The landscape of game marketing has evolved dramatically over the past decade. In the early days, developers could simply buy ad space, display a banner, and hope that enough eyes would translate into sales.
That approach made sense when most titles were sold as boxed, single‑player experiences. Today, however, the dominant segment on PC consists of live‑service, free‑to‑play games that generate revenue long after a player first launches the title. Because of this shift, the old model of paying for impressions (CPM) or clicks (CPC) is losing relevance, and a growing number of top publishers are moving toward cost‑per‑action (CPA) pricing for user acquisition (UA).
Amit Nagrani, head of business development and client success at PWN Games—a performance‑marketing specialist celebrating its tenth anniversary—notes that many PC publishers still cling to awareness‑driven campaigns. These campaigns typically involve brand‑building pushes, collaborations with creators, and paid media on platforms such as Meta, Google, YouTube, and Twitch.
While such tactics can still be effective for premium, one‑off purchases, they are ill‑suited for modern live‑service titles that rely on a steady stream of new players and ongoing engagement. "With premium games, the purchase is the whole thing," Nagrani explains. "The spend goes heavily into awareness and consideration through the pre‑launch window, building recognition and wishlists, and then UA kicks in hard at launch as a boost.
That's a sensible way to do it, because once someone buys and installs, the revenue is in." In contrast, free‑to‑play live‑service games operate on a completely different economic model. "Live service is a different proposition, free‑to‑play especially. You don't catch the launch wave and call it done.
You need players arriving steadily, year after year. And getting someone to play is only the start. You've got to keep them engaged and eventually get them converting, because that's where the revenue actually comes from," Nagrani says. The financial risk associated with traditional UA models also makes them unattractive for live‑service titles.
Historically, publishers expected to recoup acquisition costs within a month, a timeline that made sense when many PC publishers were former mobile free‑to‑play veterans. Today, depending on genre and market, payback periods can stretch from three to twelve months. Such long horizons demand a higher degree of confidence that the acquired users will generate sufficient lifetime value (LTV).
Historically, PC UA has relied on two primary pricing structures: cost‑per‑mille (CPM), where advertisers pay for every thousand impressions, and cost‑per‑click (CPC), where payment is triggered by a user clicking an ad. Both metrics measure interest at a very early stage of the funnel and provide little insight into whether that interest will translate into meaningful revenue. CPA—cost‑per‑action or cost‑per‑acquisition—offers a more outcome‑focused alternative. Under a CPA agreement, the advertiser pays only when a pre‑defined action occurs.
Nagrani describes the flexibility of this model: "You pay when a defined 'action' happens, and you choose which 'action' that is. It moves as the game moves through its lifecycle, and choosing it well is an important conversation I have with a game publisher before we go live." Before a game launches, a common CPA goal is to collect sign‑ups for a newsletter or early‑access list.
Publishers can choose between single opt‑in (SOI), where a user simply submits their email, and double opt‑in (DOI), which requires the user to confirm via a verification email. DOI costs more because it filters out less‑committed prospects, but it often yields higher conversion rates once the game goes live.
At launch, the most straightforward CPA action is an install. However, seasoned publishers rarely stop at that metric. "They’ll usually add a qualification layer, so the install only counts if the player reaches D1 or D7, or completes the tutorial.
That way, you’re paying for a player rather than just a download, which matters a lot for a live‑service title where the install is really just the starting point," Nagrani explains. As a player moves deeper into the funnel, CPA campaigns can be structured around higher‑value actions such as a first in‑game purchase or reaching a specific progression milestone. The trade‑off is clear: the further down the funnel the action, the higher the cost per conversion, but also the greater the certainty that the spend will generate revenue.
"The trade‑off is always the same: the further down the funnel you buy, the more certainty you're paying for, and certainty is never free," Nagrani says. "The cost per conversion goes up, and in some cases volume gets harder to find." Because CPA ties directly to LTV, publishers can model how much a registered or paying user is worth over a 90‑day (or longer) period and set their CPA bids accordingly. This creates a clear, data‑driven framework for return on ad spend (ROAS).
"Everything is built around LTV. CPM and CPC don't connect to it. You buy impressions, you buy clicks, and then you hope the rest of the funnel behaves. CPA connects to it directly, because you're paying for the outcome you already modeled," Nagrani notes.
Another advantage of CPA is risk sharing. With CPM or CPC, the publisher bears the risk of poor targeting or ineffective creative, while the ad network gets paid regardless of results. CPA flips that dynamic: the marketing partner is only compensated when a qualified conversion occurs, aligning incentives and fostering a more collaborative relationship.
"On CPM or CPC, if the targeting is off or the creative isn't landing, the publisher still pays. With CPA, we're only paid when a qualified conversion happens, so we've got the same reason to find out what's wrong as they do," Nagrani says.
Nevertheless, CPA is not a universal cure. It works best when the game itself offers a compelling experience that can retain and monetize players.
No pricing model can rescue a poorly designed title. Moreover, CPA requires robust analytics and the ability to track actions accurately across platforms and regions. When both parties share the financial outcome, they are motivated to diagnose issues together—whether the traffic source is mismatched, the creative fails to convey the value proposition, or certain regions under‑perform. This joint problem‑solving mindset helps improve campaign performance and ensures that the acquisition partner's revenue is directly linked to the publisher's success.
In summary, CPA has become the preferred UA model for leading free‑to‑play PC publishers because it aligns spend with measurable outcomes, ties directly to player LTV, and distributes risk evenly between advertisers and marketers. As Nagrani puts it, "CPA is a win‑win model for game publishers and us. We win only if they win."