Gaming Business Model Slides: 5 Real Pitch Deck Examples
How gaming startups show who pays: players buying in-game items, operators sharing gaming revenue, studios paying for tools, and virtual currency splits.
Gaming Business Model Slide: Players, Operators or Studios?
In gaming, the person playing is often not the person paying. Money can come from players buying items, from operators who share their revenue, or from studios paying for tools. The five slides below show how gaming startups explained who pays them and on what basis.
TL;DR
Say who pays and on what basis. Bragg names the payer (casino operators) and the basis (a share of gross gaming revenue). Incymo gives prices: $199 per scenario and about $4k per game per month. Slides that only say "free-to-play" or "dual monetization" leave investors to guess how much players spend.
Gaming business model slides from real pitch decks
Each example shows the slide above its analysis and links to the full teardown. Slides with a clear payer and basis come first. Claims are as shown on the slides; comments and calculations are ours.
Bragg Gaming Group business model slide — slide 6
Casino and betting content and platform supplier to online operators.
Bragg Gaming Group deck, slide 6. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: B2B revenue share: operators pay a percentage of gross gaming revenue.
Evidence and limitation: Payer, basis and flow of money are all clear, and it says what Bragg does not do (take bets). The percentage share isn't shown, and "majority" means some revenue comes from other arrangements that aren't described. The logos don't say which operators pay or how much.
What a founder can adapt: "Operators pay us [X]% of GGR on our content; [Y]% of revenue is revenue share."
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Our Revenue Model." "Majority of revenue is generated on a revenue share basis." "Bragg earns a % of the gross gaming revenue (GGR) from operators using its platform." "Bragg's revenue is paid from the operator to Bragg." "Bragg is removed from operating the actual sites and does not take any bets or wagers." A flow chart shows customers using operators' sports betting, casino, bingo and lotto apps that "run on Bragg's software platform", with operator logos including Kindred, 888, Entain and LeoVegas.
Presentation choice: An investor can see who pays and why Bragg's revenue rises with operators' play.
When it does not fit: Naming a revenue share without the typical rate.
AI tools that help game studios increase in-game monetization.
Incymo.ai deck, slide 6. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: B2B pricing: a fee per unit and a typical monthly spend per game.
Evidence and limitation: Two prices on one slide and nothing else. It doesn't say who the buyer is (implied by the deck: game studios), what a scenario is, or how the two prices relate. Our calculation: $4,000 ÷ $199 ≈ 20, so the monthly figure would equal about 20 scenarios a month if it were built that way; the slide doesn't say it is.
What a founder can adapt: "Studios pay $[X] per [unit]; a typical game uses [n] a month = $[Y]."
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Business Model." "per scenario 199$." "per game per month ~$4k."
Presentation choice: Prices make spend per customer easy to estimate.
When it does not fit: Two prices without saying how they connect.
Fayceoff deck, slide 5. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Virtual currency sale with a stated revenue split.
Evidence and limitation: Payer (gamers), what they buy (credits) and a price list (1 credit = 1 cent on every pack shown). The split is stated from the developer's side: 95% to developers. Our reading: that leaves at most 5% for Fayceoff before payment costs, but the slide doesn't state Fayceoff's share or who pays payment fees. The last bullet is a hope, not a result.
What a founder can adapt: "Players buy credits at $[X] per [n]; we keep [Y]% after developer share and payment fees."
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Monetization: How We Make Money." "Gamers purchase virtual currency to bid/buy items." "Developers, of the game where Credit is purchased, will receive 95% of revenue." "The concept of finding bargains on virtual items will increase the raw number of paying users." A screenshot shows credit packs from "$5.00 = 500" to "$50.00 = 5,000".
Presentation choice: Shows the split, which decides how much of each purchase the company keeps.
When it does not fit: Giving the partner's share without your own net share.
TouchSpin deck, slide 4. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Player-paid model described by its mechanics.
Evidence and limitation: Names the model (free-to-play with in-app purchases) and what players buy (coins, premiums, power-ups). The 60% and 90% figures describe mobile games generally, with no source or date shown, and are not TouchSpin's own numbers. No price, share of paying players or spend per player is shown.
What a founder can adapt: "[X]% of players pay; average $[Y] a month from payers; coin packs $[Z]–$[W]."
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Business Model." "Game Revenues derived mainly from F2P IAP." "F2P provide more than 60% of mobile rev and 90% of app downloads." "In-Game Economy Optimized to Monetize." "Coin and Premium Purchases to stay in the game." "PowerUps and Premiums add fun and burn coins." "Ongoing Features and Levels releases extend engagement."
Presentation choice: Explains what players spend on and why they keep spending.
When it does not fit: Industry statistics in place of your own player economics.
Agave Games deck, slide 3. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Strategy slide that names the monetization approach without detail.
Evidence and limitation: Weaker example as a business model slide. It names "dual monetization" but doesn't say what the two sources are on this slide; the deck's competition slide (p5) places Agave between in-app advertising and in-app purchase, which suggests those two. No prices, ad rates or mix are shown.
What a founder can adapt: "Revenue from in-app purchases ([X]%) and ads ([Y]%); target $[Z] per daily player."
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "What we will do. Casual Puzzle 2.0." "Long Retaining Casual Puzzle Games" → "Serving Large Audiences" → "Dual Monetization Strategy." "As a long-term greedy company, we aim to have multiple long retaining games in different casual puzzle sub-genres."
Presentation choice: Links retention to monetization, which is the right logic for casual games.
When it does not fit: A label like "dual monetization" without saying what the two are.
Which kind of gaming business model slide answers which question.
Approach
Example
Answers
Leaves open
Revenue share with operators
Bragg
Payer, basis, money flow
The percentage
Fee per unit + monthly spend
Incymo.ai
Prices
Buyer, how prices connect
Virtual currency with split
Fayceoff
Price list, partner share
Own net share
Free-to-play mechanics
TouchSpin
What players buy
Any player economics
Named strategy only
Agave Games
Direction
Sources, prices, mix
Key Takeaways
Name the payer: player, operator, studio or advertiser.
State the basis: item purchase, revenue share, subscription or fee per unit.
Give a price, share or split as a number.
Industry statistics about free-to-play are context, not your own results.
If you take a share, say of what: gross gaming revenue, purchases or net revenue.
Write your gaming business model slide
Answer these before you design the slide.
Payer. Who pays: players, operators, studios or advertisers?
Basis. What is payment based on: item purchases, a revenue share, a subscription or a fee per unit?
Rate. What is the price, percentage or split? If you take a share, of what?
Players. For player spending: what share of players pay, and how much?
Net. After partner shares and platform or payment fees, what do you keep?
Copyable framework: [Payer] pays [rate] on [basis]; after [partner/platform shares] we keep [X]%, about $[Y] per [player/customer] a month.
Illustrative example 1 — written by us
Before: "Game Revenues derived mainly from F2P IAP. F2P provide more than 60% of mobile rev."
After: "[X]% of monthly players buy coins; payers spend $[Y] a month on average; we keep [Z]% after app store fees."
What improved: Our illustrative rewrite of TouchSpin's slide; bracketed text is a placeholder, not company fact.
What's different about gaming business models
Consumer games usually earn from a small share of players who buy items or from ads shown to everyone. Business-to-business gaming companies (platforms, content suppliers and tools) earn from operators or studios through revenue shares or fees. The slide should make clear which of these the company is.
What investors check
Who pays and whether they are the player. What the payment is based on. The price, rate or split as a number. For player spending, how many players pay and how much.
How we read each slide
We quote the text on the stored slide images and mark our own arithmetic as ours. We have not checked any figure on the slides. Slide numbers follow our teardown pages, which can differ from page numbers printed on the slide (Bragg's slide 6 is printed "Page 5"). All five images were already stored and were reused on 2026-09-26.
Common mistakes
Model label without numbers. "Free-to-play" or "revenue share" needs a rate or price.
Industry stats as your results. Market-wide free-to-play figures are context only.
Share without a base. Say whether a percentage is of gross gaming revenue, purchases or net revenue.
Partner share without your own. State what you keep after partner and platform fees.
Diagnostic checklist
Payer named.
Basis of payment stated.
Price, rate or split as a number.
Base of any percentage stated.
Your net share after partner and platform fees.
Frequently asked questions
What should a gaming business model slide show?
Who pays, on what basis and at what rate. Bragg: operators pay a percentage of gross gaming revenue; the slide would be stronger with the percentage.
Is saying "free-to-play" enough?
No. It says players don't pay to start. Investors also want to know how many players pay and how much, as TouchSpin's slide leaves open.
How we chose these examples
Corpus: published pitch deck teardowns on StartupFundraising.com. Founder-uploaded private decks are excluded.
Selection (2026-09-26): we searched teardown slide text for business-model and monetization wording together with gaming terms, reviewed about twenty slides and kept five. We kept five rather than add weaker slides.
Excluded: Brag House p12 and Ingyre p12 (no stored image and no deck file available to render), Good Gaming p11 (token sales), Jago Studios p9 (publishing strategy, not payment), Agave Games p5 (used only as context for p3).
All five images were already stored and were viewed and matched to company and slide on 2026-09-26. Slide numbers follow our teardown pages.
Figures are quoted from the slides and not independently verified. Calculations are ours and marked as such.
Review: editorial model review on 2026-09-26. No person has yet completed an editorial review of this page. We make no claim that any slide caused a fundraising outcome.
