From mobile to PC: The friction of UA translation

• The boundaries between mobile, web and PC games are becoming increasingly blurred.
• The traditional mobile approach to UA can ‘decimate’ PC ROAS.
• The mobile conversion funnel is incredibly fast and low-friction.
• PC players operate in a completely different mental space; the download of a PC game is a deliberate commitment.

As the mobile games market faces rising user acquisition costs and shifting privacy regulations, an increasing number of developers are porting their titles to PC and Steam. However, translating a mobile-first marketing strategy to the PC ecosystem is rarely a simple plug-and-play process.

To explore the critical differences between these two worlds, we sat down with Pierre Olivier, the Head of Media Buying at PWN Games, to discuss why traditional mobile tactics can decimate PC return on ad spend (ROAS), how to navigate the technical limitations of PC attribution and how studios can scale their player base efficiently without speculative budgets.

PocketGamer.biz: To start with, why is treating a PC game launch like a mobile app release a recipe for financial disappointment? Are there fundamental differences in player psychology?

Pierre Olivier: The primary mistake we see publishers make is assuming that mobile user acquisition tactics will translate directly to PC. In the mobile space, the conversion funnel is incredibly fast and low-friction. A player sees an ad, clicks, installs a free-to-play app in seconds and is immediately in the game. It is a highly impulse-driven action.

PC players operate in a completely different mental space. They do not download games on impulse. They read reviews, watch gameplay on YouTube or Twitch, check system requirements and consider the time investment. The purchase or download of a PC game is a deliberate commitment.

When you apply mobile tactics - like high-volume, low-intent creative testing - to a PC audience, you end up paying for empty clicks. You might drive traffic to a Steam page, but without the deep intent required for a PC gamer to hit download, your ROAS will collapse. Mobile is about volume and immediate conversion; PC is about intent and community validation.

Mobile developers are used to highly sophisticated mobile measurement partners that track everything from the initial click to lifetime value. How does the technical reality of attribution change when you move to PC, where platforms like Steam limit direct data sharing?

This is the single biggest technical hurdle for mobile developers entering the PC market. On mobile, you have a direct line of sight from the ad click to the exact in-app purchase, managed through a unified SDK. Steam, Epic and other PC storefronts are essentially black boxes. They do not allow you to embed third-party tracking SDKs directly into their platforms.

While Steam has introduced Urchin Tracking Module (UTM) parameters to help track store page visits, they do not tell the whole story of what happens after the download. To navigate this, we have had to build proprietary technology and partner with specialised attribution platforms that track deeper downstream player events.

Instead of relying on a simple install signal, we track post-install events within the game client itself - such as tutorial completion, character creation, or reaching a specific level. By linking these internal data points back to our traffic sources, we can build an accurate picture of player quality and bypass the limitations of the storefront.

Many developers still focus on cost-per-click or cost-per-install as their primary metrics. Why are these vanity metrics dangerous for PC games, and why is the cost-per-acquisition model the only logical metric?

On PC, a cheap install is often a useless install. If you run a standard campaign optimised for cheap clicks, ad networks will deliver traffic that has no intention of actually playing. You might see thousands of store page visits or downloads, but if those players close the game after five minutes and never return, your marketing budget has been wasted.

The cost-per-acquisition model changes the entire dynamic of the campaign because it forces the ad network to take on the risk. Under this model, the publisher only pays when a player completes a specific, high-intent action - such as completing a tutorial or playing for a set number of hours.

This completely aligns the incentives of the publisher and the ad network. It forces us to focus on the quality and relevance of the traffic we deliver, ensuring that the publisher is only paying for genuine, conversion-ready players who are likely to stick around and contribute to the game's economy.

Mobile advertising is famous for using highly abstracted or even misleading gameplay creatives to drive volume. Why does this playbook fail when targeting the PC gaming community?

The PC community has a highly active, vocal and protective culture. They will actively call out misleading or dishonest advertising on platforms like Reddit, Steam forums and Discord. If you attempt to use fake gameplay or exaggerated graphics to promote a PC game, the community will punish you with negative reviews, which can permanently damage your game's algorithmic visibility on Steam.

To combat creative fatigue on PC, you have to be honest. The creative material must align with the actual gameplay experience. Instead of gimmicks, we focus on highlighting the core loop of the game - the specific mechanical hooks, the depth of strategy, or the unique visual style.

PC players are looking for depth, so your creative assets must prove that depth exists. Honesty is not just an ethical choice; on PC, it is a commercial requirement for long-term retention.

Performance marketing often attracts concerns regarding traffic quality and ad fraud. What specific measures does PWN Games utilise to ensure that publishers are paying for real players rather than simulated traffic?

Fraud prevention in a performance network is a continuous battle that requires both automated technology and strict human oversight. We do not accept unverified traffic. We work with an exclusive network of over 1,500 thoroughly vetted traffic sources, ensuring that the sites and platforms displaying our campaigns are highly relevant to the specific genre of the game being promoted.

Technically, we align with industry-standard fraud prevention practices: we make heavy use of variance reporting and real-time traffic caps to compare performance across different time periods and channels. If we spot a sudden spike in downloads from a specific source that does not translate into the expected downstream events - like reaching level five or joining a guild - our system automatically flags it and caps the traffic.

However, we then go much further. With our own proprietary, layered fraud prevention system: By monitoring up to twenty separate downstream milestones for a single campaign, we can identify anomalies immediately, ensuring that our partners are only paying for active, engaged players.

A common challenge for mid-tier and indie studios is competing with the massive marketing budgets of giant publishers. Does a performance-driven model level the playing field for smaller teams?

Traditional user acquisition requires massive upfront budgets, heavy creative testing costs and a high tolerance for loss while you optimise your campaigns. For an independent studio, that is simply not viable. They cannot afford to spend fifty thousand pounds on a test campaign that might not yield results.

Our performance-driven model de-risks the entire process for smaller teams. Because we only bill based on successful acquisitions, independent studios do not need to risk their limited capital on unproven traffic.

It allows them to scale their player base efficiently and only pay for results that directly impact their bottom line. It moves marketing from a speculative gamble to a predictable, scalable business expense.

You've worked with some of the biggest PC/Mobile cross-platform titles in the market. What has that taught you about the PC player - and how does that shape PWN Games' focus going forward?

The lines between mobile, PC and web games are indeed blurring. Over the past six years, we’ve seen - and worked with more and more Mobile/PC hybrid, cross-platform titles than ever before.

For many of these games, PC isn't just a port anymore - it’s a key platform for deeply engaged players. Mobile supports frequent, on-the-go engagement, while PC often drives longer sessions and, in some cases, higher-value players depending on the game. This is the cohort many studios are competing for - and the one we specialise in acquiring.

Working across blockbuster cross-platform titles like Genshin Impact, Arknights: Endfield and Neverness to Everness, we understand the mobile model but also have built deep expertise in what drives performance on PC specifically: which creatives work, which channels convert and how PC player behaviour differs from mobile. That knowledge compounds over time and it’s what we continue to double down on for our partners.

Learn more about PWN Games and conversion-driven PC user acquisition: pwngames.com.