Mobile and PC benchmarks start with different eligibility rules

GameAnalytics’ mobile and PC sections use different eligibility rules: a 1,000-MAU mobile threshold, versus 100 MAU and four months live for PC. Data basis and methodology.

Do not rank platforms from unmatched samples

Different eligibility rules can admit different stages and sizes of games. Even with identical metric names, a comparison may mix business models, play patterns and maturity. The report is useful precisely because it states those boundaries; removing them makes the headline less reliable.

Our recommendation is to treat cross-platform planning as two acquisition systems connected by a product. Define the player journey and commercial outcome on each platform before deciding which engagement measure matters most. A short-session mobile pattern need not be a defect in a game designed around frequent returns.

Align the definitions you can control

Use the metric reference to confirm the counted event and time interval. Keep platform, cohort age and observation period beside the comparison. Where the external report cannot be matched, record the mismatch instead of adjusting the number by an unsupported conversion factor.

The artifact is a comparability matrix, not a claim that one platform has better players. It supports a more concrete discussion: which parts of the product and marketing plan need platform-specific evidence, and which hypotheses could be tested across both? A decision to expand should rest on those inputs and the studio’s economics, not a contest between unmatched medians.

Inspect the evidence

Download the source-population and comparability card. The extraction separates documented facts from our analysis and unknowns.

Further reading in the existing archive: Cloud gaming as a mobile acquisition surface; The state of mobile game acquisition in 2026. These links provide background; this check does not independently verify their full contents.