Mitch and Blake discuss the rise of the Istanbul gaming scene, which has exploded in the last 15 years and come to dominate the incredibly lucractive "match 3" mobile puzzle genre -- a genre which represents a significant percentage of global mobile game revenue. They discuss some of the important metrics that demonstrate just now important mobile game development in Istanbul has become -- not just to the global mobile games business, but to the nation of Türkiye itself, as a source of foreign currency and tax revenue.

In order to interrogate how Istanbul rose to dominate this genre, the hosts discuss the creation of Peak Games and the importance of Sidar Sahin and Rina Onur, two of Peak's founders and two important figures in the development of the Instanbul scene. They trace Peak's development through its sale to Zynga in 2020 for $1.8 billion. They discuss how Peak alumni were directly responsible for the formation of 65 new game studios, including Dream Games, which ultimately eclipses Peak as the most valuable game company in Istanbul.

The hosts turn to the four factors that contributed to the success of the Istanbul scene: dollar/euro currency leverage; local government subsidies; local talent -- both a source of talent specifically adept at the Match 3 genre as well as a magnet for Turkish tech talent broadly; and the distribution advantages that flowed from the choice to work in the globally-relevant Match 3 genre.

They conclude the episode with a look at the Dream Games transaction that cashed out investors and injected $1.25 billion of debt financing into the company. They then discuss some potential challenges to Istanbul's position in the future, and the overall durability of its current competitive advantages.

Blake and Mitch discuss the thesis that the games business is losing share of attention to non-game interactive applications. They discuss whether there is actually a defined market for interactive entertainment, and whether applications like TikTok should be considered "interactive."

They discuss and try to quantify the impact of game-like retention and engagement mechanics being adopted by such disparate applications as Snap, Duolingo, Strava, Fan Duel, Polymarket, Tinder, and OnlyFans. They conclude that it is not only a problem of "share of day" -- the hours that are being devoted to these addictive, interactive apps -- but also "share of wallet" -- the disposable income they are harvesting.

They discuss the structural change that they noticed coming out of the pandemic: that children in the pre-teen and teenage cohorts sought a different kind of pleasure in gaming during lockdown -- the pleasure of sociality. Mitch and Blake both feel that this change is endemic, and as this cohort has now aged into the key 18-34 demographic, that change is being reflected in gamer taste. They riff on some of the games and games-adjacent companies that anticipated or reacted quickly to this audience change, and reaped rewards for doing so.

They conclude by discussing how these new non-game interactive competitors are tapping into ancient human interaction patterns around things like gambling, social competition, and sex that have been part of human culture -- and important categories of human spending -- for millenia. They warn that the games business needs to react to this current attention drain as an on-going competitive threat, and learn back some of the lessons these new competitors learned from games.

Mitch & Blake discuss one of their favorite companies in games, Roblox.

They start by outlining Roblox's core competitive advantages, and how they are unique in providing creation, consumption, aggregation, and monetization in a single platform. They also discuss how unusual it is for a company to get to Roblox's scale with a pure platform strategy and no first-party games.

They then discuss the history of the company, and what it was doing for the decade before it appeared on the radar screens of most game industry observers. Mitch talks about hearing the pitch from CEO Dave Baszucki back in 2007. They discuss the period of inflection when they simulatenously launched on mobile platforms and significantly invested in upgrading graphics and the overall experience.

After reviewing Roblox's enduring advantages, they turn to the "bear" case for the company as a public stock and address some of the company's perceived shortcomings.

Blake and Mitch return! They begin with a discussion of the "Great Inflection" in software in the last several months. They then do some follow-up to last season, particularly their "deadpool" episode that turned out to be way too kind to the companies they profiled.

The hosts then "draft" six trends that were visible in 2025 that they think will continue and define 2026, alternating picks. Remarkably, they don't pick overlapping trends despite choosing blind and not disclosing pre-show.

Finally, they each offer three specific predictions for 2026.

In this Special Edition of the GameCraft podcast, Mitch and Blake discuss the $55 billion leveraged buy-out of Electronic Arts by the Private Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, Siliver Lake Partners, and Affinity Partners -- the largest LBO in US history, and the second largest transaction in the history of the video game business after Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision.

They discuss the deal itself (and how to properly characterize it), some of its immediate implications, and why Mitch's take on the possibilities created by EA going private went from excitement to disappointment in the two weeks following the deal's announcement.

Mitch and Blake explore the role of consolidation -- primarily through mergers and acquistions -- in building some of the biggest and most durable companies in gaming.

They begin with a discussion of the four major strategic uses of mergers and acquisitions: economies of scale, entry into new markets, control of talent and intellectual property, and new technologies. They provide many examples along the way.

Mitch argues that M&A is so important to the business that it's actually difficult to avoid ending up on either side of that equation, as an acquirer or as a target of aquisition. Mitch and Blake map that idea onto their dictum that venture backed companies need to decide whether they are building a product or a company.

They talk briefly about the financial engineering side of M&A, particularly in the form of the "roll-up" -- where companies are entirely build from acquisitions with a (usually mistaken) hope that the value of the whole will exceed the sum of the parts. They discuss why this rarely works, and try to explain why Embracer is in such trouble as a result.

They close the episode with a closer look at EA, Activision, Sony, Microsoft and other companies and show how their acquisitions map clearly onto the four main consolidation strategies. They argue that leverage is the key component of M&A success -- that buying companies against some pre-existing competitive advantage (rather than just buying randomly) results in a much higher likelihood of success.

Last season, Mitch and Blake discussed the implications of new Large Language Model Artificial Intelligence in games. In this episode, they return to the topic, this time focusing on games that are using AI as a platform -- meaning, the games are predicated on the use of LLMs to manage gameplay in some way.

After introducing the central ideas, they list a series of games they have encountered that make use of these new technologies, from relatively modest text-based adventure and role playing games, to more sophisticated games involving dialog with digital characters, dynamic narratives, and adaptive game systems.

They briefly discuss the vibe coding phenomenon, and offer some encouraging comparisons to the early PC modding communities as well as the vibrant Nordic "demo scene" they discussed in GameCraft S1:E3.

Finally, they take a sidebar to discuss the labor implications of AI in gaming, and argue that the business is at a crossroads -- and that the choice of the path forward has massive implications for future growth and relevance. They end with a discussion of the highly relevant exchange on this issue between the great John Carmack and a Quake fanboi over the use of AI in game production.

Mitch and Blake look at two of the largest toy companies in the world, Hasbro and Lego, and discuss their divergent but ultimately very successful forays into the games business as licensors of intellectual property.

Your hosts discuss how both Hasbro and Lego tried to enter the games business directly as developers and publishers of digital games in the late 1990s, how they had very different experiences of success and failure, and how both decided to exit the business in the early 2000s only to return as licensors rather than publishers later in that decade. Mitch tells the story about why he went to Hasbro's private pre-Toy Fair meeting in Florida in the late 90s.

They then explore the licensing stategies of both companies in depth. They discuss the transformative partnership between Lego and Traveller's Tales, and the complexities of using IP licensed by Lego for toy sets, like Star Wars, as the narrative universes for Lego's video games. They discuss the rise of Wizards of the Coast inside Hasbro after the 1998 acquisition (culminating in the accession of Chris Cox, head of WoTC, to the CEO position of Hasbro), resulting in two defining license deals: Baldur's Gate 3 to Larian, and Monopoly Go to Scopely.

Mitch and Blake close the episode with a look at how a huge market for block-based sandbox play -- that should have been in Lego's wheelhouse -- was captured by new entrants like Minecraft and Roblox. They also speculate about Hasbro's challenges replicating their recent licensing success in the near future.

Mitch and Blake address the unpleasant topic of how and why venture-backed games companies fail.

They look first at the nature of venture financing and the inherent differences between venture and publisher money. This leads to a conversation about how developers who were used to working with publishers treated venture capital like production financing as opposed to company financing, and why that distinction matters.

They then turn to the flawed strategies and tactics of gaming funds and investors, who tried to make up for their lack of judgment and taste by placing many bets on startup studios. They address several other factors that made games investing tricky for venture capitalists who often had little experience managing creative businesses and lack a basic understanding of the peculiarities of game production.

Mitch and Blake look at reasons why venture backed companies fail, and why catastrophic failure appears to be more common among venture-backed games companies than other software companies. They discuss the concept of the "naked B," why growth rounds are rare in games companies, and why games companies are uniquely difficult for conventional venture capitalists to evaluate.

They conclude with a look at some examples of companies that failed to return capital to investors -- in some cases very significant amounts of capital -- and discuss a few companies that appear to be in danger of following suit. They explain why the cumulative effect of these failures is one of the factors behind the current difficulties game companies experience raising money from venture capitalists.

[Ed.: since recording this episode, one of the companies in the deadpool, Elodie Games, has shut down.]

Mitch and Blake look at the current state of the vitally important Chinese gaming market, on the precipice of a bitter trade war resulting from the Trump tariffs.

They review the history of the games business in China, discuss the reasons China is so competitive in the global gaming market, and look at how some of the ways the Chinese market diverged from other markets influenced the strategies of Chinese game companies.

In particular, they look at how China's relatively late entry into the games business proved to be a benefit, by allowing them to skip the packaged goods era and therefore avoid all the ways that the packaged goods legacy has burdened incumbent US and European publishers. They discuss how the restrictions that the Chinese Communist Party places on the games business have influenced the development of the market, for better or worse.

They analyze how this unique domestic situation pushed the top Chinese companies to look outside China to deploy capital to secure various strategic content and distribution advantages (e.g., Riot, Epic, Garena). They discuss the strategies of top Chinese publishers TenCent and Netease in this light. They talk about how US national security interests affect Chinese publishers' ability to invest in and potentially acquire US game companies.

They discuss how, over time, homegrown content has come to dominate the Chinese market, and the way that pattern is similar to what happened in the film business, where China migrated from importing Western content to creating its own.

Mitch and Blake marvel at how China has gone well beyond replacing Western game imports, with Chinese products such as Genshin Impact and Black Myth: Wukong emerging as viable AAA games suitable for successful export to the US and European markets. They also look at the success of Chinese mobile games such as Last War and Block Blast! and how good these companies are at distribution arbitrages.

They conclude the episode with a look ahead and discuss how the current global political situation may affect the future of both Chinese and Western game businesses.

Show Notes: