The Core of the Business Operation of Game Companies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/6fcrb903Keywords:
Game Company, Business Operation, Core Elements, Profit Model, IP Operation.Abstract
The global game market has exceeded 200 billion US dollars, and the industry has entered the stage of stock competition. Small and medium-sized companies are facing challenges such as scarcity of version numbers and high customer acquisition costs. Commercial operation has become the key to the survival and development of enterprises. This article focuses on the core logic of the business operation of game companies and uses multi-research methods to systematically analyze their operation practices. The study found that the core of business operation is "user-centered", and product research and development and iteration, profit model construction, and brand Intellectual Property (IP) operation are the three core elements; product differentiation is based on the foundation, and needs to maintain vitality through precise positioning and continuous iteration; the profit model needs to adapt to product attributes and user needs. It presents diversified and mixed characteristics such as buyout system, internal purchase, and advertising implantation; IP long-term operation and brand precipitation are long-term growth guarantees, and value can be amplified through cross-field ecological extension. This research fills the research gap in the systematic integration of the core elements of industry operation and provides differentiated operation paths for game enterprises of different sizes
Downloads
References
[1] Lyu, M. (2025). Tencent’s road to a gaming giant: Chinese video game companies’ development trajectory in the reconfiguration of transnational capitalism. Television & New Media, 26(5), 533–551.
[2] Maher, B. (2016). Can a video game company tame toxic behaviour? Nature, 531(7596), 568–571.
[3] Mäntymäki, M., Hyrynsalmi, S., & Koskenvoima, A. (2019). How do small and medium-sized game companies use analytics? An attention-based view of game analytics. Information Systems Frontiers, 22(5), 1–16.
[4] Roquilly, C. (2011). Control over virtual worlds by game companies: Issues and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 653–671.
[5] Seo, T. G., & Yang, D. W. (2015). The empirical study on relationship between corporate performance and related business experience of game company’s CEO: Moderating effect of social capital. Journal of Korea Multimedia Society, 18(11), 1408–1418.
[6] Sharma, K., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2022). Cyber-risk management framework for online gaming firms: An artificial neural network approach. Information Systems Frontiers, (prepublish), 1–22.
[7] Xiao, L. Y. (2020). Conceptualising the loot box transaction as a gamble between the purchasing player and the video game company. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(6), 1–3.
[8] Xu, J., & Wang, Y. (2025). Research on financial performance evaluation of Chinese game listed companies based on factor analysis. International Business Accounting, 20, 17–21.
[9] Zhang, G., & Bi, S. (2024). Evolutionary game analysis of online game studios and online game companies participating in the virtual economy of online games. PLoS ONE, 19(1), e0296374.
[10] Zhang, Z., & Li, Y. (2025). Semi-annual report on dismantling 26 A-share game companies: Reviving the polarization between China and Tibet, tapping the potential of AI path and stock into winners and losers. National Business Daily, 007.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

