Mobile Gaming Market Research

Introduction

Competitive positioning in mobilegaming is rarely straightforward. Business models vary widely — freemium,subscription, ad-supported, B2B licensing — and benchmarking against the wrongset of competitors produces strategy built on a false foundation. A Europeanmobile game developer with over 30 million downloads needed an objective,data-grounded assessment of where it actually stood relative to competitorsacross the US, EU, and LATAM markets, and what that meant for its monetisationapproach and product roadmap.

Methodology

Our research team began with theclient's initial list of identified competitors and immediately identified astructural problem: several of the flagged companies operated on fundamentallydifferent business models and were not meaningful benchmarks for the client'sposition. The scope was redesigned before analysis proceeded.

Competitive Positioning Was Based onthe Wrong Reference Points

• Several companies on the client's original competitor list operated B2B or hybrid licensing models incompatible with the client's B2C monetisation structure, making direct comparison misleading
• Once the competitor set was corrected, the client's actual market position differed materially from internal assumptions — in some regional markets more favourably, in others revealing genuine gaps
• LATAM emerged as a market where the client held a stronger relative position than recognised, while the US competitive landscape was denser and more differentiated than the client had mapped

Monetisation Strategy Had Measurable Optimisation Headroom

• The custom LTV formula (built from real usage data) revealed that the client's monetisation yield per user was below what comparable competitors achieved with similar engagement profiles
• Pricing architecture and in-app purchase structuring among leading comparators pointed to specific mechanics the client had not deployed
• The analysis identified concrete adjustments to monetisation sequencing and offer design with direct revenue impact potential

Product Development Resources Were Misallocated

• Feature benchmarking showed investment concentrated in areas where the client was already competitive, while gaps existed in functionality that relevant competitors had identified as retention drivers
• Learning from the revised competitor set allowed the client to reprioritise its development roadmap based on evidence rather than assumption
• Internal resources were being applied to feature parity in low-differentiation areas rather than to the capabilities most likely to drive LTV improvement