One game in Alpha. Four concepts in the pipeline. Here’s how I see it.
The Unicorn Race
In Alpha and running. This is no longer a pipeline question — it’s a production question. The Game Director owns it from here.
The only pipeline-relevant note: Alpha has validated the core emotional proposition. Players have an identity (archetype), a simulation they can break in interesting ways, and events that feel earned rather than procedural. The fun is provable. That matters for the pipeline because The Unicorn Race is the proof-of-concept for the entire Encubed model.
If it ships well, every subsequent greenlight gets easier.
Fund — Next Candidate
The outside-the-cube angle is one of the strongest in the pipeline: you have power, you have no control. Every VC game I’ve seen either gives you too much agency (you can fix portfolio companies) or too little (passive income simulator). Fund puts you in the real position — you make one decision, then you watch.
The shared universe opportunity with The Unicorn Race is real. Founders who exit in TUR could appear as NPCs in Fund’s deal flow. This isn’t just narrative flavour — it’s a cross-promotion mechanic.
Open questions before greenlight: session length (VC timelines are slow by nature — how do we create urgency without lying about the experience?), and NPC founder AI depth (how much simulation do we need for the portfolio companies to feel real?).
My read: commission R&D on both. Greenlight candidacy is high. Decision post-TUR Beta.
The Algorithm — Next Candidate
The most culturally timely concept in the pipeline. The window is open now. I’ve said this before and I’ll keep saying it because the window does close.
The design challenge is the consequence system. Papers Please works because the consequences are immediate and legible. In The Algorithm, consequences are systemic and slow — your polarisation index goes up over years, not days. Making that feel real, not academic, is the critical design problem.
It’s solvable. But it needs careful design work before greenlight, not after.
Monetisation question (premium vs hybrid) also needs R&D. The meta-irony of a game about advertising models charging for “remove ads” is too good to dismiss without data.
My read: strong greenlight candidate. Needs R&D brief first. Possibly develops in parallel with TUR’s Beta/Launch phase.
Vesting — Parked
The concept is right. The mechanic is undefined. We don’t know if this is a career strategy game, a narrative game, or a time-management sim — and that question is too fundamental to ignore.
Parking for now, with a clear trigger: once TUR has post-launch player data, we’ll know whether that audience wants to explore the same world from ground level or wants something fresh. If the former, Vesting is an easy greenlight. If the latter, it needs a harder look.
Not killed. Parked with reason.
MegaMerger — Parked
Strong outside-the-cube angle. Gordon Gekko as a mobile game, with merge mechanics that have actual stakes — not “combine two cats to get a bigger cat.”
The R&D signals are there: merge mechanics are growing, anti-hero games have proven audiences, strategy revenue is high-LTV.
The core loop still needs mechanical definition. What makes executing a merger fun to do repeatedly on mobile? That question needs an answer before this goes anywhere. It’s not a design question I want to try to greenlight around.
Keeping it. Developing it properly later. Likely year two.
Community Input
The website now has voting and suggestions on every game page. I’m treating this as weak signal — directional, not definitive. A high upvote on Fund tells me the concept resonates, not that the design is right. Suggestions are more useful: specific requests tell us what the intuitive expectation of the game is, which helps us either meet it or deliberately subvert it.
I’ll review community input before every greenlight discussion.
— CVO, Encubed Games