Building beyond the blockbuster

How important is having different game families and mechanics?

It is critically important, especially in today’s market. Players have the same amount of time, but the number of games competing for that time keeps growing. Recognisable game families help reduce that choice overload. If a player already knows a visual style or core mechanic, there is a greater chance they will try the next title in that series.

At Playson, we normally preserve the core mechanic that made a family successful and complement it with subtle but compelling additions to every subsequent release. Thunder Coins, Coin Strike and Pots Riches game families are good examples; the fundamental experience remains familiar, but later iterations introduce larger fields, multipliers or additional features.

That familiarity is valuable for operators too. Successful families are usually built around proven products, which makes their performance somewhat more predictable. But recognition alone never guarantees success. Every new game still must earn the player’s attention through quality, execution and meaningful evolution.

Should suppliers prioritise breadth or depth?

I do not think a supplier can sustainably choose one. Expanding successful families gives you depth, but developing completely new concepts gives you the next generation of those families. Both processes have to happen in parallel.

Trends change, player expectations evolve, and no mechanic remains dominant forever. If we invested everything into extending existing franchises, eventually we would reach a point where the market moves on and we would have no proactive means of adaptation. At the same time, abandoning proven families simply for the sake of novelty would mean ignoring valuable player behaviour and performance data.

For us, the real task is balancing innovation with continuity. We continue investing in established portfolios while experimenting with new mechanics, features and visual approaches. What we do not believe in is increasing release volume purely for the sake of quantity. Our product development philosophy is built around quality; every title should have a clear reason to exist and add something meaningful to the portfolio.

When does extending a successful franchise make more sense than creating something entirely new?

Extending a franchise makes sense if previous releases continue to perform and there is still meaningful room to develop. Suppliers naturally choose their strongest titles for further iterations; there is little value in investing time and resources into extending a product that players did not respond to in the first place.

The important point is that a sequel should never simply reproduce the previous game. We keep the elements players recognise, but every new title needs additional value; a new mechanic, a stronger feature set, a different field structure, improved multipliers or simply a more polished experience.

At the same time, franchise development can never become the whole roadmap. We continuously create new unique titles because some of those experiments will become tomorrow’s successful families. For me, the healthiest portfolio has both: franchises that compound proven player interest and new concepts that test where player behaviour may go next.

How can developers avoid portfolio fatigue while still building recognisable IP?

A franchise should evolve, not simply repeat itself. That evolution is not limited to adding more features. Every new game gives us an opportunity to improve things we learned from previous releases: sound, animation, game flow, timings, loading speed, optimisation and overall usability.

That is why recent titles in a Playson family can be technically very different from the originals, even though the player immediately recognises the IP. A newer Coin Strike title, for example, benefits from years of production feedback and technology development while retaining the elements that led to its impact in the first place.

There is also an interesting player dynamic here. Not every new title in a family attracts exactly the same audience. Some loyal players remain with an older favourite, while new releases bring different players into the franchise. Recognition across casino lobbies can actually build trust in the family. The objective is therefore not constant replacement, but an expanding ecosystem of familiar yet differentiated experiences.

Does a strong back catalogue become more valuable as operators face greater content demand?

Yes, it does, although its value differs by market and operator strategy. Playson is a multi-regional supplier, so we predict that some titles will be more popular in specific markets, while not being a global favourite. It is only natural. Some operators want proven mechanics and predictable performance, while others need greater portfolio variety or new concepts for a particular audience.

A strong back catalogue gives both sides greater options. When an operator has seen several consecutive Playson releases perform well, trust naturally increases. They know the family, they understand the statistics, and they are more confident giving the next title meaningful lobby visibility. That gives us room to experiment as well, because the relationship is no longer about proving product quality, but about proven data. Such experiments increase title variability, satisfying operators’ needs for assortment-width strategy.

However, greater content demand should not be confused with demand for greater volume. Playson does not build its roadmap around releasing more games simply to fill space. We combine portfolio performance, market data, operator insight and wider trends to decide what genuinely deserves to be produced.