Play 2 Earn & Ads monetization

During my time at Mega Studio, I spent approximately one year and seven months working on a rather different type of gaming business: rewarded games. Until then, most of my experience had been in traditional free-to-play games, where I was used to thinking about progression, player engagement, retention, and monetization through in-app purchases or advertising. Rewarded gaming introduced a different perspective. These products operated within a broader advertising ecosystem in which players could receive rewards for engaging with other games, and the economics behind that experience were quite different from what I had previously encountered. I was still designing and balancing game economies, but I quickly realized that understanding the mechanics themselves was only part of the challenge. I also needed to understand how the products generated revenue, what influenced their operating costs, and how player behavior affected the sustainability of the entire model.

Understanding the Rewarded Gaming Model

One of the first things I had to understand was how rewarded gaming differed from the free-to-play products I had worked on before. In traditional F2P games, the relationship between engagement and monetization is relatively familiar. Players progress through the experience, interact with different systems, and may eventually generate revenue through purchases or advertising. In rewarded gaming, there was another layer to consider. Advertising campaigns could be designed around specific engagement objectives, such as encouraging users to return to a game over several days, complete certain activities, or reach progression milestones. Players could receive incentives for participating in these activities, which meant that the value generated by their engagement had to be considered alongside the cost of rewarding them. It was an interesting model because the same player behavior could have different implications depending on the acquisition context, the advertising opportunities available, and the way the game economy was structured.

At Mega Studio, we developed and operated relatively simple rewarded games built around familiar mechanics such as spinning a lucky wheel, scratching cards, or playing slot machines. From a gameplay perspective, these products were considerably less complex than some of the games I had worked on earlier in my career. However, that simplicity was somewhat misleading. The challenge wasn't necessarily creating sophisticated mechanics, but building economies that could keep players engaged while remaining economically sustainable. Players needed to feel that they were progressing, accumulating virtual currency, and receiving meaningful rewards. At the same time, those rewards represented a cost that needed to be supported by the revenue generated through the product. Finding the right balance between those two sides became one of the most important aspects of my work.

Designing Economies for Different Player Behaviors

My main responsibility was designing, balancing, and continuously adjusting the economies of these games. What made the work particularly challenging was that we weren't necessarily dealing with the same type of player every day. Users could arrive through different acquisition sources, with different motivations and expectations, and their behavior wasn't always predictable. Some players engaged frequently with the available mechanics, while others participated for shorter periods or approached the experience differently. The revenue generated by different player segments could also vary, which meant that an economy performing well under one set of conditions might behave quite differently under another. I had worked with player segmentation before, but here the consequences of those differences were particularly visible because they directly influenced the relationship between engagement, rewards, and financial sustainability.

One of the things I found most interesting was that there wasn't necessarily a single economy configuration that worked equally well for everyone. A change that encouraged one group of players to remain active could have a different effect on another. Increasing the frequency of rewards might improve engagement, but it could also make the economy more expensive to operate. Reducing rewards might improve the economic balance in the short term while making the experience less satisfying for players. I had to become increasingly comfortable with the idea that balancing wasn't about finding one perfect set of values and leaving it there. It was about continuously observing how players interacted with the product, understanding the consequences of their behavior, and adjusting the economy accordingly. This was a different way of approaching Game Economy Design because I wasn't simply balancing progression against an intended player journey. I was balancing that journey against a business model influenced by several interconnected factors.

A significant part of my work involved understanding how players progressed through the games, how frequently they interacted with different mechanics, how much virtual currency they accumulated, and how the rewards we offered influenced their behavior. Even relatively small adjustments could affect the experience in unexpected ways. Changing the cost of an action, modifying a reward, or adjusting progression could influence how frequently players returned, how long they remained engaged, and how much revenue the product generated. I found myself spending more time thinking about the relationships between these variables rather than evaluating them individually. The objective was never simply to maximize engagement or minimize rewards. It was to find a sustainable balance where players had reasons to continue participating and the product could support that participation economically.

Connecting Game Economies with Business Performance

As I became more familiar with rewarded gaming, I started looking at game economies from a broader perspective. Earlier in my career, I had naturally focused on how mechanics influenced player behavior, how progression affected retention, and how monetization systems interacted with the overall experience. Those considerations were still important, but I now had to connect them with acquisition costs, advertising revenue, reward expenses, and the profitability of different player segments. I began to understand more clearly that improving one metric didn't necessarily mean improving the product as a whole. A mechanic could increase engagement without generating enough additional revenue to justify the associated costs. Similarly, reducing expenses could improve short-term profitability while weakening the player experience and eventually affecting retention.

This was probably one of the most valuable lessons of that period. I became increasingly aware that a game economy couldn't be evaluated independently from the business model supporting it. A progression system might feel satisfying, rewards might be distributed at an enjoyable pace, and players might spend considerable time interacting with the mechanics, but none of those things automatically guaranteed that the product was performing well. I needed to understand how the different elements worked together and whether improvements in one area were creating unintended consequences elsewhere. It gradually changed the questions I asked when evaluating a design decision. Instead of focusing only on whether a mechanic would improve engagement or make progression more enjoyable, I also started considering what that change would mean for the broader economics of the product.

 

What I particularly enjoyed about this work was that it challenged some of the assumptions I had developed during my earlier years in Game Design. I had always been interested in understanding why players behaved in certain ways and how game systems could influence those behaviors. Rewarded gaming forced me to extend that curiosity beyond the player experience itself. I started paying closer attention to how marketing, acquisition, monetization, and economy design influenced one another. The products were relatively simple on the surface, but understanding why they performed differently under changing conditions required a much broader perspective. In many ways, I was beginning to approach problems that extended beyond the traditional responsibilities of a Game Economy Designer, even though I hadn't yet made the transition into Product Management.

Looking Back

Looking back, I think this was one of the experiences that gradually changed the way I understood my role as a Game Economy Designer. I had spent years learning how to build engaging systems, balance progression, and influence player behavior through game mechanics. At Mega Studio, I began to understand more clearly that those systems were also part of a much larger business. A well-designed economy wasn't necessarily a successful economy if the product couldn't sustain it financially, and improving engagement didn't automatically mean improving the overall performance of the product. That realization stayed with me. I started paying more attention to the relationships between player experience, monetization, acquisition, and business performance rather than evaluating each area independently. At the time, I wasn't actively planning a transition into Product Management. I was simply trying to become better at understanding the products I was working on and the decisions that influenced their success. But looking back, I can see how this experience was already pushing me in that direction.