Growth
← Back to all posts

Why UA Is the Most Important Thing a Game Designer Never Learns

If you don't understand User Acquisition, you're designing a game you can't sell. And that's not a business problem — it's a design problem.

7 min read · Du Che Anh

I'm going to make a claim that will annoy most game designers: User Acquisition knowledge will improve your game design more than reading another game design book.

Not because UA is more important than design. But because UA is the context your design lives inside, and most designers have zero awareness of it. They're designing in a vacuum — making decisions about retention, difficulty curves, session length, and economy pacing without understanding the one thing that determines whether any of it matters: can we actually get players into this game at a cost that makes the business work?

UA decides who plays your game

Here's something most game designers don't think about: you don't choose your players. UA does.

The players who find your game organically — through App Store browsing, word of mouth, or viral sharing — are a tiny fraction of your total audience. The vast majority come through paid acquisition: ads on Facebook, Google, AppLovin, Unity, TikTok. And who those players are depends entirely on how UA campaigns are targeted, what creatives are shown, and what CPI the team is willing to pay.

This matters for design because different players behave differently. Players acquired through a puzzle-style creative behave differently than players acquired through an action-style creative — even in the same game. Players from the US have different session patterns than players from Brazil. Players from high-CPI campaigns are typically higher quality (higher retention, higher LTV) but cost more upfront.

If you're designing a difficulty curve and you don't know that 60% of your new users next month will come from a TikTok campaign targeting casual females 25–45 in the US, you're designing blind. That audience expects a very different first-session experience than the hardcore action gamers your creative team assumed they were building for.

At VNG, I sat embedded with the UA team as their data analyst. I built their campaign dashboards and modeled CPI, LTV, and ROAS by country and genre. That proximity changed how I designed games. When I knew that UA was about to push hard into India (low CPI, high volume, lower ARPDAU), I'd adjust the ad monetization config to account for the different eCPM profile. When I knew the US campaigns were scaling, I'd prioritize features that improved D7 retention for that cohort, because those were the expensive players we needed to retain.

A game designer without UA knowledge designs for an abstract player. A game designer with UA knowledge designs for the actual player.

Your game needs to be "UA-able"

Not every game can be profitably acquired for. This is a fact that most game designers don't learn until it's too late.

The math is simple: if it costs $3 to acquire a player (CPI), that player needs to generate more than $3 in lifetime revenue (LTV) for the business to work. The ratio between the two — ROAS (Return on Ad Spend) — is the single number that determines whether your game lives or dies.

And here's the uncomfortable truth: ROAS is not a UA metric. It's a design metric.

Think about it. What determines LTV? Retention, session length, ad engagement, IAP conversion rate, average transaction value. Every single one of those is a design decision. D30 retention is determined by how well your progression loop sustains interest for a month. Ad engagement is determined by how well your ad placements are integrated into the gameplay flow. IAP conversion depends on whether your economy creates a genuine desire to spend.

When ROAS is bad, studios blame UA for buying the wrong users. Sometimes that's true. But more often, the problem is that the game doesn't retain well enough or monetize hard enough to justify its CPI. That's not a UA problem. That's a design problem wearing a UA hat.

At Corochti, I was hired to improve a game that had great organic traction but couldn't run profitable UA campaigns. The LTV was too low — not because the game was bad, but because it was never designed with monetization intent. No ad system architecture. No strategic placement. No economy designed to create spending occasions.

Five months later, after redesigning the ad system, economy, and session flow, LTV grew ×9. We went from "UA is impossible" to running campaigns at >200% D30 ROAS. The UA strategy didn't change. The game design did.

CPI should inform your genre choice

This is a conversation I wish more game designers had before starting a project: what does acquisition cost in this genre, in this market, and at this time?

CPI varies enormously:

If you're designing a midcore game targeting the US market, you need an LTV that can sustain a $15+ CPI. That means you need deep retention (D30+), strong IAP conversion or aggressive ad monetization, and a progression system that keeps players engaged for months. If your design can't deliver that, it doesn't matter how fun the game is — the economics won't work.

On the other hand, if you're designing a casual game with a $3 CPI target, you need high ARPDAU from ads but don't necessarily need IAP. Your design priorities shift toward session frequency, ad placement optimization, and broad appeal rather than depth.

Most game designers pick their genre based on what they want to make. Smart game designers pick their genre based on the intersection of what they want to make and what the acquisition economics allow.

The feedback loop nobody tells you about

Here's the most powerful concept I learned from sitting between design and UA:

Better design → better retention → better LTV → better ROAS → more UA budget → more players → more data → better design decisions.

This is a flywheel, and it only spins when design and UA are connected. When they're siloed — which is the default at most studios — the flywheel is broken. The design team optimizes for "fun" without checking whether "fun" translates to "retains." The UA team optimizes for CPI without understanding which in-game behaviors predict long-term value.

When I improved D30 retention at Corochti through ad system redesign and economy changes, the UA team didn't change anything about their campaigns. But ROAS went up automatically because the same acquired users were now generating more revenue over a longer period. The UA team could then afford to bid higher, which got them access to better traffic, which improved retention further.

One design change. No UA changes. The entire growth loop accelerated.

What game designers should actually learn about UA

You don't need to become a UA manager. You need to understand enough to make informed design decisions. Here's the minimum:

CPI by genre and market. Know what it costs to buy a player in your genre, in your top 3 target countries. This tells you what LTV you need to hit, which tells you how aggressive your monetization needs to be, which directly informs your design.

ROAS benchmarks. Know what "good" looks like. In casual games, D0 ROAS of 40–60% is typical. D30 ROAS of 80–120% is the target for most teams. If your game is hitting 200%+ at D30, your design is doing something right — you've earned the right to scale UA.

The relationship between retention and LTV. A 1% improvement in D7 retention doesn't just mean 1% more revenue. It means the entire LTV curve shifts up, which improves ROAS across all cohorts, which unlocks more UA spend. Small retention gains compound massively at scale.

Creative-to-game alignment. UA creatives set player expectations. If the ad shows puzzle gameplay but the game is a shooter, D1 retention will be terrible because the player who clicked the ad isn't the player the game was designed for. As a game designer, you should know what creatives UA is running and whether they accurately represent the core loop.

Where your players actually come from. Ask your UA team for a traffic source breakdown. What percentage is organic vs. paid? Which networks and campaigns drive the highest quality users? This tells you which player experience you should be optimizing for.

The uncomfortable question

If someone told you that 70% of your new players next week would come from a specific UA campaign targeting a specific demographic in a specific country — would you design your game differently?

If the answer is yes, you already understand why UA matters for design.

If the answer is "I'd design the same game either way" — you're designing for yourself, not for your players. And that's a luxury most studios can't afford.

This is the fourth in a series about game design, data, and monetization in F2P mobile games. I'm Du Che Anh — Product Owner & Lead Game Designer at Corochti Studio, previously at VNG Corporation. If your game has a UA problem that's actually a design problem, let's talk. anh@ducheanh.com