How Voodoo Builds Hits: Four Product Lessons from a 2000-Prototypes-a-Year Machine
Last year, Voodoo told us they were testing around a thousand prototypes annually. This year, that number has doubled.
But scale alone isn’t what’s interesting. What matters is how their product strategy has evolved alongside it, how they decide which games to kill, which to back, and how to turn those few survivors into games that last.
This time, Michail Katkoff spoke with Thibault de Vésinne-Larüe, Voodoo’s VP Core & New Games, to look deeper into how their model works today. Below are four product lessons that help explain not just how Voodoo operates, but why their approach continues to produce market-relevant hits while many others stall out.
Lesson 1: Know When to Walk Away
Where creative optimism meets product discipline. Most ideas won’t make it past this point — and that’s the point.
Voodoo is unapologetically fast when it comes to killing games, and that speed is core to how the entire system works. The bar isn’t “Does this look okay?” The bar is: Does this look exceptional?
If a prototype doesn’t show early signs of breakout potential — not just good metrics, but a spark, a foundation, a future — it’s cut. Because the real cost isn’t the hours spent building it, it’s the opportunity cost of the next idea that didn’t get made.
“An extra iteration is a lost opportunity,” Thibault told us. “And someone else will build the game if you don’t.”
This mindset is easier said than done. Most studios fall into the trap of “almost,” tweaking games that are unlikely to break out, while burning time and creative energy that could have gone to something better. Voodoo’s strength is not just killing what’s broken, but knowing when something isn’t good enough, and having the discipline to stop anyway.
It’s not coldness. It’s focus.
Lesson 2: Treat the Publisher as a Partner — Or Don’t Bother
One of the most common misconceptions about working with Voodoo — and arguably with publishers in general — is that it’s a client relationship. Build a prototype, get paid, wait for feedback. For many studios, especially those used to OPEX+ style deals, the publisher is effectively the client.
Voodoo doesn’t see it that way. And they’re clear that if a studio does, it’s not going to work.
What they’re looking for are founder-led teams with product ownership, who set their own standards, and don’t wait around for a green light. They’re fast, independent, and focused on upside, not contracts. And they enter the relationship knowing the publisher isn’t there to direct — they’re there to accelerate.
This model requires a level of independence and speed that many studios just don’t have. The most successful teams are the ones who already know how to kill their own bad ideas, set their own bar for quality, and come in with a point of view on the product.
In exchange, studios do get access to infrastructure that’s hard to build solo: insights from testing thousands of games a year, early signals on market shifts, a growth engine built to support multiple titles in parallel, and operational support once a game shows long-term potential.
Of course, this model won’t suit everyone. Some studios need more direction. Others want more predictability. But the ones that thrive in Voodoo’s system are usually the ones who already have strong instincts — and just need a bigger engine behind them.
Lesson 3: Build for Year Two, Not Day One
Success at Voodoo isn’t defined by launch metrics anymore — it’s measured by what a game can become over time. During the hypercasual boom, the model was clear: get a low CPI, show solid Day 1 retention, scale fast. That formula worked — until it didn’t.
The real question now is: can this game last?
That means looking at a different set of signals:
Can the core mechanic evolve and sustain content long-term?
Is there a structure for progression that doesn’t rely on gimmicks?
What does level 500 look like — and is it still fun?
If a game can’t answer those questions, even strong early metrics won’t carry it forward.
This also affects monetization. Voodoo often avoids showing interstitials early on, so they don’t suppress retention or mask IAP potential. The philosophy is simple: prove the game works before monetizing it. Not the other way around.
Lesson 4: Scale Is Earned, Not Promised
When a game earns its place in Voodoo’s pipeline, everything around it accelerates — including the team, tooling, and expectations. This is the part of Voodoo’s model that gets talked about least, but matters most.
The structure around it changes fast:
A core team of 5 can grow to 50+
UA, live ops, and monetization teams plug in
ROAS targets are introduced — 150% at Day 120, 200–300% over time
The original studio may stay involved, or hand off the game entirely
The support structure changes around the game, not to validate it, but to scale what’s already working. It’s a deliberate model, not about chasing early wins, but about supporting games with real staying power.
This is where most publishers falter. Either they don’t invest enough in the winners, or they spread resources too thin across too many “maybes.” Voodoo’s approach is narrow by design: kill aggressively, back selectively, scale decisively.
Final Thought
There’s a lot to debate about the publisher–studio model in 2025. For many developers, the dream is to self-publish and stay independent. Others see publishers as purely tactical: a source of UA or monetization tools.
What Voodoo’s approach shows is that there’s still room for something else.
A model where the publisher acts as both filter and amplifier. But only if the studio brings more than just prototypes: they’re looking for teams with real opinions, real taste, and the discipline to walk away when a game doesn’t have a shot, even if it technically works.
It’s not the easiest model. But for the right kind of studio, it’s probably the most scalable one left.
And for studios trying to figure out how to build not just hits, but products that endure, there’s a lot to learn from how Voodoo thinks — even if you never plan to work with them.
