Why Now Is the Worst Time to Launch a Match-3

For any team eyeing a sizable market, Match-3 has always been an incredibly tempting target. Puzzle games remain one of the biggest and most consistent genres on mobile, and within that space, Match-3 stands out as a true titan. Generating over 60% of puzzle IAP revenue and pulling in more than $5 billion last year, Match-3 has long held the promise of massive returns. It’s the kind of stat that makes even the most disciplined team think, “If we could just carve out 1% of this market…” That thinking has led so many teams into the grinder…

Despite the genre’s enormous size, we haven’t seen a single new Match-3 title cross the $100M lifetime revenue mark in the West since Royal Match, which launched in 2020. Considering the scale of the market, that benchmark isn’t just fair, but it’s actually quite conservative. And the fact that no game has hit it in the last five years tells a very clear story: Match-3 is no longer a genre that tolerates new entrants.

The Golden Era Is Over

Don’t think this is what Match-3 was all about, because it wasn’t always like this. Between 2013 and 2017, Match-3 was a fertile ground. Of the 21 Match-3 games that have surpassed $100M in lifetime revenue in the West, a whopping 17 were launched during that five-year stretch. But outside of a few notable exceptions (Project Makeover in 2019, Harry Potter: Puzzles & Spells and Royal Match in 2020), the faucet has run dry. Oh and Candy Crush Saga was released in 2012. It is one of those 4 games that launched outside the boom era for Match-3…

Yet many teams still operate as if we’re living in that pre-COVID reality. One where you could have your own take on the Match-3 space along with several others within the same year and still could have a breakout hit. The problem? That era is gone. Not only have the top games hardened their moats through relentless LiveOps, polished production, and massive content pipelines, but post-IDFA, the challenge of acquiring profitable users at scale has multiplied. The genre has become a fortress: high walls, few openings, and a dwindling appetite for new kings.

I believe we’re in a phase where any team aspiring to launch a successful Match-3 must first earn their stripes by working on adjacent puzzle mechanics. These projects may not reach the same scale, but they can still generate positive returns on time and resources while preparing the team for the much steeper climb ahead.

The Emergence of New Puzzle Frontiers

Following the drop in user acquisition efficiency triggered by the IDFA changes, Match-3 became more consolidated than ever, with top titles like Candy Crush Saga, Royal Match, and Gardenscapes tightening their grip on the subgenre. At the same time, legacy subgenres like Blast and Word puzzles fell into stasis that became effectively held captive by a few dominant games while the rest quietly faded away. Merge, on the other hand, became the darling of the puzzle space, riding an ongoing wave of growth. That said, I’d argue Merge is more accurately a simulation subgenre than a true puzzle one. But that’s a topic for another day.

The IDFA changes didn’t just make Match-3 consolidation worse. They also shifted attention to new mechanics as we mentioned in a previous article about Hybridcasual puzzles. With UA efficiency plummeting, games with more flexible or fresh gameplay started gaining traction. The winners weren’t necessarily Match-3 clones. Instead, puzzle designers started innovating by either modernizing dormant mechanics or remixing Hypercasual formats into casual loops. The result was the rise of several emerging subgenres:

• Tile Match (like Tile Busters and Tile Family) modernized Mahjong Solitaire mechanics into a fresh yet strategic experience with clear progression systems
• Sort and Screw puzzles (like Hexa Sort and Screw Jam) took cues from Hypercasual, but complemented them with enough depth to support monetization
• Match-3D (like Match Factory and Triple Match 3D) polished an existing physical match gameplay and added proven casual monetization hooks

These emerging mechanics are still raw, but that’s the opportunity. There’s minimal consolidation, relatively low player expectations, and plenty of design space to explore. And while none of them have yet rivaled Match-3 in scale, they offer something critical: a sandbox for studios to build, learn, and grow.

Match-3 Is the Endgame, Not the Starting Line

Making games is hard. Making a sustainably successful Match-3 game is even harder, as everything we’ve discussed so far makes clear. But does that mean you should give up on it entirely and leave it to the giants already at the top? I don’t think that will ever be the case, not for a market as large and lucrative as Match-3. With its $5B annual haul, it will continue to be the North Star for puzzle developers. But just because the market is massive doesn’t mean it’s wise to jump in unprepared. You don’t train for Everest by heading straight to base camp. You work your way up other peaks first.

While alternative puzzle mechanics may not rival Match-3 in scale (and I don’t think they ever will), they offer a valuable training ground. These emerging subgenres give teams the space to build their skills, test systems, and learn the nuances of puzzle design without the overwhelming pressure of competing at the very top from day one. Starting with those emerging puzzle mechanics that offer adjacent challenges require teams to:

• Refine puzzle progression: Creating original obstacles, balancing difficulty curves, and understanding player retention patterns.
• Train monetization muscles: End game offers (EGO), currency sinks, and resource management are still core to success.
• Run LiveOps in the trenches: No game can thrive without consistent content and engaging events. Running a smaller title still builds the operational habits needed for Match-3.
• Optimize level design at scale: Even in less-established subgenres, players expect thoughtful levels and meaningful progression. You can’t skip learning how to balance near-wins and failure moments that are both key to monetization in Match-3.

These skills are directly transferable to Match-3. And perhaps more importantly, learning them in a smaller (and less expensive) sandbox allows your team to grow together. Experience matters, but shared experience matters even more, and these subgenres provide a way to get it without betting the entire studio on a red-ocean launch.

A Match-3 Team In the Making

If you’re looking for a case study in this strategy, look no further than Spyke Games. Backed by an eye-popping $55M seed round, Spyke had all the pressure in the world to deliver something big. After a less-than-stellar debut in the social casino space with Royal Riches, they made a crucial pivot into puzzle and haven’t looked back since.

Their journey into the puzzle market started with Tile Busters, which we wrote about more than a year ago, a Tile Match game that quickly overtook Zen Match despite being the second major entry in the space. The reasons were clear: Spyke added Match-3-like depth through well-designed obstacles, polished the metagame, and brought in a reliable LiveOps cadence. Although the game lost most of its initial momentum, it still serves as a great example of how to run LiveOps for a puzzle game.

From there, they expanded their portfolio with Blitz Busters (a Match-3D puzzle) and Cube Busters (a Block puzzle). None of these are billion-dollar bets and don’t have the potential to rival Match-3 in any way. Does this mean Spyke will keep focusing on smaller puzzle titles and try to become a household name in that corner of the market? I highly doubt it. Raising $55 million in a seed round sets the expectation that you’re building a billion-dollar company. And even that might fall short, depending on how ambitious the team is (which, in Spyke’s case, I’m sure is sky-high).

But what they’re doing right now aligns perfectly with the strategy laid out above: leaning into proven, scalable puzzle mechanics while consistently layering in their own twist. It’s a calculated approach that balances learnings with upside and sets the foundation for something much bigger.

As mentioned earlier, Spyke has already become highly efficient at LiveOps. By consistently running relatively successful puzzle games, they’re getting the kind of hands-on, iterative practice that’s essential for perfecting cadence and content delivery. On top of that, they seem to be inching closer to a distinct visual identity with each new title. It’s still evolving, and may continue to shift over time, but establishing a recognizable art style is another critical ingredient for long-term success. Especially in the Match-3 space, where player expectations around polish and production value are among the highest in mobile.

And finally, if these games are at least breaking even or running on relatively modest investments, it suggests something important: Spyke has been steadily building and operating puzzle games for years now at low to no cost. The founders were already seasoned, with backgrounds at Peak and Zynga, but by this point, the entire team should have gained meaningful experience in designing, launching, and running puzzle titles. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a Match-3 from Spyke in the near future. They may even be working on one already. What’s clear is that with each smaller puzzle game they release, they’re sharpening their tools and getting closer to being truly ready for a high-stakes Match-3 launch.

Taking a Step Back to Move Forward

For highly ambitious teams with access to significant capital, going after Match-3 right out of the gate might seem like a bold and worthy move. And in rare cases, it might even work. Games like Royal Kingdom from Dream and Matching Story from JoyCastle have shown that there’s still room to be relevant. Even though they haven’t quite managed to challenge the top of the food chain.

But relevance and dominance are two very different goals. And in today’s market, where layoff announcements feel like a weekly routine and capital isn’t flowing as freely as it used to (unless your deck has AI stamped all over it), teams need to be strategic. You can’t afford to risk the future of the company on a single high-stakes bet. Not unless you’re backed by either a massive war chest or a highly profitable side of the business that can carry the weight of potential failure.

That’s why, for most teams, the smarter approach is to climb their way up. Start small with emerging mechanics that still offer meaningful scale. Use them to refine your team, your pipeline, your LiveOps cadence, and your design instincts. Build puzzle games that are profitable (or at least self-sustaining), while growing the muscle you’ll need to eventually compete in the most demanding subgenre mobile has to offer.

Match-3 may still be the mountaintop, but you don’t reach the summit by starting at the base with no gear or training. You earn your ascent, one smart, strategic step at a time.