Most mobile publishers run the same playbook. Sign a pile of prototypes, spend hard on user acquisition, and watch the KPIs. If a game clears an aggressive CPI and retention bar in the first two weeks, it gets a budget. If it misses, it gets shelved. The studio moves on to the next prototype, and the cycle repeats.
That model works if you are hunting for the next chart-topper. It fails a lot of good games in the process. Games with real players and real engagement get killed because they missed a threshold that was never the right threshold for that game in the first place.
We built Ciao Games around the opposite idea.
How the Ciao model works
We are not a standard publisher because we did not start as one. Our monetization model is different, and everything else follows from that. We do not treat monetization as something that happens after a game succeeds. We treat it as part of how a game succeeds. In practice:
Revenue from launch. Our monetization model goes live at launch, so a game does not need to win a scale race before it earns.
No games left on the shelf. We will take on existing titles and older IPs, not just fresh games, as long as there is enough content to work with. A game that stalled under another publisher is a starting point, not a dead game.
Open numbers. Partners see the reporting we see. Trust is hard to build when one side controls the data, so we do not do that.
In-house player acquisition. We run UA ourselves, so growth and monetization sit with the same team and pull in the same direction.
That is the model. What it changes for a studio matters more.
Why this could be the way to go
The standard publishing deal asks a studio to bet everything on a short window. Hit the metrics fast or get cut. That is a high-variance bet, and most of the risk sits with the developer.
The Ciao model changes the risk profile. When a game can monetize from launch through our way, you are not staking the whole project on winning an expensive UA auction in week one. You are building on revenue that exists from the start, then growing from there. For a studio that has a solid game but not a war chest, that difference is the difference between shipping and shelving.
It also means we can say yes to games other publishers say no to. That is not charity. It is a different read on where value comes from. A lot of games are not bad. They are just under-monetized, and under-monetization is a fixable problem when you own the demand side.
What we look at before we say yes
Since we evaluate games differently, it is worth being clear about what actually matters to us.
The first question is never just “how is this game performing?” It is “why is it performing that way, and can that reason be changed?” A game with weak monetization and strong retention has a fixable problem. A game with strong monetization and no retention has a fundamental one. The headline metric can look the same in both cases. The read underneath is completely different.
We look at the shape of a retention curve, not a single day’s number. A game that drops fast and then flattens has found a real audience, just a small one. A game that never flattens has an engagement problem that no monetization tuning will solve.
And we look for monetization headroom. Many of the games we take on are not underperforming so much as underbuilt on the revenue side. That gap is an opportunity, not a risk.
The genres that work best with us
The Ciao model isn’t defined by genre. It’s defined by how players engage with a game’s economy.
We tend to work best with games that feature meaningful progression, long-term engagement, and an in-game economy that gives players valuable goals to work toward. When players have reasons to come back every day and meaningful ways to spend earned currency, monetization can become part of the experience rather than a disruption.
Games with deep progression systems, collectible content, upgrade paths, live operations, or long-term objectives often provide the strongest foundation. These mechanics naturally create opportunities to reward engaged players while supporting healthy long-term growth.
That doesn’t mean we’re limited to a specific genre. Strategy, RPG, simulation, puzzle, multiplayer, or something entirely different can all be a great fit if the underlying player economy and retention are there.
Ultimately, we don’t evaluate games based on their category, we evaluate the strength of their progression systems, player engagement, and monetization potential. If those fundamentals are in place, there’s room for the Ciao model to create value.
Before you pitch us
If a game got rejected somewhere else, it is not necessarily a dead game. Often, it is a game that was read incorrectly. If that sounds like yours, have these ready before you reach out:
- Your retention curve, not just a headline number
- Your current monetization stack, so the headroom is visible
- What you have already tried, and what happened
Submit your game: https://ciao.games/submit-your-game/