GameMakers

Last month, I sat on a panel about where the gaming industry is headed. The conversation was good — but there was one thing I didn't say out loud.
In this episode, I break down the key trends I think will define gaming in 2026:
The noise problem is about to get much, much worse — and it's hitting from both sides
Small teams aren't an anomaly. They're the new default.
"Nobody codes anymore" — what AI-or-die actually means for studios right now
Why the industry is losing its moat and most people don't see it yet
 Plus: the progression compression paradox that nobody's solving — why the attention economy is forcing games to speed up in ways that might break long-term engagement.
Whether you're running a studio, building a game, or trying to figure out where this industry is going — this one's for you.
📩 Subscribe to the Gamemakers newsletter: gamemakers.com

AppLovin just crossed $250 billion in market cap. Stock up 127% YTD. EBITDA margins at 82%. Is this the beginning—or the top?

We assembled the most qualified panel possible to break it down: an operator running millions through AppLovin's platform, a gaming-focused financial analyst, and an institutional investor who's seen these cycles before.

What emerged isn't your typical bull-bear debate. It's a breakdown of how dominance actually works in ad tech—and what could break it.

IN THIS EPISODE

→ Why AppLovin doesn't need to be better than competitors—just 95% as good
→ The MAX/Axon lock-in that keeps publishers captive
→ E-commerce expansion: AppLovin is beating Google on Android
→ The SEC investigation and deplatforming risk (how worried should you be?)
→ What one operator's portfolio data reveals about where the cracks are forming
→ Each panelist's prediction for AppLovin in 2026

SPEAKERS

Josh Chandley — President & CEO, WildCard Games
Matthew Kanterman, CFA — Director of Research, Blue River Financial Group
Brian Peganoff — Former TMT Investor, Founder Timber Advisors
Joseph Kim — CEO, Lila Games

TIMESTAMPS

[00:00] Introduction & Panel Overview
[01:22] AppLovin Financial Recap: 127% YTD, 82% Margins
[04:52] Valuation Analysis: Is Growth Priced In?
[07:15] The Bull Case: Infrastructure Lock-In
[10:30] How MAX & Axon Create Publisher Dependency
[15:45] E-Commerce Expansion: Beating Google on Android
[22:10] Why Meta & Google Can't Compete on iOS
[28:40] The Bear Case: Five Risks
[35:20] SEC Investigation & Deplatforming Risk
[42:15] The Infrastructure Risk Nobody Discusses
[48:30] Competitive Landscape: Unity, Moloco, Meta
[58:20] Connected TV: Wild Card or Dead End?
[1:05:40] Panel Predictions for 2026
[1:15:30] Key Takeaways

LINKS

Newsletter: https://www.gamemakers.com
Full article: https://www.gamemakers.com/p/applovin-bull-bear-case

Pixels & Profits is a GameMakers series covering the business and investing side of the gaming industry.

Most game studios either skip validation entirely or waste hundreds of thousands on academic testing that doesn't move the needle. Both approaches kill products.
In this episode, we discuss why product validation is the difference between success and years of wasted development—and introduces two frameworks to fix your process.
You'll discover:
The Pyramid Decision Model: When to trust tastemaker vision vs. player data
Why the "wrong tastemaker problem" is your biggest invisible risk
5 critical validation failures (and how to avoid each one)
The signal vs. noise problem: When player feedback actually hurts your game
Stage-specific validation: Pre-production → Production → Soft Launch → Hard Launch
Why expensive user motivation studies and persona research rarely work

This matters if:
Your team debates "vision" vs. "data-driven" design endlessly
You've hired consultants who delivered fancy reports but no results
Your validation tests keep pointing in different directions
You're burning runway without knowing if your core concept works
You need a framework to match methodology to development stage

The uncomfortable truth: It's nearly impossible to evaluate a "right tastemaker" without historical success—and even then, they might fail in a new genre. Meanwhile, over-intellectualized academic approaches sound impressive but rarely translate to product gains.
Bottom line: Product velocity = speed × direction. Validation should steer your direction, not justify executive forecasts or create someone to blame. This episode gives you the frameworks to validate what matters, when it matters.
Read the full breakdown with detailed frameworks:https://www.gamemakers.com/p/your-validation-passed-your-players
Timestamps:
(00:00:00) Why This Might Be the Most Important Topic Yet
(00:01:07) The Two Extremes: No Testing vs. Testing Theater
(00:05:28) The Pyramid Decision Model: Top vs. Bottom
(00:09:52) Problem #1: The Wrong Tastemaker Problem
(00:12:08) Problem #2: Validation Tests Are Often Flawed
(00:14:08) Problem #3: Over-Intellectualization (Why Academic Models Fail)
(00:17:14) Problem #4: Misinterpreting Validation Results
(00:20:02) Problem #5: The Signal vs. Noise Problem
(00:22:17) The What, When, and How Framework by Development Stage
(00:25:33) Final Thoughts: Why This Is Really, Really Hard
#gamedev #productvalidation #gamedevelopment #productmanagement #gamedevelopmenttips

Most game studios waste weeks of runway on the wrong analytics decision—here's how to avoid that mistake.
Traditional analytics SDK vendors like Amplitude, Mixpanel, and Braze promise plug-and-play simplicity but deliver silent failures, contract negotiations, and escalating costs that can destroy startup velocity. In this episode, we discuss why the old analytics playbook is obsolete in 2025—and reveals the new meta that's eating market share.

You'll discover:
Why SDK analytics vendors fail silently (and cost you weeks of bad data)
The contract negotiation trap that delays launches by 6+ weeks
5 analytics infrastructure options compared (real costs, hidden tradeoffs)
Why PostHog is the new standard for studios under 500K MAU
How the right stack can improve dev velocity by 30%+ and cut costs 40-50%

This matters if:
You're choosing analytics infrastructure for a new game
Your current solution is slowing down iteration speed
You're tired of waiting hours for batched event data
You want warehouse-native architecture without enterprise costs

Bottom line: Your analytics decision could mean the difference between product-market fit and running out of runway. For small to mid-sized game studios, PostHog combines enterprise-grade power with pay-as-you-go pricing—no contracts, no traffic forecasting, no silent failures.

Read the full breakdown with technical details, pricing tables, and implementation guides:
https://www.gamemakers.com/p/the-new-meta-for-game-analytics-save

Timestamps (Episode Chapters):
(00:00:00) The Studio-Killing Problem You're Ignoring(00:01:26) The "Silent Failure" Trap (How SDKs Hide Bugs)(00:02:41) How 15-Minute Data Delays Destroy QA Velocity(00:06:02) The Obsolete 3-Tier Analytics Model (and Why It's Broken)(00:10:38) The 6-Week Contract Negotiation Trap(00:14:16) The "Nostradamus" Forecasting Problem: Why You Always Overpay(00:16:19) Option 1: Traditional SDKs (Amplitude, Mixpanel)(00:25:32) Option 2: Firebase + BigQuery(00:28:34) Option 3: Unity Analytics(00:30:21) Option 4: The New Meta (PostHog)(00:36:14) Option 5: The Enterprise Trap (Snowflake)(00:39:01) Integrated (Braze) vs. Best-of-Breed (PostHog + CRM)(00:42:56) The Final Verdict: What to Choose By Studio Size

Most game studios think they have a talent problem. They don't. They have a structure problem.

Chris Casanova spent 15+ years as a producer across Microsoft Xbox, Mojang (Minecraft), Relic Entertainment, Offworld Industries, and Hypixel Studios. He's watched talented teams fail repeatedly—not from lack of skill, but from organizational friction.

Traditional studios organize around craft silos: design departments, engineering departments, art departments. Every feature requires handoffs. Every handoff loses fidelity. The result? Friction, misalignment, wasted iteration, and missed deadlines.

Chris reveals the alternative: cross-functional outcome teams of 5-9 people who own their results from concept to ship.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
TIMESTAMPS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

00:00 - Chris's background: Xbox, Mojang, Relic
02:59 - Why he wrote "Structure Teams to Win"
06:54 - The problem with craft-based teams
08:17 - Outcome teams: The procedural worlds example
18:32 - Why 5-9 people is optimal team size
24:10 - Three organizational layers explained
31:48 - When leaders resist change
42:20 - The political reality of reorganization
47:15 - Case study: 70-person AA co-op shooter
58:07 - Advice for small teams (10 people)
01:01:06 - How to connect with Chris

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
KEY INSIGHTS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

THE PROBLEMS:
- Design creates specs without context → over-engineered solutions
- Art produces assets without validation → endless iteration
- QA receives unclear requirements → irrelevant bug reports
- Every handoff loses the original intent

THE SOLUTION:
Cross-functional teams of 5-9 people with:
→ Mixed disciplines (designers, engineers, artists, QA embedded)
→ Clear mission and measurable KPIs
→ Everything needed to own their outcome
→ Minimal handoffs, maximum collaboration

REAL EXAMPLE:
Procedural worlds team mission: "Every world seed feels fresh, readable, performant"
KPI: Biome novelty per minute
Team: Generation engineers, world designers, environment artists, technical artists, QA

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
70-PERSON STUDIO STRUCTURE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Chris provides detailed org structure for AA co-op shooter:
- Combat & Gameplay (15 people, 2 teams)
- Progression & Economy (10 people, 2 teams)
- Social & Co-Op (12 people, 2 teams)
- Content & Live Ops (15 people, 2 teams)
- World & Narrative (10 people, 1 team)
- Technical Foundation (8 people, 1 team)

Each team has 5-9 people with mixed disciplines focused on specific outcomes.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
THE HARD TRUTHS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Some leaders won't make the transition from managing 30 people to being on a team of 8. They'll resist or self-select out. And that's okay—holding onto territorial structures to preserve egos is how studios fail.

"If you have a C-suite that's divided, you're not going to be able to make this change. You need unified leadership."

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
RESOURCES MENTIONED
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

- "Team of Teams" by Gen. Stanley McChrystal
- "Extreme Ownership" by Jocko Willink
- "Structure Teams to Win" (Chris's Medium article)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
CONNECT WITH CHRIS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Chris is seeking his next production leadership role.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-casanova/
Email: [email protected]
Article: https://medium.com/@chris.casanova/structure-teams-to-win-15d98e65c5d7

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
READ THE FULL BREAKDOWN
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Detailed newsletter post with implementation templates and additional examples:
https://www.gamemakers.com/p/why-your-game-studios-organizational

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Gamemakers podcast: Gaming business insights for developers, executives, and investors. Hosted by Joseph Kim. New episodes weekly.

#gamedev #productmanagement #teamstructure #leadership