Anand Naidu, a seasoned industry strategist and development expert, provides a deep dive into the shifting sands of the gaming market. As the landscape for mobile publishing becomes increasingly volatile—highlighted by recent strategic pivots at studios like Ustwo Games—the industry is witnessing a significant migration toward PC and console platforms to secure long-term viability. This conversation explores the financial realities of high-budget development, the emotional weight of restructuring team dynamics, and the necessity of re-evaluating how we value premium single-player experiences in a saturated digital economy.
Mobile platforms are increasingly viewed as unreliable for long-term business growth compared to the PC and console markets. What specific factors make the PC environment better for single-player experiences, and what are the primary challenges of managing title ports without major publishing support?
The mobile market has undergone a fundamental shift, moving away from a space where premium, artistic titles can easily thrive without massive user acquisition spending. On PC and consoles, players are actively seeking “meaningful single-player experiences,” which allows a studio to focus on craft rather than aggressive monetization loops or the whims of a streaming giant. However, the sting of losing a major publishing partner, such as when Netflix terminated support for a high-profile project like Monument Valley 3, creates an immediate and heavy burden on internal teams. Suddenly, you are responsible for every aspect of the porting process, from quality assurance to store placement, without the safety net of a platform holder’s marketing machine. It is a grueling transition that requires a total overhaul of how we view the lifecycle of a game, moving from a service-dependent mindset back to a traditional product launch strategy.
Development cycles that last four years with budgets up to £10 million can be difficult to sustain. What practical steps are you taking to lower costs for new, exploratory projects, and how do you adjust your production timelines to reach a safer break-even point more quickly?
Sustaining a production cycle that stretches toward four years with a budget between £7 million and £10 million is an immense financial tightrope walk that few can survive in the current climate. To combat this, we are looking at exploratory projects through a much tighter lens, ensuring they are developed with significantly reduced budgets that allow for creative risk without endangering the entire company. This means moving toward a “lean” development philosophy where we aim for a safer break-even point much earlier in the sales cycle. We have to be disciplined about scope creep, focusing on the core “magic” of a game rather than over-polishing every corner for years on end. It’s a bittersweet reality because while we want to give every project everything we have, the numbers clearly show that smaller, focused titles often find more sustainable success on PC.
Shifting from a large full-time staff to a core team supported by contractors is becoming a common industry trend. How does this flexible staffing model impact your long-term project planning, and what are the trade-offs regarding employee job security and studio culture?
There is a profound sense of regret in moving away from the ideal of total job security, but the reality of modern development forces us to be pragmatic. At our peak, we saw teams swell to 40 employees to meet the demands of major sequels, but maintaining that level of full-time overhead becomes unsustainable once the heavy lifting of a project is finished. By pivoting to a core team of just under 30 personnel and utilizing contractors for specialized tasks, we gain the flexibility to scale up or down without the trauma of massive layoffs. This model changes project planning into a more modular experience, where we have to be very intentional about preserving our studio culture among those who stay. It is a difficult balance to strike, as you want to foster a sense of belonging while acknowledging that the “optimistic” hiring practices of the past simply do not align with today’s economic pressures.
Pricing games affordably despite high development costs can create financial risks for a studio. Why is it becoming necessary to ask core fans for a higher initial price point, and how do minor adjustments in revenue strategy impact the overall sustainability of a project?
For years, there has been a lingering fear of pricing ourselves out of the market, which led to a strategy of keeping titles very affordable even as development costs skyrocketed. However, we have realized that our core fans—those early adopters who truly value the artistry of titles like AlbA Wildlife Adventure or Assemble with Care—are actually willing to pay a bit more to support the studio’s longevity. Moving the needle even slightly on the initial price point can be the difference between a project that merely breaks even and one that funds our next three years of innovation. These minor adjustments in revenue strategy are not about greed; they are a vital survival mechanism in a world where the cost of creation has risen sharply. We have to honor the value of the work we produce, and sometimes that means asking our community to invest a little more in the experiences they love.
Success on PC often involves selling hundreds of thousands of units rather than achieving massive blockbuster numbers. How does this shift in sales expectations influence your creative decisions, and what internal changes are required when moving from a mobile-first to a PC-first development strategy?
Transitioning to a PC-first strategy requires a total recalibration of what success looks like; we are no longer chasing the lightning-in-a-bottle viral growth of mobile, but rather a steady, dedicated audience. If a game moves hundreds of thousands of units on Steam or consoles, we now view that as a positive outcome that validates our creative direction. This shift allows us to take more artistic liberties because we are not trying to appeal to every single person with a smartphone, but rather a specific community of gamers. Internally, this means our developers have to think about different input methods, higher fidelity assets, and a deeper level of engagement than what is usually expected on a mobile device. It is a liberating change that prioritizes depth over broad accessibility, even if it means our “hit” numbers look different than they did five years ago.
What is your forecast for the independent PC and console gaming market?
I believe we are entering an era of “pragmatic prestige,” where the independent PC and console market will flourish by producing highly polished, mid-budget titles that respect both the player’s time and the studio’s bank account. We will see fewer £10 million indie projects and more innovative games built by core teams of 20 to 30 people who know exactly how to reach their niche. The reliance on massive platform-holder deals will continue to fade, forcing studios to become masters of their own destiny through independent porting and direct community engagement. While the transition away from the old mobile publishing model is painful, it is ultimately leading us toward a more stable, diverse, and creatively honest industry where success is measured by sustainability rather than just raw download numbers.
