# PlayRecon is a marketing platform for the game industry, built around agents.

> Markdown version of https://playrecon.com/ for AI agents. Other languages: [Español](https://playrecon.com/es/index.md) · [Italiano](https://playrecon.com/it/index.md) · [Deutsch](https://playrecon.com/de/index.md) · [Français](https://playrecon.com/fr/index.md) · [Русский](https://playrecon.com/ru/index.md). All pages: https://playrecon.com/llms.txt

Publishers, studios and independent developers use it to research markets, plan marketing and launches, benchmark performance, and decide what to build, fund, publish or promote.

- It does the work that is split today between marketing and analytics, as agent workflows rather than another dashboard.
- Questions that take weeks or months of someone’s calendar come back in minutes.
- Every recommendation carries its peer set, its sources and the date each fact was recorded.

The point is not speed for its own sake. It is not spending another hundred thousand dollars on a campaign, a launch window or a product built on an assumption nobody checked.

The agents are in private beta. Scouting the market is free: [release calendar, niches, launch windows →](https://app.playrecon.com/)

[Bring us a real question](mailto:early@playrecon.com?subject=PlayRecon%20private%20beta) · [See a full case](https://playrecon.com/demo.md)

## Demo run

Shift At Midnight (appid 3722330, 2026-07-26): [Open the whole case, step by step](https://playrecon.com/demo.md)

## Where this work goes today

A market question rarely has an owner. It has three half-owners, and the answer gets assembled by hand every single time, from scratch, by whoever has the least on that week.

- **Split across people.** Marketing holds part of the answer, analytics holds another part, and the rest is in a spreadsheet from March, a dashboard nobody opens, a chat thread and an agency deck.
- **Weeks to months.** A question with real money behind it goes into someone’s calendar and comes back a quarter later, after the window it was about has already moved.
- **Spent without a comparison.** Campaigns, launch windows, price points and whole products get funded off assumptions nobody benchmarked, with no evidence trail to check afterwards.

None of that is a tooling gap. The data exists and the dashboards exist. What is missing is anything that will go and do the work.

## What the agents do

Five jobs, and what each one hands back. They run on one record, so the peer set from a concept check is the same peer set the launch plan is measured against.

1. **Research a market.** What shipped into the genre, at what price, how each one landed, and where demand is still moving. Named games with dates, not a market-size figure.
2. **Compare against real peers.** A peer set with a stated reason for every game kept and every game dropped. Disagree with one, take it out, and the case rebuilds without it.
3. **Plan marketing and the launch.** A dated plan: beats, windows, price, the shelves and festivals worth chasing, each drawn from games that already ran that play.
4. **Reconstruct a release or campaign.** An hour-by-hour timeline of what happened and what moved with it, with the obvious explanation tested against the others that also fit.
5. **Recommend the next move.** One action, the evidence behind it, the competing reading still attached, and the finding that would change our mind.

## Minutes, not quarters

The work is the same work. What changes is who does it, how much of it runs at once, and whether it stays open afterwards. Nobody sits and steers the run.

1. **You ask in plain language.** “Are we too late to a co-op extraction game” is a perfectly good place to start. No query builder, no metric to pick first.
2. **Agents go and look.** They choose the comparable games, rebuild the timelines out of the record, and take a run at the obvious explanation to see whether it survives contact.
3. **Dead ends stay in the output.** The hypothesis that failed is reported, not quietly dropped. You see what was ruled out, which is most of what makes the rest trustworthy.
4. **You get something you can check.** A recommendation carrying its peer set, its timeline, its sources and its dates. Minutes after the question, and it stays open for the next one.

A question becomes a workspace objective, agents fan out across store history, prices, chart rank, reviews and festivals, pick peers, rebuild the timeline, test the explanation and drop the dead ends, and return a recommendation carrying its peer set, sources and dates.

## A recommendation you can check

Any tool can produce a recommendation. The question is what happens when the person holding the budget asks why. Here is the same call, made twice.

### Recommendation on its own

> “Launch at $9.99 and lean on a Next Fest demo.”

No peer set. No timeline. No source and no date. There is nothing in it to check and nothing to argue with, so it gets believed or ignored on feel, and either way the budget moves.

### The same call, with the record behind it

> “What the record supports: a $9.99 price with a small launch discount, and the demo as the spine of the campaign rather than a Next Fest checkbox. It does not prove either one caused the result.”

- **Peer set:** 26 games shared the same pre-release shelf in that window. 7 of them never reached the top sellers at all. (storefront_visibility (cohort) · 2026-07-26)
- **Timeline:** Singleplayer demo Jun 2025, multiplayer demo Sep 2025, updated demo for Next Fest Feb 2026, release Jul 2026. (news (Steam events) · 2026-02-23)
- **Counter-evidence:** Shelf position did not predict the outcome. Three games held that shelf at #1; one of them peaked at 1.8k concurrents. This one sat at #3 and peaked at 37.6k. (storefront_visibility + metrics · 2026-07-26)
- **What we will not say:** How many copies it sold. The review multiplier everyone uses is not calibrated on this cohort, so the number would carry a two-fold spread and teach you nothing. (stated in the case, not omitted from it)

Observed, estimated and inference are labelled separately, and they never get printed as each other. A price on a day in a region is observed. Why a game climbed is an argument, and it arrives with the competing readings still attached.

## What sits underneath

Recommendations are only as current as the record behind them, so the record is the part we run every day.

- **203k** Steam games in the record, re-checked daily
- **10M** market observations a day
- **100M+** recommendation-graph records
- **41** regions priced and ranked
- **15 years** of price and discount history

Price history can be pieced together after the fact. Most of the rest cannot: what the page said, which shelf it sat on that morning, where it ranked in Brazil. Storefronts keep almost none of that, so it exists only because it was recorded on the day, which is also why the position compounds.

- Steam: Live
- Epic Games Store: Coming soon
- PlayStation Store: Q1 2027
- Xbox: Q1 2027

## Who it is for

Three kinds of team, different jobs, one record underneath. Not three products.

### Publishers

One record pointed at a slate instead of a single title. Scouting, screening and monitoring are the same workflow at different widths.

**What they use it for:**
- Scouting: surface the games worth a call before an agent or a demo day gets to them.
- Deal screening: place a pitch against the games that already ran that play, and say which ones it resembles.
- Portfolio monitoring: what moved on the slate this week, and which peer set it moved against.

**A question it answers:** Of the games in this genre that shipped a demo this quarter, which three are worth a call, and what would take them off the list?

**What comes back:** A shortlist with a reason for every game on it, the cohort it was ranked against, and the fact that would change the ranking.

### Studios

The team where the person asking the question is also the person who has to answer it, and there is no research function to hand it to.

**What they use it for:**
- Market and genre research before a green light, with named games rather than a market-size figure.
- Marketing and launch planning: window, price, beats, festivals, and what each one is worth.
- Release and campaign analysis afterwards, so the next launch starts from evidence instead of memory.

**A question it answers:** We ship in November into a crowded month. Is the window wrong, is the price wrong, or is the campaign wrong?

**What comes back:** A dated plan with the peer releases each part of it is drawn from, and an honest note where the record cannot separate two explanations.

### Independent developers

The same jobs at a smaller scale, plus the one that matters most before anything ships: who might fund or publish this.

**What they use it for:**
- Concept checks: whether the space still has room, with names and dates instead of a verdict.
- Comparable games, so a pitch deck carries a peer set somebody can verify.
- Publisher discovery: who has actually funded this shape of game, recently, and on what terms you can observe.

**A question it answers:** Is this concept already crowded, and which publishers have funded games like it in the last two years?

**What comes back:** The games already in that space with their prices and outcomes, and a publisher list built from release history rather than from a directory.

## Bring the question you are actually carrying

The agents are in private beta for now, and we plan to open it up soon. If you want to take part before that, write to us at [early@playrecon.com](mailto:early@playrecon.com?subject=PlayRecon%20private%20beta).

Bring a real question, not a demo request: the launch window you cannot settle, the genre you suspect is already crowded, the campaign that underperformed and nobody can say why, the publisher list you have been assembling by hand for a month.

Send it with whatever comparison set you already have in your head. You get back what the record can show, what it cannot, and the first real piece of the answer.

[Send us the question](mailto:early@playrecon.com?subject=PlayRecon%20private%20beta)

Not ready to send one? Scout the market yourself first, no invite needed: [start here →](https://app.playrecon.com/)

## Scout the market

- [Release calendar](https://app.playrecon.com/calendar)
- [Release density](https://app.playrecon.com/heatmap)
- [Genre seasonality](https://app.playrecon.com/seasons)
- [Niches](https://app.playrecon.com/market)
- [Release trends](https://app.playrecon.com/trends)
- [Studios](https://app.playrecon.com/studios)
- [Unbuilt](https://app.playrecon.com/unbuilt)
- [Pitch comps](https://app.playrecon.com/idea)

## Company

- [About](https://playrecon.com/about.md)
- [Pricing](https://playrecon.com/pricing.md)
- [Privacy](https://playrecon.com/privacy.md)
- [Terms](https://playrecon.com/terms.md)

## Contact

- [hello@playrecon.com](mailto:hello@playrecon.com)
- [early@playrecon.com](mailto:early@playrecon.com?subject=PlayRecon%20private%20beta)
- [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/company/playrecon)