56. Sentiment Programming and Enforcing in the Games Industry
An article and discussion about sentiment programming and enforcing in the games industry, and how important it's to acknowledge such a thing exists for the best of our industry.
The games industry has always been a place of creativity, innovation, and reinvention, but, what may also come as a surprise for many, it’s also an environment where sentiment is programmed and enforced.
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.