Not more features.
More revenue.
Built around your game,
not a template.
Dremkoval works with game developers and studios on monetization strategies that fit the specific mechanics, player base, and market context of each project. No generic playbooks.
Monetization advice feels like it was written for someone else's game
Most resources on game monetization read like they were built for mid-core mobile titles with existing UA budgets and a DAU in the tens of thousands. If your game is a narrative indie, a multiplayer PC title, or a niche mobile game targeting a specific region, those frameworks simply do not apply.
The real problem is not a lack of information. It is that the available information does not map to your actual situation — your player retention curve, your session length, your price sensitivity. That gap is where revenue stays stuck.
Situations where this kind of work is relevant
A live game that has reached its ceiling without clear reasons why
Revenue has plateaued. The game still has players, session lengths are stable, but nothing moves. The issue is almost never the game — it is a misalignment between what players value and how monetization is structured around that value.
Pre-launch planning with limited runway
When budgets are tight, the cost of getting monetization wrong on launch is high. Early structural decisions — pricing tiers, soft currency flow, first purchase timing — have long-term consequences that are hard to undo.
Transitioning between monetization models
Moving from premium to F2P, or adding a subscription alongside a one-time purchase, creates risks that are difficult to anticipate without working through the player psychology and churn dynamics in advance.
What signals that a monetization specialist is operating at the right level
Credentials in this field are not degrees — they are demonstrated through the specificity of analysis. A capable specialist can explain why a particular IAP price point underperforms for a specific genre without needing to see your data first.
The associations and recognition that matter come from sustained work on real products, not from certifications. Working with studios across different scales — from two-person teams to mid-size publishers — produces the kind of pattern recognition that generic advice cannot replicate.
How the work actually runs
Game audit
Reviewing current monetization structure, player flow, and where friction appears in purchase decision moments. This takes two to three working days for most live games.
Context mapping
Understanding the player base demographics, genre conventions, competitive positioning, and platform constraints before any recommendations are made.
Strategy formation
Building a monetization model that fits the specific game — pricing architecture, offer cadence, bundle logic, and entry-point sequencing for different player segments.
Implementation support
Being available during rollout to catch edge cases, review A/B test setups, and adjust recommendations when live data contradicts initial assumptions.
Compared to hiring a growth agency
Agencies are built to run repeatable processes across many clients at once. That structure works well when your game fits an established category. When it does not, the advice defaults to what worked last time somewhere else.
Individual consulting at Dremkoval means the person analyzing your game is also the one forming the strategy and communicating it to your team. No handoffs between an analyst, a strategist, and an account manager. The context stays intact across every conversation.
All strategy documents, pricing models, and analysis produced during the engagement belong fully to the client. There are no licensing restrictions or ongoing fees tied to using the deliverables.
Most focused engagements run four to eight weeks depending on game complexity. Pre-launch work can be structured into a shorter intensive format if the timeline is constrained.
Strategies are written to anticipate adjustment. Follow-up reviews are available at a defined scope. Live data often reveals things pre-launch analysis cannot, and the approach accounts for that honestly.
All client information, game data, and business context shared during an engagement is treated as strictly confidential. NDA signing is standard at the start of any project.
One thing most studios get structurally wrong
Monetization is added to a game after the core loop is locked. Offers are placed where there is space in the UI, not where player motivation is highest. The result is technically functional monetization that leaves a significant portion of willingness-to-pay untapped.
Monetization events are mapped to emotional high points in the player journey. Pricing tiers are structured around what players compare your offers to — not what the game cost to make. Entry-level purchases are designed to succeed first, not to maximize immediate revenue.
Revenue potential that exists but does not convert
The specific problem is not low downloads, not poor ratings, and not weak gameplay. It is that players who would spend — who already show the behavioral signals of payers — are encountering offers at the wrong time, in the wrong form, or at a price point that feels arbitrary rather than fair.
Fixing that does not require redesigning your game. It requires understanding where motivation peaks, what players compare your prices to, and how to sequence offers so that each one makes the next one easier to say yes to.