On managing mobile game
economy
Context
New tools
We expanded our internal B2B platform by integrating a complete game economy management module. This allows studios to remotely configure in-game economies, run experiments, and fine-tune monetization without code changes. The new capabilities have already been adopted by top titles like Mob Control, Block Jam, and Monster Survivor, directly contributing to higher revenues.
Company portfolio evolving
Our portfolio has shifted from primarily hypercasual titles to more complex hybrid casual games. This evolution brought new creative and technical requirements — especially for sustained player engagement and long-term monetization strategies.
Increased need for versatility and power
New studios joining our network needed tools that could handle dynamic content updates, diverse monetization models, and rapid iteration. The updated platform delivers the flexibility and scalability required for these ambitions, empowering teams to innovate without technical bottlenecks.
Global process
We started with an extensive benchmark of both game capacities and SaaS products that either responded to similar needs or had similar design elements and patterns. This gave us a strong foundation to understand the landscape and identify opportunities for differentiation.
After the benchmarking phase, we moved straight to feature planning using tools like affinity mapping and a method I devised called Cartesian mapping, where we situate desired features on a coordinate plane in comparison to the benchmarked apps. This helped visualize strategic positioning and prioritize implementation.
Finally, we conducted extensive testing with both Figma prototypes and production-ready builds, ensuring that every step from design to deployment was validated by real users and data.
After the fact
- +5% revenue uplift
- UX components upgraded
- Stronger stakeholder alignment
Positive
- Direct uplift: ~5% revenue increase directly tied to new offer types and items created through the tool — essentially paying for the project.
- UX upgrades: we used the window to refactor and improve layouts/components; studios reported clearer flows and faster ops.
- Closer partnership: stakeholders now work closely with our team, producing a sharper backlog and more effective tools.
Negative
- Architecture constraints: our service sat between the game back office and the client, limiting what we could affect directly and what data we could read/control.
- Scope sizing: initial features were sized for the number of entities users had, not what they’d eventually create; required post‑launch redesign & dev.
- Adoption timing: many early games don’t reach a mature economy; finding the right adoption moment (and ways to help earlier) remains a challenge.
Next time: start with robust CSV ingestion from day one and design v1 for higher entity scales; plan adoption tracks tailored to early‑stage games.