Among all the ubiquitous changes in mobile and casual gaming, few have been as sensitive – and prophetic – in responding to player behavior and monetization trends as Andrei Kulakov. An experienced game designer and developer, Kulakov has long made a point of focusing not only on the underlying gameplay mechanics but also the so-called “invisible economy” that fuels free-to-play games.
We interviewed Andrei concerning his opinions regarding monetization – how it has evolved, what he has learnt from years of experimenting, and where it’s going when creativity, player psychology, and fair monetization come together.
Q: How did you first get interested in monetization as a core design concern in game development?
Andrei Kulakov:
It wasn’t long before I realized that creating a fantastic game was not sufficient – it had to sustain itself. That’s when I started designing on monetization as a fundamental aspect of the challenge instead of an afterthought. My initial experimentation was with the freemium model. We offered basic gameplay for free but locked other modes of the game – like “diagonal” or “Turkish” checkers – behind a supplemental premium tier. Much to my surprise, these variants weren’t simple niche curiosities; they were value propositions for more engaged players.
Q: What were some of the initial insights you learned during freemium mechanic experimentation?
Andrei:
The biggest thing the research taught us was that value perception is contextual. Placing content behind paywalls won’t necessarily make players care about it. But if you spark curiosity – perhaps by revealing the behind-paywall content in-game or integrating it with progression – players are likely to consider paying more to access it.
We also included rewarded ads for short-term access. Players could watch an ad to unlock premium features temporarily. It was a win-win: no paywall frustration, and a positive ad experience. This simple idea allowed retention and monetization both at once.
But freemium is a double-edged sword. Its elegance is in lowering the barrier to entry – anyone can play. But if employed too extensively, or employed poorly, it can undervalue trust. That’s the conflict: How do you make something appear valuable when you’re offering most of it for free?
Q: Can you explain that tension? What are the pitfalls developers fall into when employing freemium models?
Andrei:
Yes. The simplest one to fall for is over-monetizing too early – inundating the player with offers before they have any emotional stake in the game. The other is paywalling simple functionality, which is a bait-and-switch.
Players are extremely sophisticated these days. They can determine if a game respects their time and if it’s just trying to extract value. The best freemium models I’ve ever witnessed are all based around this principle of generosity. You give them just enough so they feel like they’re in charge – and then you offer them ways to go deeper.
The psychological sweet spot is when it costs money as an act of support, not as a tax.
Q: You have mentioned including gifts and cosmetic items in your monetization schemes. How was that going?
Andrei:
That evolved by seeing older browser game social dynamics, like The Combat Club, where virtual gifts were exchanged by players. We did it the same way, with graphical “gifts” stored in the player’s profile. Some seasonal, some prestige. Some you could buy with in-game currency, and some you could only buy with cash.
The insight was that players spend not only to progress, but to express. A limited-edition rose or a rare token becomes more than a cosmetic – it’s a story. You’ve been there. You’ve played the event. You’ve sent that gift to someone special.
It’s a form of in-game storytelling that monetization rarely taps into – but should.
Q: There’s a lot of debate about ethics in monetization, especially around pay-to-win and loot boxes. What’s your perspective?
Andrei:
I think monetization should be invisible when done well. It should feel like part of the world, not an obstacle. Players don’t mind paying – they mind being tricked.
There is also a growing need for alternate value systems. Suppose, for example, that players could achieve prestige items through accomplishment or social contribution? Not everything must be bought. That, in my opinion, is where monetization will shift – into a combination of financial and non-financial economies.
Games are ecosystems. If you optimize for profit, you kill the ecosystem. But if you design for player enjoyment and revenue, you might end up with a sustainable thing.
Q: What’s next for freemium? Do you see new models on the horizon?
Andrei:
Yes. I think we’re heading towards contextual monetization – systems that are reactive to the player’s behavior, preferences, and even values. AI will be central to this. Not in manipulating players, but in offering them relevant, respectful experiences.
I also believe there’s a future in player-owned economies, where players can trade or even create content that is worth something in the game. That reverses the role of monetization from gatekeeper to facilitator – the developer provides the tools, the players generate the value.
And finally, I’d love to see narrative monetization – where cash is included in the story. Picture finding a plot branch not because it’s randomly locked away, but because the game invites you to spend money in that world. It’s not “pay to skip” – it’s “pay to explore.”
