Automated compliance checker helping indie game studios verify age-ratings, loot-box disclosures, and monetization rules across Steam, App Store, Google Play, and console platforms before submission. · Game Compliance SaaS
DEAD SLOW · CAUTIOUS
5.6 ShipScore / 10
Time/productization strongest; need weakest — zero verified spend by game studios.
Condition: Only build if 5+ studios prepay for a multi-platform pre-submission audit at $99+/mo.
Part I — The Verdict what the instruments read
01 — The ShipScore breakdown
Control
6
C6 — direct B2B SaaS; reads public platform rules, no gatekeeper lifeline.
Entry barriers
5
E5 — no tracked leader in game compliance, but rules-checklist is cloneable.
Need
4
N4 — zero Reddit signals, no in-space MRR; corpus rivals are unrelated social tools.
Time-freedom
7
T7 — productized checks, but policy updates need constant manual curation.
Scale
6
S6 — global indie devs, but small budgets and episodic pre-submission use.
What the five commandments measure
C — Control
Do you own the customer, or does a gatekeeper stand between you and revenue?
E — Entry
How hard is this to copy once it works? A rival's existence isn't the question — the durability of their advantage is.
N — Need
Is demand proven with money rather than vibes?
T — Time
Can income detach from your hours, or did you buy yourself a job?
S — Scale
How far does it reach without linear cost?
Scored on the evidence below, against CENTS as we've adapted it plus a Buffett-style moat reading of every rival — the same referee for every idea, including the ones we generate ourselves. The verdict follows the arithmetic: we never relabel a score to make it read better, and the weakest commandment is always named. The exact rubric stays in-house so the scale can't be written for.
02 — The pace test — $1M/yr
At $99/mo (assumed category price), you need 842 subscribers for a $1M/yr pace.
A rival's moat trend is its verified-revenue trajectory, not its rating — a 4.9★ incumbent with eroding revenue is a different opponent than a widening one. How it's computed →
Console/Steam/app-store policies are opaque and partly NDA-gated, limiting automated verification.
Platforms or ratings bodies (IARC) could ship free self-check tools, zeroing the product.
06 — Kill switches — what kills this with one decision
IARC / platform-native rating questionnaires — Free official pre-submission checkers make a paid third-party layer redundant.
Console NDA terms — Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft restricting cert-rule redistribution blocks the console half of the pitch.
App Store / Google Play policy API changes — Rule sources moving behind manual-only docs makes automated checks stale and untrustworthy.
Part III — The Plan if you insist on proceeding
07 — What this scan can't tell you
Cannot tell whether studios budget for compliance separately or bury it in QA/legal spend.
No visibility into publisher/porting-house workflows, which may already cover this internally.
Corpus contains no true in-space comparable, so no revenue benchmark for game compliance SaaS.
Scores judge the market and business model — not your ability to execute. Verified MRR = independently tracked revenue; reviews/upvotes = platform-reported. Judged 2026-09-11.
08 — The wedge & the next step
Target multi-platform publishers and porting houses shipping to loot-box-regulated markets (Brazil, Belgium, EU) — jurisdiction-diff reports they can't hand-track.
Cheapest next step: Offer 20 indie/mid studios a $199 paid manual pre-submission compliance audit this week; count prepayments.
Not quite it? Spin the model
Business-model variations of this idea, engineered to beat 5.6 — different vertical, audience, model, or wedge. Same harsh scale. Pro feature.
One evidence-backed gap a day, free
Close — but conditional. Every morning the engine files one mined gap, scored on the same harsh scale as this one. Free at 7am AEST, unedited.
Free forever · one email a day · unsubscribe in one click.