others from my blog: https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/.

Designing for the Long Game

The future isn’t just (even I discuss mostly about them!) about live services or battle passes. It is also about creating games that operate like ecosystems: dynamic, player-driven, and evergreen. And, as stated first when starting this article, it’s also about just fun premium games for the time they get played — there will be space for them as well.

Through thoughtful application of systems design — pulling from F2P, live service, and diverse genres — you can craft premium-first titles that offer years of value. This will lead to proper business case, especially as any level of self-propagation would be reached — which could be driven through, well, purely from systems design side.

Approaching game development this way isn’t just sustainable; it’s creatively fulfilling. You build not just a game, but a world that players want to live in, explore, and grow with. That’s the real magic of systems thinking.

Premium doesn’t mean static. And live service doesn’t have to mean things they’re now based on. One solution is just proper take on systems design. That’s where one promising future lives. These types of games would be something I’d love to build.