Mobile gaming’s era of easy money is over
Rising costs, tighter platforms, and fewer paying users are forcing a hard reset.
Over the past decade, many digital industries grew accustomed to business models that seemed almost self-evident: rapid expansion, relentless audience growth, and the assumption that profitability would follow later. In recent years, however, amid tighter regulation, rising costs, and a less generous advertising market, those assumptions have begun to crack. Increasingly, entire sectors are being forced to ask not how to grow faster, but how to build stable, profitable operations over time.
Mobile gaming sits at the center of this shift. On one hand, it remains one of the most profitable entertainment industries in the world. On the other, it is a market where dependence on fragile business models and powerful external platforms has created sharper vulnerabilities than in many other sectors. By 2026, the mobile gaming industry is no longer searching for the next breakout hit. Instead, it is focused on extracting sustainable profit from existing games. Models built on mass downloads and near-total reliance on app stores are struggling to justify themselves. In their place, a new discourse is taking shape, one centered on revenue control, user retention, and cost reduction.
This shift is reflected in a series of business decisions made by mobile gaming companies over the past year: a gradual move away from app-store dependence, greater investment in a smaller cohort of paying users, preference for established brands over risky new experiments, and growing use of artificial intelligence to streamline operations and extend product lifecycles. These are not isolated trends, but parts of the same adjustment to a tougher reality, one in which growth is harder to achieve and mistakes are far more expensive.
For years, the commissions charged by Apple and Google, up to 30% of every transaction, were treated as an unavoidable cost of doing business. Developers complained, but most adapted. In 2026, that accommodation is beginning to unravel. More companies are actively seeking ways to reduce their reliance on app stores, primarily by expanding into web shops: external online stores that allow players to make purchases outside the app itself.
What was once viewed as a marginal experiment has increasingly become a strategic move. For many companies, web shops are now a way to protect margins in an environment where every percentage point matters. Supercell, for example, operates external stores for games such as Clash of Clans and Clash Royale, allowing players to purchase content directly and sometimes receive additional benefits. Niantic, the developer behind Pokémon GO, has adopted a similar model, focusing on high-spending users.
In both cases, the goal is not to confront Apple or Google directly, but to improve profitability and build a direct relationship with players, turning what was once a workaround into a permanent revenue channel.
The rise of external stores reflects a deeper change in the economics of mobile games. As user acquisition costs climb and scalable growth becomes harder to achieve, companies are shifting away from download-based metrics and focusing instead on the lifetime value of each user.
In free-to-play games, where the game itself is free and revenue comes from in-game purchases, a small minority of users often generates the majority of revenue. In some cases, just a few percent of players account for most spending, purchasing virtual currencies, content packs, progression boosts, or subscriptions. Games such as Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, and Pokémon GO are built around this model.
This reality is reshaping game design. Events, subscriptions, and content packs are increasingly aimed not at attracting new users, but at extending engagement among existing ones. External stores fit neatly into this strategy, enabling tailored offers and exclusive bundles while giving publishers greater control over margins.
A decade ago, developers could still rely on a mix of strong ideas, targeted marketing, and relatively forgiving app-store algorithms to gain traction. By 2026, that path has largely narrowed. Privacy restrictions, market saturation, and soaring acquisition costs have made organic discovery rare, and sometimes irrelevant.
In response, intellectual property has shifted from a marketing advantage to a survival tool. Studios are increasingly leaning on established brands, from comic books and television franchises to console games, to reduce launch risk. Familiar IP does not guarantee success, but it provides two increasingly scarce assets: immediate attention and a pre-existing audience.
Activision’s decision to bring Call of Duty to mobile is a clear example. The franchise’s console and PC success allowed the company to justify large marketing budgets from day one, without the need to build trust from scratch. Similar dynamics have played out with mobile games based on Marvel, Harry Potter, and The Walking Dead, even if not all of them achieved lasting success.
Artificial intelligence has been one of the most overused buzzwords in mobile gaming in recent years. Early promises focused on radical creativity: instant world-building, autonomous characters, and endlessly generated content. By 2026, that narrative has cooled. AI is no longer treated as a creative revolution, but as an operational tool for managing rising costs and shrinking development timelines.
Today, its primary applications are pragmatic rather than visionary. Studios use AI to automate testing, detect bugs earlier, analyze player behavior, and generate variations of levels, missions, and live-operations content. The aim is not to replace teams, but to help them move faster, reduce friction, and avoid expensive mistakes.
Development leaders report time savings of several weeks per production cycle, often translating into 15-25% reductions in development time for live projects. For smaller studios, this efficiency can mean the difference between sustaining a game and shutting it down. For large publishers, AI is no longer a competitive edge but a baseline requirement.
Still, AI adoption comes with its own costs: investments in tools, employee training, and governance frameworks to manage quality, consistency, and legal risk. Far from a silver bullet, AI has become another layer of infrastructure, added to an industry already under pressure from regulation, rising costs, and heightened expectations.
