Should Krafton prioritize adding new maps to PUBG: Battlegrounds to increase player engagement or focus on optimizing existing maps for better performance?

Introduction

The trade-off question at hand is whether Krafton should prioritize adding new maps to PUBG: Battlegrounds to increase player engagement or focus on optimizing existing maps for better performance. This scenario involves balancing content expansion with technical improvements in a highly competitive battle royale game. I'll analyze this trade-off by examining the product context, potential impacts, key metrics, and experimental approaches to inform a strategic recommendation.

Step 1

Clarifying Questions (3 minutes)

• Context: I'm thinking about the current state of PUBG: Battlegrounds in the market. Could you provide some insight into our market share and player base trends over the past year?

Why it matters: Helps understand the urgency of the decision and current competitive position. Expected answer: Stable but facing increased competition from other battle royale games. Impact on approach: Would influence whether we need a more aggressive content strategy or focus on retention through performance improvements.

• Business Context: Based on our revenue model, I assume microtransactions play a significant role. How does map variety or performance impact our monetization strategy?

Why it matters: Aligns the decision with our primary revenue drivers. Expected answer: New maps drive short-term engagement and purchases, while performance affects long-term retention and spending. Impact on approach: Would help balance short-term gains vs. long-term sustainability in the recommendation.

• User Impact: I'm curious about our player segmentation. What percentage of our player base is casual vs. competitive, and how do their needs differ regarding maps and performance?

Why it matters: Ensures we're addressing the needs of our core player segments. Expected answer: Mix of casual and competitive players, with competitive players more sensitive to performance issues. Impact on approach: Would influence the prioritization of new content vs. optimization based on the most valuable or growing player segments.

• Technical: Regarding our current technical debt, what are the main performance bottlenecks in existing maps, and how complex would it be to address them?

Why it matters: Assesses the feasibility and potential impact of the optimization option. Expected answer: Some significant but addressable performance issues, requiring substantial engineering effort. Impact on approach: Would help quantify the potential benefits of optimization and the resources required.

• Resource: Considering our current team structure, how would allocating resources to new map development vs. optimization affect our roadmap for other planned features?

Why it matters: Evaluates the opportunity cost of each option. Expected answer: Trade-offs in other planned features or updates, potentially affecting the overall product strategy. Impact on approach: Would inform the broader impact of the decision on our product development timeline and priorities.