Marketing video games used to be a fairly straightforward affair. In the early days, developers and publishers would simply buy advertising space, pay for the eyeballs that saw their ads, and hope that the resulting awareness would translate into sales. That approach made sense when most titles were sold as boxed, single‑player experiences that relied on a one‑time purchase. Today, however, the landscape has shifted dramatically, especially for free‑to‑play (F2P) titles on the PC platform.
While some publishers still cling to the old model, Amit Nagrani—head of business development and client success at the performance‑marketing specialist PWN Games, which is marking its tenth anniversary this year—observes that many PC user‑acquisition (UA) campaigns remain heavily weighted toward brand‑building and awareness tactics. These include influencer collaborations, creator‑driven content, and paid placements on platforms such as Meta, Google, YouTube, and Twitch. Such strategies can still be effective for premium, premium‑priced games that depend on a strong pre‑launch hype cycle. In those cases, the bulk of the budget is spent on creating recognition, generating wishlists, and driving consideration, with a final burst of acquisition spend at launch to convert the built‑up demand into sales.
"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." Free‑to‑play live‑service games, however, operate on an entirely different premise.
They cannot rely on a single launch wave; instead, they need a steady influx of new players over months and even years. The initial install is merely the first step—retention, engagement, and eventual monetisation are the true revenue drivers. Because of this, a cost‑per‑action (CPA) model, which ties ad spend directly to a defined user behaviour, is increasingly favoured for these titles. "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. Traditional UA models such as cost‑per‑mille (CPM) and cost‑per‑click (CPC) present financial risks for live‑service games. CPM charges advertisers for every thousand impressions, regardless of whether anyone interacts with the ad. CPC charges only when a user clicks, which merely indicates curiosity, not intent to install or spend.
Historically, publishers expected to recoup acquisition costs within 30 days—a timeline that made sense for many mobile‑originated PC titles. Today, depending on genre and market, payback periods can stretch from three to twelve months, demanding far greater confidence in the quality of acquired users. "Publishers used to expect to recoup their acquisition costs back within 30 days, partly because a lot of successful PC publishers right now came from the mobile free‑to‑play world," Nagrani notes.
"Now, depending on the genre and market, we’re often talking about a three to twelve month payback window. And when you’re looking that far out, you need a lot more confidence in the quality of the players you’re bringing in." CPA, also known as cost‑per‑action or cost‑per‑acquisition, addresses these concerns by charging only when a pre‑agreed action occurs.
The action can be tailored to the game's lifecycle, making the model highly flexible. Before launch, the desired action might be a sign‑up for a newsletter or a request for more information. Nagrani distinguishes between single opt‑in (SOI), where a user simply submits their details, and double opt‑in (DOI), which adds a verification step via email.
DOI costs more because it filters out less‑committed prospects, but it often yields higher conversion rates once the game goes live. "There are two versions.
Single opt‑in means the player submits their details and that counts. Double opt‑in means they also confirm through a verification email first," he explains. "DOI costs more because you’re basically paying to filter out people who weren’t that interested in the first place, but it can lead to better conversion at launch. Which one makes sense really depends on how confident the game publisher is in their funnel and how well they expect that initial interest to convert later on." At launch, the most common CPA trigger is an install, but experienced publishers rarely stop there.
They often add qualification layers, such as requiring the player to survive to day one (D1) or day seven (D7) of play, or to complete the tutorial. By doing so, they pay for a user who has demonstrated early retention rather than a mere download—a crucial distinction for live‑service titles where the install is only the entry point to a longer monetisation journey. "Experienced publishers rarely stop there," Nagrani says.
"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." Further down the funnel, CPA campaigns can be tied to in‑game purchases, first‑time spend, or other meaningful engagements. The trade‑off is clear: the deeper you go into the funnel, the higher the cost per conversion, but also the greater the certainty that the spend will translate into revenue.
Nagrani emphasises that there is no one‑size‑fits‑all setting; the optimal CPA structure depends on genre, lifecycle stage, and quarterly business goals. "The trade‑off is always the same: the farther down the funnel you buy, the more certainty you're paying for, and certainty is never free," he remarks.
"The cost per conversion goes up, and in some cases volume gets harder to find. There's no setting that's right for everyone. It depends on the genre, where the title sits in its life, and what that publisher needs this quarter." One of the strongest arguments for CPA is its direct link to a game's lifetime value (LTV). When a publisher can estimate how much a registered or paying user is worth over, say, a 90‑day horizon, they can back‑calculate the maximum amount they are willing to spend to acquire that user.
CPA allows that calculation to be baked into the contract: the payout per action is set so that the expected return on ad spend (ROAS) is known up front, rather than being discovered months later. "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 modelled," Nagrani explains.
"So the return stops being something you find out afterwards. If your data says a registered player is worth $30 over 90 days, we set the payout so the maths works inside your payback window.
You know your ROAS going in, not three months later." CPA also realigns risk. Under CPM or CPC, the advertiser bears the full risk: if targeting is off or creative underperforms, the publisher still pays for impressions or clicks that never convert. With CPA, the marketing partner only gets paid when a qualified conversion occurs, giving both parties a shared incentive to optimise targeting, creative, and overall strategy. "On CPM or CPC, if the targeting is off or the creative isn't landing, the publisher still pays," Nagrani says.
"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. Both sides are looking at the same number, and that tends to produce a more collaborative working relationship." Nevertheless, CPA is not a silver bullet.
It works best when the underlying game offers a compelling experience that can attract and retain users. A poorly designed game cannot be rescued merely by a more favourable pricing model. The model's success hinges on the quality of the product, the clarity of the defined actions, and the ability of both the publisher and the acquisition partner to iterate based on data. When the risk and reward are shared, both parties are motivated to diagnose and fix issues—whether they stem from an unsuitable traffic source, ineffective creative messaging, regional performance disparities, or mismatched audience expectations.
The acquisition partner must continuously test and refine, because its own revenue depends on delivering the agreed‑upon outcomes. In summary, CPA provides a pragmatic framework for free‑to‑play PC publishers who need predictable, performance‑driven acquisition costs aligned with LTV.
It shifts the financial burden from the publisher to a joint responsibility, encourages deeper collaboration, and allows for granular control over which user actions are most valuable at each stage of a game's life. As Nagrani puts it, "CPA is a win‑win model for game publishers and us. We win only if they win." For more information about how PWN Games leverages conversion‑driven performance marketing for PC titles, visit pwngames.com.