Two models, two very different bets
When a studio engages us to port a PC game to mobile, we offer two commercial structures. We're one of the few porting studios that offer both, and the conversation about which to use is often more valuable than the choice itself, because it forces studios to be honest about their actual situation.
Here's how each model works, who it's right for, and how to think through the decision.
The fixed fee model
You pay the full porting cost upfront. We deliver the port. You keep all revenue from launch forward. This is the simpler of the two structures and the one most studios default to, because it's clean, it's familiar, and it doesn't involve sharing revenue with anyone.
Fixed fee is the right choice when:
- You have the cash to pay upfront without it constraining other development work
- You're confident the port will perform well and don't want to share the upside
- You want a clean contractual relationship with no ongoing financial entanglement
- You have internal mobile ops capacity to manage the live game post-launch (UA, ASO, ratings management)
The risk with fixed fee is obvious: you're bearing the entire downside. If the mobile port underperforms, you've paid for a port that didn't generate a return. If it overperforms, you keep all of it. Most studios with healthy cash positions and strong IP prefer this model precisely because of that asymmetry.
The fee + revenue-share model
You pay a reduced upfront fee, typically 40–60% of the full fixed fee, and we take a percentage of net revenue from the mobile version for an agreed period (usually 3–5 years, or sometimes for the life of the title). The percentage varies based on the scope of the work and the size of the reduced fee; typical ranges are 15–25%.
This model is available for PC → Mobile ports specifically, because we need the mobile business to generate revenue to make the structure work. It doesn't apply to web demos or one-directional ports where there's no ongoing revenue stream.
Fee + rev-share is the right choice when:
- Your studio's cash position is constrained and a reduced upfront makes the port possible at all
- You're uncertain about mobile market fit and want to share the risk with us
- You don't have mobile ops experience and want us to stay aligned post-launch (we have skin in the game)
- The port is speculative, a title that hasn't launched on mobile before with an unproven audience there
"The rev-share conversation forces you to confront how confident you actually are in the port's market fit."
The decision framework
Here's the clearest way to think through it. Ask yourself these questions honestly:
| Question | Answer → model |
|---|---|
| Can you afford the full fixed fee without constraining other work? | Yes → Fixed No → Rev-share |
| How confident are you in mobile market fit? | Very → Fixed Uncertain → Rev-share |
| Do you have internal mobile UA / ASO expertise? | Yes → Fixed No → Rev-share |
| Would you prefer a clean, no-ongoing-ties relationship? | Yes → Fixed No → Rev-share |
| Is the title proven IP with a clear mobile audience? | Yes → Fixed Speculative → Rev-share |
What most studios get wrong
The mistake we see most often is studios choosing fixed fee because it feels more "professional" or because they don't want to feel like they're sharing the pie, even when their actual cash position would benefit from the reduced upfront, and even when their mobile market confidence is genuinely low.
The flip side: studios that have high-confidence IP and strong cash positions sometimes choose rev-share because they like the idea of "aligning incentives," but they're giving up revenue share on a port that was already going to succeed without needing us to stay financially motivated.
The right answer is almost always the honest one. If your cash is tight and you're not sure the port will work: rev-share. If you have the capital and you believe in the IP: fixed fee.
If you'd like to talk through which model makes sense for your specific title and situation, that's part of what we cover in the free port assessment. No pressure, no commitment.