ExpertsFMBenchmark’s Mitch Lasky and Blake Robbins on The Art of Business in Gaming
Acquired · April 26, 2023
5 Selected Lessons:
framework · 1 reasoning_pattern · 1 heuristic · 1 priority · 1 prediction · 1
Invest in businesses with strategy transcending the content, not in studios
Source
Acquired — Benchmark’s Mitch Lasky and Blake Robbins on The Art of Business in Gaming (April 26, 2023) · at 53:59 ▸ · at 59:27 ▸
When this applies
when deciding whether to invest in a creative/content producer versus a durable value-aggregating business
The takeaway
Content is a means to an end; the end must be a durable, value-aggregating structure, not just another content release.
Why it works
A studio whose end-state is just 'make another game and put it on a store' has no compounding mechanism beyond the next hit; a business with a strategy for durability, distribution leverage, or aggregation builds compounding value.
One level up
When investing, separate judging the quality of the output (content/product) from judging the structural durability of the business model producing it.
Where it stops holding
This stops working when exceptional, rare talent (a Jenova Chen) can generate outsized durable returns even without an explicit platform strategy, which Mitch treats as an exception.
Detail
hierarchy:
- Strategy that transcends making one more game (most important)
- Durability / value-aggregation potential
- Distribution leverage
- Content/game quality (necessary but not sufficient)
rationale: He has done 'more content deals than anyone else in the valley' yet insists he invests in businesses, not studios, because the content is a means to a more durable end.
In their words
I invest in businesses, not in studios, right? And those businesses have to have a strategy that transcends: I want to make a game and put it on Steam, or I want to make a mobile game and put it in the App Store, right?
Forever games: durability through persistent play patterns, not single products
Source
Acquired — Benchmark’s Mitch Lasky and Blake Robbins on The Art of Business in Gaming (April 26, 2023) · at 16:46 ▸ · at 18:54 ▸
When this applies
when assessing whether any product category has durable repeat engagement versus hit-driven one-off sales
The takeaway
Durability can come from a persistent underlying experience continuously refreshed, rather than from discrete, replaceable products.
Why it works
A small number of core stories/mechanics can be re-skinned with improving technology/content over decades, so users feel they're experiencing something 'new and old at the same time' rather than repeating.
One level up
Look for the invariant pattern beneath surface-level product refreshes when judging long-term value.
Where it stops holding
This stops working when the underlying mechanic/story can't be refreshed fast enough to stay relevant, or when switching costs for users are low.
Detail
procedure:
- Identify franchises with repeated underlying play pattern across decades
- Note how packaging changed (buy again vs free-to-play) while the core experience persisted
- Distinguish early durability via repurchased sequels from durability via a single persistent live product
benchmarks: {"FIFA":"30 years of continuous play (per Mitch)","GTA5":"~8-9 years and still a top Steam game (per Blake)"}
rationale: Hero's-journey-style story repetition feels new each time if production quality rises alongside it.
In their words
I think the forever games are part of a continuum. I mean, there was durability in the early video game business. It was just not the games themselves that were durable, right? Either the franchises were durable.
Platform-based publishing: aggregate demand to collapse supply (and the reverse move)
Source
Acquired — Benchmark’s Mitch Lasky and Blake Robbins on The Art of Business in Gaming (April 26, 2023) · at 21:08 ▸ · at 24:28 ▸ · at 27:12 ▸ · at 44:59 ▸
When this applies
when entering a market with aggregated user demand versus one with aggregated exclusive supply, know which lever you're pulling and anticipate incumbents flipping the lever
The takeaway
Platform strategies evolve in a cycle: first aggregate demand to break supply-side power, then pivot to aggregating supply to defend against the next platform's demand aggregation.
Why it works
Aggregating demand on an online platform lets you dictate terms to fragmented supply (publishers); once a platform is scaled, the dominant move can reverse into acquiring/aggregating exclusive supply (content) to lock in subscribers.
One level up
Platform competition is a sequence of demand/supply aggregation moves; the winning strategy at one stage becomes vulnerable at the next.
Where it stops holding
This stops working when switching costs are low enough that users can multi-home across platforms, neutralizing either aggregation strategy.
Detail
approach: Map whether a platform play is currently aggregating demand (Uber/Airbnb/Steam model) or aggregating supply (Netflix/Game Pass model), and judge where in the cycle the market sits.
signals:
- an incumbent buying exclusive content ($69B Activision deal)
- a platform building its own launcher but still needing to 'fish where the fish are' on a rival's platform
rationale: Game Pass aggregating supply after Steam aggregated demand signals the platform-based publisher paradigm may be shifting to a new phase.
In their words
So they're now back to aggregating supply in order to have enough viable IP on the platform such that you will continue to subscribe.
Speaker's view: credibility as a platform may require full embrace, not dabbling
Source
Acquired — Benchmark’s Mitch Lasky and Blake Robbins on The Art of Business in Gaming (April 26, 2023) · at 44:59 ▸
When this applies
when a company considers entering an adjacent business by leveraging its existing user relationship
The takeaway
In the speaker's opinion, leveraging an existing audience into a new business tends to work best when you commit at the level of becoming genuinely good at that new business, rather than just bolting it onto your existing one.
Why it works
The speaker suggests that partial, hedged entries may signal low commitment to both internal teams and external partners, potentially preventing the ecosystem from trusting or building around you; in contrast, full-ownership, deeply-invested entries (equity stakes, dedicated deals, government-mandated local partnerships) can create credible long-term incentive alignment.
One level up
The speaker believes half-measures into an adjacent market may read as low commitment and risk failing to earn ecosystem trust, regardless of how large your existing audience is.
Where it stops holding
This stops working when the new business genuinely has no connection to the core competency/culture of the parent company (full commitment can still fail, as Discord shows).
Detail
rule: The speaker suggests judging a platform's publishing credibility by how intentional and deeply invested they seem (equity stakes, dedicated deals), not just by audience size.
threshold: Tencent owned majority/controlling stakes in Epic and Riot and ran local-market distribution deals; Facebook made '11 different runs at gaming' without similar commitment, according to the speaker.
rationale: Even deep gamers (Jason at Discord) and well-intentioned investors (Mitch) failed at this when, in the speaker's view, the execution/commitment wasn't deep enough.
In their words
I would rephrase it, right? Which is my opinion is that why QQ was successful was that they didn't just decide that they were going to be a platform-based publisher. They embraced being a platform-based publisher
AI will hit art and QA/balancing before narrative game design
Source
Acquired — Benchmark’s Mitch Lasky and Blake Robbins on The Art of Business in Gaming (April 26, 2023) · at 1:58:25 ▸ · at 2:00:45 ▸ · at 2:04:23 ▸
When this applies
when forecasting where generative AI will first disrupt a creative production pipeline
The takeaway
Expect AI disruption to hit the most repetitive, highest-volume, lowest-judgment parts of a creative pipeline first, well before it can replace holistic creative/narrative design.
Why it works
AI excels at generating high-volume, lower-creative-judgment outputs (art asset variations, playtesting for balance exploits, describing 'fun') before it can produce coherent, narratively satisfying creative structure, which requires higher-order judgment that's harder to automate.
One level up
When forecasting automation's reach into any creative industry, separate the pipeline into judgment-heavy versus volume-heavy tasks and expect automation to arrive in that order.
Where it stops holding
This stops working if narrative-generation AI capability leaps unexpectedly (the speaker hedges 'maybe it's just my narrow-mindedness' and says this 'may be one of the later things that happens', not never).
Detail
procedure:
- Art pipeline automation (volume variation of assets) — lowest-hanging fruit, currently 2D with 3D coming
- QA and balancing — AI can play the game, describe 'fun,' and find exploits/arbitrage opportunities faster than human playtesting
- LiveOps — AI-assisted dynamic quest/content generation that preserves competitive balance while adding freshness
- Live DM-style narrative assistance — AI-supplied storytelling to support human game-masters in real time
benchmarks: {}
rationale: Making a coherent, narratively satisfying interactive journey is 'really hard' and 'not necessarily going to fall to AI early.'
In their words
I think making a coherent, narratively satisfying journey in a game context, in an interactive context, is not necessarily going to fall to AI early. That may be one of the later things that happens. But in the interim, man, there is going to be some really cool stuff to happen.