Mobile Gaming: A Freemium Economy - [Business Breakdowns, EP.115]

22:21People just retain for forever. And there are legacy titles like Candy Crush is one of them. But you probably have some D365 number. That's very impressive. But if you can achieve that kind of like medium term, like D30 with something like between five and 10 for a casual title, that means the cohorts are just going to compound pretty much endlessly. You're acquiring these users. You get a lot of them to leave the first day, so on and so forth. But by day 30, they're not leaving anymore. If they made it to day 30, they're probably staying for a really long time and contributing money. And so you can see where economics and especially the user acquisition economics of that become really compelling.

22:53If you just have this steady state, medium -term to long -term retention, and you can compound these cohorts over time, then that becomes a really, really compelling economic reality. Now, for other types of games, you think about the mobile gaming market as the spectrum. On one side, you have very, very casual that monetizes primarily with ads. And then you have on the other side, the very, very wisdom is core. These are like strategy games, card collection games. They monetize primarily with IAP. And then that's where you see those dynamics flip with high DAU, low ARPDAO to low DAU, high ARPDAO.

23:25Now, again, the issue with those low DAU games is as they age and as the niche just gets mined, a lot of these are niche, they have a lower just potential TAM through the potential people to recruit into the product. As some of those people churn, well, they're not really replaceable. And again, any given user means much more to the overall economy of the game than if you had the very casual side where the TAM is basically all smartphone owners. So you're talking about almost everyone on the planner because it's just discussed with the metrics. So there's no right or wrong. There's no objective, good or bad, but those are just trade -offs.

23:56Those are decisions that are made. That was very helpful. Even though we won't be too prescriptive about it, thinking about 60 % of users sticking around after the first day. And if you get to day 30 and you still have 5 % to 10 % of that initial user base, that being good is just helpful as a framework for thinking about it. The next natural question is, when you think about day 30 onward, do those 5 % to 10 % of users that have stuck around earn what is equivalent to more than what you earned in that first 30 days? If I just think about that same decline curve for user base versus the earnings for any particular game over time, how much is coming after day 30 versus in those first 30 days?

24:38My background in mobile gaming spent the first big chunk of my career in companies like Rovio, which makes the Angry Birds franchise. We're a company called Wooga, which is a casual games developer that was acquired by Playtica. Did consulting, stands for a number of very high profile gaming companies, including Epic. And so you begin to learn that theoretical monetary contribution of a user is not really that important, or it's much less important than the economics of acquisition. The consideration with mobile gaming is that the primary driver of revenue, or I would say the singular driver of revenue from a DAO acquisition standpoint is direct response user acquisition.

25:19It's performance marketing. It's showing ads, getting people to click the ads and getting them to download the game. That's it. That's how these games primarily are an audience and grow to commercial success. Now, of course, there are exceptions. Of course, there are games that just go viral, but that's less and less common these days. That's just not a strategy. That's a hope and pray. That's one thing to consider is that these games tend to be driven by performance user acquisition. There's a key part of the chronology here that I think is also, again, very instructive. I talk about this 2012 vintage of mobile games a lot.

25:51The point at which mobile games were proved to be a massive, massive business with a very large market undergirding them. I think that is the 2012 vintage of mobile games. So what you get there is Candy Crush, released from mobile in 2012. It existed as a desktop game before that. But Clash of Clans, released 2012. Heyday, also released 2012. Those are both from Supercell. And then Game of War from Machine Zone, that was released 2012 in beta, but then it globally launched in 2013. But that cohort of mobile games proved that mobile game, okay, there's massive marketing. Okay, so why is that interesting?

26:23Well, that's interesting because if you look at the infrastructure companies that are biggest and most successful now for mobile marketing, they were launched before that, or they started to market before that. They preceded that 2012 vintage, especially Candy Crush and Clash of Clans, a billion dollar franchise is there. Now, okay, well, let's talk about the infrastructure that preceded that vintage. Well, you've got Applovin launching in 2012. You've got IronSource, which was acquired by Unity launching in 2010. You've got a company called Applifier, which was acquired by Unity and became Unity Ads in 2011.

26:56You had AppsFlyer, which is a mobile measurement company launching in 2012, you didn't really get these examples of systematically scalable mobile games until the infrastructure existed to support that. I think that's just another proof point of, well, mobile game success is based on user acquisition driven scalability and growth. And so that's ours, these really fantastic, successful franchises. That's one component of success on mobile. I'd say the second component of success on mobile, which I think is more of a recent evolution of the market. Not that recent, probably talking like 2016 -ish to date, but that's what's known as live ops.

27:34So it's the ability to create this endless stream of content that that 5 % to 10 % of people that stick around past day 30 and engage with forever. There's very much this endless system of content that they can enjoy and turn that game into a very, very long -term habit. And so that tends to be oriented towards competition. So you might have weekly tournaments, weekly leaderboards, clan wars, clan battles, that kind of stuff. Or it could also be collaborative, more like guild -based, just collaborative play. But that is the second component to success in modern free -to -play. It's like having essentially what is an endless roadmap that can super serve the most relevant people for the rest of their lives, potentially.

28:17Now, I'm sure, I mean, I don't know this and doubt King has ever released these numbers, but I'm sure that there's a very significant proportion of Candy Crush's current DAU base that has been playing that game since 2012. Non -trivial amount of people have just been sticking with that game for that long. Now, King, when they went public, and I didn't look this up beforehand, but I should have, they released some statistic because King went public, they IPO'd and they were acquired by Activision. But before they went public, they released some stat. Number of crushed players were basically up to date with the level packs that were released in the game.

28:54Turns out new levels all the time. That used to be on a weekly basis. And some staggering number of people were up to date. They had played through every single level of the game. And of those people, 80 % had never spent any money. So obviously not the 95, because 95 is maybe the totality of the audience, But of the people that were absolutely current, they had played through every single level available in Candy Crush, some staggering percentage of them, the most hardcore, relevant people, had never spent any money. You can monetize users by making them spend dollars, but you can also monetize the users by serving them ads.

29:27How big is the ad portion of the overall pie? Oh, it's very large. The thing is, it's a closed loop. It's almost thinking about assets and liabilities in the bank. They have to sort of match. And so the ad revenue has to match the in -game IAP spend revenue on the other side, because that's a closed loop. The money leaks out a little bit. And there's other categories that want to advertise to those game players. But for the most part, it's games selling eyeball exposure to other game developers. Podcasting is not much different. There's a lot of podcasters who advertise on other podcasters. You fish, you know where your users are.

30:01Exactly. And what do you know when you're advertising in a game? That the people that see your ads play games. And you do it on the basis of contextual relevance. That tends to be how the large -scale in -game ad networks operate. The way that they do targeting is just on the basis of, well, subgenre A tends to convert well when advertised in subgenre B. They were less exposed to a lot of the ATT stuff because they didn't really use the device IDs to do behavioral filing. They, for the most part, operate with contextual targeting. Okay, well, through my historical data set, I understand that when I show an ad in Subway Surfers for Match Free Puzzle Game, it tends to convert pretty well.

30:34And when I show an ad in Subway Surfers, just the endless runner developed by Saibo, they just recently acquired Beniclip. I show an ad in Subway Surfers for a strategy -based building game, it's not going to convert very well. And so you're just using these historical conversion rates to dictate where the ads get shown. But you can understand where that's a closed loop. The way a lot of gaming companies think about this is just through pure play return on ad spend. So ROAS. Good because it ties back to what we were talking about earlier with unit economics and thinking about the long -term value of a person relative to more just the payback period.

31:02What I really care most about is the payback period. And that tends to change over time. And as I saturate the market or the niche or just the TAM, the economics change over time. I'm a game developer and I'm advertising my game. I want to recoup 100 % of my ad spend within 90 days. So for any given cohort, I'll acquire them today. And I expect or I demand that all the money I spent on acquiring that cohort has to be recouped in 90 days. Well, that's obviously going to change the economics of my advertising. That puts a constraint on how much I can spend, my budgeting and my bids, because it's all dictated by the 90 -day payback window, at which point I must have recouped 100%.

31:36If I'm going break even on $5, that means on average, I'm going to spend $5 to acquire a user. And through my performance marketing model, I know what that number is across any different number of channels, different geographies, what have you. So let's say that I know that I can spend $5 as an average acquisition cost for a user in the US on an iPhone acquired from Facebook. Well, then I'll spend that money. If my model was reliable, then after 90 days, I will have recouped that $5. I'm breaking even at that point. And let's say that I know that over the next 30 days, I'll make an extra 10%. That's my margin.

32:07It's 120 to get the margin. It's 90 to break even. Well, okay, a lot of acquisition happens on Facebook, but those users get acquired and their DAU in my game. Now, depending on the type of game I have, I might be showing ads too. If I'm talking about one of these in -game networks, the Applovin, Unity, IronSource, Vungle, for instance, that's all just gaming companies acquired from other gaming companies. That number might be three or it might be seven or whatever. But if I'm spending seven to acquire that user, they're coming into my game, they're spending seven. So the money is circulating around.

32:33Now, I don't want to take a very hefty margin. Why? Because then I'm not fully exploiting the opportunity. I'm not acquiring as many possible users as I can. Going back to my point, if I have higher DAU, there's more of an opportunity for virality to deliver higher number of absolute new users just on the basis of word of mouth or whatever. So usually what you see is these companies operate trying to maximize DNU, really daily new users, maximize the number of users they're acquiring at whatever break -even point they're comfortable with, whatever break -even point continuous operations of a company and pays the fixed expenses and all that, such that they're maximizing the DAU and not necessarily maximizing revenue.

33:10Because first of all, there's the virality effect, there's a compounding effect, and then there's the long -term contribution post -acquisition. Now you'd say, well, there's all this extra money that's coming in after that 90 -day acquisition break -even point. Why wouldn't I just calculate what the CPI is, the cost per equity, the CPA, whatever, for 365 days or two years or three years. Well, because I've got to pay my bills, that could present cash flow issues. If I'm recouping all my money in 90 days, that gives me a high velocity of dollar turnover. And if I'm compounding and making margin, that potentially is more valuable.

33:40And again, you'd have to model this out. And again, there's levers to turn, but that's potentially producing more value, creating more value, equity value for the company than if I'm recouping after a year and only then realizing the margin and only then recycling that money back into user acquisition. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I step back from that and hear I want a faster payback period, and I want to be able to put that money, reinvest it into the same game or other games, but some of that sounds a little bit more like a de -risk, spread it around. And I'm hoping that some of these can work out, but I'm not making huge bets on any one single game that I need to be a home run.

34:20Is that right? Is there a model of ideally we get 25 solid games and that's more of the current strategy today versus, oh, if one of those 25 turns into a viral hit, that's amazing, but we're not necessarily trying to optimize for that? Yes. And that has been the MO since I would say 2016, 2017 era. But there's been a renewed and very acute focus on that model since Apple launched ATT. If I think about these very, very foundational moments in the chronology of mobile gaming, obviously you go back, the big bang moment was the introduction of IAPs. And then there was another big moment, which was the awakening of the economic impact of live ops.

35:06I would say another big unlock was introduction of in -app ads for modernization. And I think the most recent was ATT. So that broke the status quo for distribution on mobile. Can you give the quick backstory to ATT, just so anybody who doesn't understand it? Yes. I would not be so pointed to describe this as like an ATT issue. It's just a broader digital privacy issue. So just think about it that way. There has been a disruption. ATT is part of this. ATT is one implementation of this policy. It's Apple's app tracking transparency privacy policy. I've written pretty extensively about it on Mobile Dev Memo.

35:37But what it does is it just shifts the onus of data collection from a user opt -out, explicit collection of an opt -in at the launch of an app. What it does is it just prevents this persistent device identity from being used if the user opts out. And if that's the case, then you can't build behavioral profiles. Facebook was a big beneficiary of this, but mobile games in large part were too, because a lot of mobile gaming companies are very, very dependent on Facebook and Google distribution rights could make up the vast majority of their ad spend. So just that prevented an advertiser, a game advertiser, from knowing a priori that their ad was being shown to the most highly relevant audience based on that audience's past behaviors and interactions with other products.

36:17So what Facebook was able to do before in Google was to know, hey, this user plays 4X strategy games. So if an ad opportunity becomes available in their feed or in their YouTube or whatever, I'm going to show them a 4x strategy game because they're more likely to click on that and install it than anything else. And so that just allowed me to not waste my ad impressions on people for whom my game was totally eroded. So that, but the distribution model. And so now what you're seeing is a return to this portfolio approach. Like, okay, well, what I need to do is one, have the ability to extract multi -title LTV from people once I acquire them.

36:48So if I acquire somebody, my game, well, I want to have a portfolio that is financial for that subgenre for which any particular user could be interested portfolio -wide. If I do that and acquire a user, because it's more expensive to acquire a relevant user, a high intent user, it's more expensive to do that because it's more information involved now. Have you seen that play out with the numbers that actually has gotten more expensive? Oh, yeah, absolutely. Meaningfully so. So it's more expensive to acquire a relevant high intent user now. So what I need to do is have them play more than just one game.

37:19When I acquire them, I'll shift them across my whole portfolio. And so I'll pay more, but then they'll pay me more because they're engaging with more of my content. And that, for the most part, I think has motivated a lot of this consolidation. Are the mechanics of getting them to play more within your ecosystem of different games, I would presume part of that would be showing them an ad for your other games. Does that in turn, though, give up some potential sales opportunity? Because if you're not monetizing the ad, you're serving them an ad. I could see that being a pressure on the overall feedback loop.

37:50Not if it's done in a scientific way. A lot of times with ads, what you'll do is you'll exclude high potential players from seeing them. So they would not be in the audience for the ad. So you're going to categorize people, classify them really early on in a lot of cases based on their immediate term behaviors in the game after installing it. And determine if they're like a high potential player or not. So the second you have that user and they play your game a little bit, all of a sudden the data that you have on that user jumps up a bit. It can. You have the systems to say that. And so that's what you'd want to do because just much more modernization opportunity through IAPs and through a very skewed LTV spectrum.

38:26So if someone's a potentially very, very high value player, you don't want to show them anybody else's ads because they might leave. And you're not going to get very much money for that. It's pennies versus getting them to contribute potentially tens of thousands of dollars to your game. So what you do is you segment users in that way and you'd probably show ads to people that... Now, some people would argue with this and this isn't a hard and fast rule. It might not be the case that there's any threat. They'd be so committed to the game. You could show them ad after ad after ad, and they're never going to leave because they're so invested in your game.

38:52This is something that you'd have to test. There's other things called rewarded ads where someone watches the ad and they get a gift in your game. So obviously the motivation there is to get the gift and they're not really that interested in it. But nonetheless, there's going to be some leakage that way. So yes, you might be foregoing the opportunity to get some CPM contribution from showing ads to the person in exchange of showing them an ad for your own other game. But you're probably doing this on the basis of expected value And the outcome for showing them an ad for your game is probably more IAP, LTV, and the second title.

39:21Ideally, you're doing this at the moment when they're perceived to be likely to churn. But you might show them your game ad first, and then it's low risk because either they convert, and then you've got them in another game, or they don't. And then now you just start showing them external ads. That all makes sense. And then just drawing it back to the very beginning of the conversation, am I right to think about with everything that's happened with ADT and data privacy in general, you have businesses like King who have the infrastructure to be wise about their ecosystem. And that might be why their mobile performance was stronger than the overall market.

39:53Is there anything else that adds into that original point that you made in terms of a larger player like King clearly outperforming the rest of the market in mobile? Yes, there is. I wrote an article about this. Why is King outperforming the market? I would argue that because it's a high TAM, low friction, broadly appealing game. It's very casual. It's very light and airy. It's very lighthearted, pretty much anybody could be interested in that game. And you're not reliant on this behavioral profiling for effective ads targeting. I don't need to know that you like to play match three, lighthearted, airy, quick hit, low session time games, because pretty much everybody likes to do that.

40:27There's less of an assumption that needs to be made. There's less data that needs to be made. And so if you break that model of aggregation of third -party data in the data environments of these big platforms, if that breaks, then you need to move to a model of not needing to know that much about the potential players in order to effectively reach them and acquire them. And that necessitates moving. It's this idea I have called moving to the middle. It's just building very broadly appealing, casual games because you know that the audience for that is vast and there's just less of a burden of needing to know a lot about the audience that you're reaching with ads.

40:56I think that's why I'd explain King's continued success. Also, I mean, it's a great company and they execute really well. But the second component, I think that's motivating a lot of the consolidation. So part of it is, well, I want to bring people to my ecosystem. I'm not just buying a user, they churn. And hey, if I need to reacquire them, I go back to Facebook. That was the old operating model. It doesn't work anymore because I would need a way to target that individual and I don't anymore. So what I want to do is bring people into my ecosystem, have a lot of different products that they can engage with.

41:20So I'm paying more on the CAC side, but I'm getting more on the LTV side and it balances out. So almost as a corollary to that, what does that also unlock? If third -party data becomes more inaccessible, I want to have a lot of first -party data. I want to bring them into my ecosystem, but I also want to build a relationship with them. I want to build touch points with them. Maybe that's like a custom login. Maybe that's an account that they have to establish to play any of my games. And they always have logged in state across all of them. Maybe though, that's also taking that interaction point, that exposure point and expanding it outside of just the smartphone to anywhere, to the desktop and going multi -platform.

41:56And then maybe the purpose of that is to sidestep the app store purchasing flow so I don't have to pay the 30 % fee on that. And you're seeing a lot more of that post -ATT with companies like Platica expanding what they call their D2C business meaningfully, which is they've got user logins. They know who the people are. They can drive them to the web. They can send them emails, drive them to the web, have them purchase things for the games on the web, not pay the platform fee to Apple or Google and retain that extra 30%. On one hand, with ATT, was fantastically lucrative for Apple's advertising business, but it also increased some of the spend.

42:33They said this in the earnings for Q1. It created frictions for the services revenue, especially within mobile gaming. They specifically called out mobile gaming as a weak point. Why? Because people are spending less on acquisition. They're getting fewer users into their apps. Users are spending less money on the IAPs. And so Apple's making less money as the cut. And so I think a lot of companies are saying, well, look, you've got to fix this. If you broke the distribution, or if you created a lot of headwinds on distribution, then you should probably reduce that app store fee because we're struggling as it is, and we're paying you 30 % for the privilege.

43:04It's really interesting to think about how it's evolved with basically the platforms coming out, the mobile phone, some of these regulatory changes, or even just company -driven changes. When you look at some of the adjustments that have been made on the actual business side and how mobile gaming companies are adjusting themselves, When you put those in order of ecosystem development or more consolidation, shifting people to the web and make purchases, are there others that you would categorize as major themes that you're watching for the next five years? And even when you think about those two themes that I just mentioned, do you think those are things that you would expect to continue on?

43:46I hear something like pointing people towards the web to make some of these decisions so you can cut out the 30 % fee. Just sounds like a very high friction thing that maybe won't last. But what do you think about as more of an enduring theme that you expect to stick around for the next three to five years? Extensively about alternative app monetization and all of the different policy changes that Apple and Google have been forced to implement through national mandates and Apple's continuous back to the way that they have altered the App Store policies with respect to all of the exemptions that are made for the platform fee except mobile games.

44:25I wrote an article called The App Store is a Game Store. And I just walked through a lot of this came out from the Epic trial. Games is just the vast majority of App Store services revenue, partly because most other categories don't have to pay it. Or they're allowed to offer alternative monetization, not pay it. Not that they don't have to pay it. If they monetize through IAPs, they have to pay it. But if they don't, they're allowed to monetize outside of IAPs with much more freedom than games are allowed to because Apple is so dependent on games for that revenue. That's a big story. That's still a big story.

44:53And that's going to determine what happens in this economy. You had Europe, they passed the digital market set, which is very much like competitive reform for big digital gatekeepers, the massive, pretty much American digital platforms like Apple, like Google, like the App Store, like Google Play. And so what that forces them to do is to offer alternative monetization opportunities or to allow app develop, offer alternative monetization opportunities in the app store. Now, the question is, what sort of restrictions will be placed on that? To your point, I've always had an iPhone. I've had an iPhone for the last 15 years.

45:24My credit card has been attached to my iOS account that whole time. And it's basically seamless for me to make a purchase, I tap the side button twice. Now, if someone offers me the opportunity to monetize with a different monetization solution, what are the inherent frictions there? Well, if it goes to the web, that's got to click out, I leave the experience. And I think the unspoken secret with mobile gaming is that a lot of IAPs impulse buys. So you're in line at the grocery store, hey, why not get the National Enquirer? That's kind of goofy. There's like a vampire on the front or whatever.

45:50I get some gum or some candy. A lot of IAP stuff, if you had to think about it for more than a split second, you probably just wouldn't do it. You're on the bus, seems like a good idea in the moment, but in 10 minutes, I'd be like, why did I just spend two bucks on that? You made people think about it for more than a couple seconds, you're going to see a material drop off in the conversion rates. And especially if you have to input your credit card. That's just a non -starter. No one's going to do that. It takes too long. That just creates so much friction that even if this was allowed, it's probably not going to be a tremendous amount of uptake.

46:17The other unspoken secret with mobile gaming is a lot of the biggest games where they had very, very dedicated players. The gaming companies were reaching out to them or they were creating opportunities to communicate to them that they could buy stuff on the web. Even though that was kind of frowned upon, now you're allowed to communicate that via email, allowed to have links in the app to the web. That's a recent development that was upheld in the Apple versus Epic decision. And for reader apps, that's been available for a long time. But now you've got that. The question is, how much more work is someone willing to do to go above and beyond the default modernization solution, which is so seamless and easy?

46:49So what do you have to do then in order to accommodate that added friction? You're going to have to offer a discount. Now, the question is, is that allowed? Does the DMA force the platforms to accept that? Okay, you can offer two different monetization opportunities. One is native checkout through whatever the native system is. The other is alternative checkout, even in -app, but you're allowed to price those differently. And this will just get litigated over time. I mean, I've read the DSA multiple times, but it doesn't really clarify that. The final question I would have with all of this is how key are those decisions for these businesses overall?

47:23Obviously, you're still going to have players and there's a change in terms of effectiveness. It's gotten more expensive to acquire users. All that gets factored in. But does that mean we've hit a peak in terms of mobile gaming? Are the things that if the regulatory dynamics or if the way that the app store and their take rate is set up doesn't change, then you're going to see just a plateau or slower than average growth relative to the rest of the market? how would you consider those decisions and what the outcome is there in terms of the overall health of that market? Yeah, there's definitely been an inflection point.

47:57I think primarily I would lay that at the feet of AT &T and other privacy policy chains. The DMA basically codifies AT &T in the law. So it's not really AT &T anymore. It's the DMA. That's just Europe. But we'll see. I think what you might see though, and I'm really encouraged by this, but I'm still cautiously optimistic, is you see a fracturing of the app stores. So I don't know if you caught this Microsoft announced a couple of weeks ago, they said, look, if our deal goes through, if our acquisition of Activision Blizzard is allowed to progress, we're going to launch the Microsoft mobile app store as a result of the DMA in Europe.

48:25And so you'll just have a brand and Epic will do it too. And you'll have a bunch of other app stores. Now those app stores can have native checkout methods. And so I think if you just see more of a fracturing and diversification of those points of sale and those stores, then I think that's going to support market growth. But I also think that the mobile gaming market is probably just settling into a inflected new rate of secular growth, which is just going to be much lower than it was, which is inevitable. And so I think here, you're already seeing that. Lovin just announced their results. And they said, look, we're seeing a return to growth in mobile gaming.

48:58Last year was contraction. This year we're seeing growth. Now I think they skewed it really well and they're seeing growth above what the market is just providing. But I think my sense is, and I wrote this last year when I was making predictions for 2023, We're probably looking at flat to up five this year, but that's against minus five last year, but that's up against probably plus 30 in 2021. Now that was a COVID boost and all that kind of stuff. So I think settling into is just a new normal in terms of secular growth, market growth. But I think what I'm cautiously optimistic about is a fracturing of the App Store ecosystem, the opportunity to be more progressive and dynamic with the tools that are offered and compete on that basis.

49:33What luxury do you have when customers are locked into either Google Play or iOS, you don't really have to innovate because you're not really competing against anybody. I see those ecosystems as pretty much incompatible. So you're not getting a lot of spillover. It's not like Android is actively trying to recruit iOS. There's not a lot of back and forth between there. I think probably mostly goes in one direction in the West and the other direction or stable in the developing world, which is primarily Android or primarily iOS with more of a shift from Android to iOS in the West. Now, what happens when these app stores have to actually start competing for developer products on the basis of the features and the functionality that they offer, you get better app stores.

50:09That's the kind of competition we should all be excited about. More products to help monetize, more products to deliver value to customers, and therefore more value generation and more time spent and more money spent. I think if you get these companies to actually have to compete on that basis, they're going to produce better experiences for developers who are in turn going to produce better experiences for users. And that's what I'm really excited about. You break up this logjam, break up the stasis, you introduce a whole lot of new blood into the ecosystem in terms of the app store offerings.

50:36And you're just going to get more and better functionality and feature sets for developers to use to super serve the most relevant audiences and to generate value that way. I like that positive picture that you paint. And I think gamers would benefit from that on the other side as well. This has been an awesome industry breakdown. We normally focus on the companies, but this was one where it made sense to tackle from the top down. Eric, really appreciate your time on this. It's been great. Thank you very much for having me on. I really appreciate it. To find more episodes of Breakdowns ranging from Costco to Visa to Moderna, or to sign up for our weekly summary, check out JoinColossus .com.

51:12That's J -O -I -N -C -O -L -O -S -S -U -S dot com.