16. Mobile Gaming Cycles: Commercialization, and an Industry in Motion
Discussion about current state of Mobile Games market and where it is evolving towards to
The mobile gaming industry is a dynamic ecosystem, constantly evolving through cycles of innovation, commercialization, and reinvention.
Each cycle introduces new opportunities and challenges — shaping how games are developed, marketed, and sustained. From genre-mixing to shifts in user acquisition strategies, these cycles fuel the industry’s growth and creativity — and sentiment.
This article focuses on discussing about current state of Mobile Games market, what has driven it where it is, and what (potentially) lies ahead.
How We Ended Up Where We Are: The Post-IDFA Reset
The introduction of Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework sent shockwaves through the industry — disrupting traditional methods of user acquisition and monetization.
Over the years, most (commercially adaptable) studios have adapted to what is required for survival; focusing on e.g., onboarding and first-time user experiences (FTUE) with marketability in mind — whilst overall they’re driving things through top-of-the-funnel approach with engagement and monetization tie-ins to marketability, onboarding, and FTUE. And, specifically, in terms of marketability, games now emphasize tested initial impressions; tying them directly to advertising and organic attractiveness.
This reset represents another cycle, where challenges give rise to innovative solutions — and, more specifically, how the current commercial sentiment we’re living under evolved to its current form. By embracing a top-of-funnel approach and re-imagining growth strategies, the industry has found new ways to thrive — indeed, even in a post-IDFA landscape.
The Role of Commercialization and Commercial Sentiment
At the heart of the current phase lies commercialization. Distribution and marketability dominate the conversation, with studios leveraging creative strategies and user acquisition (UA) channels at an unprecedented scale and volume.
Key Commercial Trends Include:
🔹 “Misleading” Creatives: Ads with “lies” without product tie-ins and Ads with “white lies” with onboarding tie-ins (latter ones bridging the gap between marketing promises and actual gameplay experiences better than where this all started) have become common “tricks”.
Lately, FTUE more often extends the narrative of these ads — which is a path towards more healthier direction vs. everything being tied to full lies (which we did see first when misleading strategies were started being used).
Side Note: Mini-games, which I cover more below, are increasingly raising as a trend to follow what “Misleading” Ads started, which is another step into better direction as well — where we're also seeing actual game-complementing takes vs. non-complementary.
🔹 Mini-Game UA: Mini-games integrated into ads have emerged as a highly effective user acquisition strategy. These engaging snippets offer players a taste of the gameplay experience (when complementary to the game); driving downloads by sparking curiosity and interest.
Mini-games located in-game are used mostly in FTUE and between levels on e.g., Puzzle Games — whilst some genres like 4X are using them fully in onboarding players to actual 4X MMO gameplay, which is something you can read more from here as well (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/11-the-next-frontier-in-4x-pure-hybrid):
In terms of how 4X titles incorporate these strategies, the genre itself has managed to grow after a cycle of churn — so, apparently players are onboard for this, which is a good thing to try for other genres facing challenges.
🔹 Onboarding Innovations: Onboarding processes are increasingly being designed to mirror the “Misleading” Ads as well as Mini-games seen in Ads — ensuring transition from marketing to gameplay as they are complementing actual experience.
This alignment helps improve player retention and strengthens the connection between ad “promises” and in-game experiences, which is a step in right direction on many fronts, e.g., around actual game-complementing mini-games better than on misleading front.
🔹 Rapid UA Strategy Iteration: Studios now adapt e.g., Ads / Creatives, FTUE and gameplay mechanics immediately when someone finds a new working method for something, or adaptation happens when UA cohorts burn, etc. — responding to shifting competitor strategies, creative trends and player preferences.
In addition to looking how everyone holds ‘quality’ up in their approach, there’s been lately lots of ‘bubbling under’ talks and guidance given by many towards moving to quantity over quality — where e.g., “ugly” Ads would be acceptable for marketing and UA teams to work over; given also their results and metrics from CPIs to early curves for Product metrics (which for some games apparently work — but for how long?).
Use of AI also has a tie-in here for UA strategies and Creatives / Ads production on scale, where also AI generated Ads — even being totally random — are finding their correlation between audiences and products.
🔹 Scientific Testing: Extensive A/B testing allows developers to refine monetization strategies, engagement loops, and overall marketability — where, most often, marketability is the actual starting point for new game development before even a line of code is made.
This type of marketability testing can be driven through e.g., fake app store page setups and Facebook / Meta campaigns, to get “simulated” CPIs and some reads on IPM metrics of Ads / Creatives — whilst some studios have adapted to run these tests now through mini-game setups where they also get read on CPI-engagement tie-ins.
🔹 ROAS and Top-of-Funnel Strategies: Modern marketing strategies interconnect return on ad spend (ROAS), marketability, engagement, and monetization.
These elements move fluidly between each other, with a top-of-the-funnel approach driving new users while ensuring monetization and engagement are tightly integrated. Are you interested about this approach overall and how to approach it? You can find more about it under an article where I talk about the importance of Business Modeling (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/6-why-business-modeling-your-f2p):
🔹 Hybrid Casual Wave: Hybrid casual games epitomize the industry’s drive for reinvention. By streamlining onboarding, optimizing mechanics for marketability (yet finding depth in meta creatively), and integrating modern mixed monetization and UA optimization strategies, they have broadened their appeal to diverse markets.
These games reflect the ongoing interplay between accessibility and depth, where each iteration builds on the lessons of its predecessors. These games, also, itself are going through own cycles, where hybrid casual games are now moving between meta game depth and social takes. My prediction here for Hybrid Casual, in general, would be that they double-down first on meta game depth and features / events, after which importance of social raises up highly.
Side Note: Interested about social or how Hybrid Casual drives forward different genres? Read my articles below to find more info:
🔹 Fast-Following: Studios are rapidly replicating successful features from their own and/or competitors’ games. This practice accelerates commercialization cycles and ensures alignment with market trends — though, it can also homogenize the gaming landscape, which is something we need to be aware of tightly, as it can set us up towards a negative cycle when things compound together poorly economy-wise on a whole industry or segment level. This is not just a theory, as e.g., segments like Screw Puzzle are having churn by copycats trying to make it out when they follow Screw Jam and Wood Nuts & Bolts — which affects to the whole segment from CPIs to engagement and other metrics. You can find more about this on my analysis of Screw Puzzle genre (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/12-thinking-about-making-a-screw):
Continuing the actual topic — some studios test trends in their less performing games, after which they move best features and their adaptations to their highest performing titles. This is pretty common any many do it, where good example is e.g., Playrix and how they cycle feature tests inside their portfolio
🔹 Genre-Mixing: Mobile gaming thrives on genre-mixing, where elements from one category blend into another to create fresh experiences. For instance, many casual and hybrid casual games now borrow elements from midcore titles — while 4X games incorporate hybrid casual gameplay and mini-game loops to appeal to broader audiences. Hybrid casual games are good examples also in terms of how fast the genre-mixing is explored — as even solo developers can go for it, it has resulted in number of games tested to rapidly grow while they still maintain innovative approaches for genre-mixing.
Each mini-cycle of genre-mixing sparks fresh ideas, inspiring developers to innovate further and redefine player expectations.
🔹 D2C / Webshops: D2C / Webshops aren’t anymore just experiments — they’re becoming norm for developers and publishers. Read more about what I’ve written their current state and future direction here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/4-d2c-webshops-in-mobile-games-the):
🔹 Offerwalls and Incentivized UA: Offerwalls raised their heads 2024 definitely and will continue growing in popularity when developers and publishers find ways to explore them. Using them is not key directly to success as it's a balancing act for making it right if you want to keep engagement and monetization activity going — as when not done right, users engaging with it might not behave as you expected them to act upon. Developers who have gotten it right, they have gotten okay results for certain volume of traffic.
Questions to Keep in Mind
While these strategies have driven remarkable success, with some games generating daily revenues exceeding $500,000, they also raise critical questions:
How sustainable are these practices?
Will players become tired of the formats we use for UA and how the gaming experience actually is, or will they continue to accept them as part of the entertainment experience?
What if we burn the candle from both sides on a segment and/or macro level(s)?
These questions highlight the cyclical nature of commercialization, where peaks of success are often followed by periods of re-evaluation and re-invention.
If things stay as they are, I believe it is fine as overall there are many good things in what is going on currently — e.g., games really need to hit their KPIs, with engagement most often being the most important part in holding everything together. So, in this sense, games need to be solid and taste for the audience.
Beyond this I think there is level of greatness in the velocity of trying out things quickly and boldly, and killing poor directions, with more knowledge on how this overall works — like one studio / product GM, who works in one of these top hybrid casual studios, said once: “The only variable is trying more things per moment in time to increase the chance to catch the wave”.
Investor Focus: Balancing Commercial Sentiment and Visionary Bets
Venture capitalists and investors have heavily funded distribution-first game studios, prioritizing scalability and mass appeal. However, while much of the industry aligns with commercial sentiment, investors also start to recognize the value of looking beyond immediate trends — whilst still keep tightly on hold on their distribution-first approach.
This dual approach ensures a balance — investors back projects aligned with current market dynamics while also placing strategic bets on fresh, groundbreaking ideas. Latter investments target studios aiming to push the boundaries of mobile gaming and technologies and platforms around it — fostering long-term growth and setting the stage for the next big movement.
By supporting both paths (where I hope the needle would move a bit more still on what’s the next cycle vs. current commercial one), the industry gets over time diversified bets of fresh ideas and innovation.
De-investments and Other Negative Sides
Layoffs in 2023 and 2024
Even when there are investments happening, 2023 and 2024 were years of de-investments as well, resulting to large amount of layoffs.
I'm hoping things will turn out to better direction soon on this front, as mass-level layoffs are breaking many dynamics — from recruiters not having time to pay attention to your profile (filters are heavily used not passing candidates to pipelines, etc.) towards there being fierce competition in quantity for every position.
Return to Office (RTO) vs. Remote — And a Suggestion to Make It Right
What also is limiting things is the RTO wave vs. nurturing flexible hybrid and/or remote culture.
This makes many studios to miss great talent as well as e.g., not having their managers learning managing hybrid and remote setups, which are skills and experiences I think everyone should learn on managing in their careers. I've recently managed up to 4 studios with a mixed setup (which is something I'll suggest below being win-win for all and for mitigating certain risks), with remote being okay — and it went well; where key was nurturing a culture of proactively coaching people to find their best fit into that and trusting them to raise a flag when there is such a need. You just need proper processes, trust and give ownership (with accountability), and it will work fine with recruiting proper talent — and all those magical moments and “super” good ideas everyone claims happening on-site only happened normally when you did things right. This applies to things like learning from C-level downward and learning as executive things from down to top — if you do it just right. And, indeed, remote people can possibly travel when face to face has necessity.
It’s what is controlling direction here just the preference of managers and leaders making things fitting their routines vs. not thinking the bigger picture with holistic and open-minded approach. Also, for some it’s the public markets’ dynamics that are driving them to make these decisions — even it would not really suit for the nature of our industry. And, maybe, for some, it’s that they probably would be blaming their performance drops by remote and hybrid cultures — which, honestly, isn’t the root cause for poor performance, as most often it’s within something else not working. Some articles even out there claim companies have seen increase in revenue (with no proper sources or studies behind) after return to office call-outs, which are not real truths as many of those companies are going their normal cycles through where e.g., revenues are normally resetting after harder times. It sometimes sounds, when you read industry posts and articles about these things, that these return to office calls are group-coordinated (who really knows — most probably it is just herd behavior) when companies follow each other over these trends.
You just need to build and invest in these things right, and I'm happy to consult anyone needing proper guidance and risk-mitigation here on this front. Covid did change dynamics and people's behavior and preferences, and forcing them back is fighting against dynamics change that is hard if not impossible to take back without compromising on something, e.g., talent.
Risks Around Talent
In terms of missing talent opportunities, I think it’s a bigger risk than many realize.
For example, based on my experience with recruiting people to different disciplines, there can be very limited pool of talent in your existing country or city (incl. nearby areas) — where having more flexible policies will help. Just as an example, if you would search for, let’s say, very experienced Senior or Principal Data Analysts; some countries have very limited pools of them — which I’m also pretty sure applies to same and and many other disciplines in many countries (I’m basing this assumption on my endeavors around recruiting people via tools such as LinkedIn Recruiter, which is a tool with which you pretty much see, by advanced search features, how much talent you would have available in your city or country based on selected filters). If you would then, even your location is otherwise good, have urgent need and would want to maintain on-site policy, you would most probably need to set with a more junior profile vs. getting the seniority level you want — which (even though hiring juniors to advance them is good) would set you not getting results with the velocity your business would need. And, when above and other things get repeated and compounded enough, it would not lead to the predicted growth path.
By opening your doors for talent pools that would be even, let’s say, +/- 2 hours from your country, you would get much more talent for your needs. Hiring people from other countries isn’t also that hard nowadays given we have platforms like Deel, etc. there for everyone’s leverage.
Suggestion on RTO vs. Remote
Even I’m a bit opinionated on the topic above, given my positive experiences over Remote setups and that I’m comfortable in working under and leading it, eventually, I think it would be best for our industry to be just more flexible on it — e.g., having a Mix rather than RTO-only initiative being the direction.
A Mix would mean combination of on-site/hybrid and remote.
Furthermore, A Mix would:
Complement talent needs.
Teach managers to manage different setups and learn to see bigger picture more effectively.
Not have a risk of losing great talent out there — from specialists to industry veterans.
Improve culture.
Improve company awareness.
And such.
To summarize, a Mix would be “win-win” for all vs. having opinions and sides over this — even if you would be selective for who gets to work remotely. Is it purely ideal and equal for all workforce? Not in all cases — especially when done wrong way, but overall beyond that it could be better for organizations and their performance. In terms of equality on this, of course, my suggestion would be being flexible for that a bit more vs. not at all. It would be much better for the overall culture — and, when your culture shines, your financial results most probably (assumption — but there are also HR and financial theories and practical applications over occupational well-being resulting to good financial results) start to look good.
Also, want to have an edge over others in the current state of this all? Make a bold move to allow these things — and your company will get noticed big time, and positively, by this. It would be good for positioning and brand awareness when there is less competition on this today.
New Bets on Social and Shared Experiences
In terms of where some bets are currently going, over current sentiment, social gameplay mechanics are a new (well, they actually aren’t any new when it comes to general social takes, if what truly is a social experience is not correctly understood — which is something I’ll guide below to right direction; given the chance on any of these studios’ leads reading my blog) cornerstone of the industry’s next evolution; at least according to some new studios and investors making bets into these studios.
In terms of how these takes ‘revolutionize’ things — these features not only enhance player retention and monetization but also serve as powerful tools for organic discovery and social bonding. By building games worth playing, sharing, and being bonded in, studios look to tap into a new phenomena. For these studios, this focus on social engagement reflects a broader cycle of community-driven direction (and innovation), where player interactions shape their game design craft and distribution.
In terms of how this looks, I believe it’s a step towards right direction — whilst, I hope deeply that these studios will really understand (and learn) what’s the true power of a truly social experience. I myself believe we have seen only up to 25 % of what’s possible — and that the future lies really in understanding physiology and psychology as well as neuro-driven game design and game economy design around a truly social experience; about which I’ve written more here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/8-physiology-and-psychology-how-they):
Considering the practices introduced in the above article gets adapted, these new bets on social could actually drive the industry forward — and formalize the next cycle on larger scale. Theoretically, when done right, the Social 2.0 principles should result to low CPIs, high retention rates, and high LTVs.
Pro Tip: Are you innovating over something new? You better get your Iterative Development right. How? Find more info about that here (https://gamesalchemy.substack.com/p/2-get-iterative-game-development):
If given the chance, even I would probably (at least today) set up a new venture here — either as a new studio, or as a project under a larger organization. For that I would combine Social 2.0 worth some of the best commercial practices to make sure UA and Marketability finds their places (I’ve already been involved in these types of projects, where we have tackled commercialization quite well with building truly what correlates with the market and is same time innovating with social-first game direction — though, after them I have realized more deeply what “Social 2.0” can enable and what type of solutions and systems you could build over it).
Side Note: Interested of other “future” takes? See these articles:
What Lies Ahead?
As we move forward, the industry will continue to evolve in its own cycles, with commercialization and raising innovation driving growth.
These cycles are nested within one another — while the overall industry moves toward greater sophistication, individual genres undergo their own revolutions, sparking new trends and opportunities.
For developers, game designers, product managers, marketers, and executives, understanding these cycles is essential. The mobile gaming industry is a teaching place like no other, blending creativity with commercialization in ways that continue to redefine what’s possible.
I do also hope we get past de-investments and start investing with new growth vectors in mind.
What do you think? Are there other cycles or trends shaping how we play and discover games — as well as develop them?