Playgama SDK 2026: one HTML5 build, 20 documented portals, one contract

Direct answer — what does Playgama’s Bridge SDK actually distribute your HTML5 game to, and on what terms?

Playgama Bridge is a single HTML5 integration whose SDK documentation lists 20 supported publishing platforms, among them YouTube, Discord, Huawei, Xiaomi, Microsoft Store, MSN, Reddit, Telegram Playdeck, JioGames, Y8 and Game Distribution. For games distributed on partner sites, Playgama publishes a tiered schedule on monthly Net Revenue — 70% up to 1,000 USD, then 700 USD plus 80% of the portion above 1,000 USD, then 2,300 USD plus 90% of the portion above 3,000 USD — while plays on Playgama’s own site and through its iframe partner network pay a fixed 50%. The price of that one contract is plumbing exclusivity: its published requirements state ads are displayed only through the Playgama Bridge, payments run only through the Bridge, and the game must not include embedded analytics such as Google Analytics. And two of the biggest names on the platform list, Poki and CrazyGames, are compatibility targets rather than destinations Playgama sells for you — its own docs say it does not publish there.

The problem is real, as our web-native distribution guide sets out: every web surface has its own SDK, QA bar, account and payout schedule. Playgama’s pitch is the one KYLN makes on the OEM side — collapse N integrations into one contract. The question is what it costs, and what it does not cover.

What does one Playgama integration actually buy you?

Playgama’s framing is unambiguous: “Playgama Bridge is a unified SDK for publishing HTML5 games on multiple platforms with a single integration”, and “you write the same code for every platform. Differences are handled inside the SDK.” Bridge ships official packages for JS Core, Unity, Construct 3, GDevelop, Godot (3.x and 4.x), GameMaker, Defold, Cocos Creator and Scratch.

Count the destinations carefully: the docs disagree with themselves. The Bridge SDK “Getting started” page lists 20 supported platforms; the Welcome page lists 19, including BitQuest but omitting GameSnacks and Dlightek / Aha Games. Both were live on 7 August 2026. Rosters move — which makes the list an operational state, not a guarantee, and puts it in your agreement as a dated appendix.

The commercial machinery behind it is the actual product. Playgama’s developer page states it “already holds master publisher accounts with Youtube, MSN, Xiaomi and dozens of other portals”, and its FAQ confirms you “do not need to create an account for publishing your game on other platforms”. For a five-person studio, that is worth more than a point of split.

Handle its headline numbers with care. Playgama says you “reach 450M+ players across YouTube Playables, MSN, and 100+ partner platforms” — both self-reported, with no published methodology or audit, and the “100+” counts link-embedding partners, not the 20-platform SDK list. Turning that into a testable per-surface assumption is what our interactive practice does.

How does Playgama pay, and what is not published?

Publishing is free — “publishing your game on our platform and our partner platforms is completely free” — and Playgama publishes a tiered schedule, which puts it ahead of most portals.

Monthly Net Revenue band (partner sites)	Playgama’s published compensation
Up to 1,000 USD	70% of the Net Revenue
1,000–3,000 USD	700 USD plus 80% of the portion above 1,000 USD
Over 3,000 USD	2,300 USD plus 90% of the portion above 3,000 USD
Plays on Playgama and its iframe partner network	Fixed 50%

Three scope points a contract review has to catch. The 70/80/90 ladder applies to games distributed on partner sites, on monthly Net Revenue — it resets, and it is not the rate on Playgama’s own traffic. That traffic, on playgama.com and through iframe-embedding partners, is a flat 50%, so your blended rate depends on a mix Playgama controls. And Playgama does not publish what “Net Revenue” is net of; the definition sits in the developer Terms & Conditions behind the portal login. Ask for it in writing, with a worked example.

The same gap applies to purchases. Playgama’s monetization guide says in-game purchases “are currently available on Playgama, Yandex, MSN, Samsung and Facebook” — five surfaces, not the whole list — and on revenue share says only that “the exact revenue share details are available in the Developer Terms & Conditions”. Its developer page claims games that enable IAP “earn up to 1.8 × more than ad-only releases”, with no sample, baseline or period: a marketing claim, not a planning input.

Payouts are stated: withdraw “once you reach the threshold of 100 USD”, by bank transfer “to a bank account in any country”, with cryptocurrency on request.

What does the catalogue actually accept?

This is where the model gets expensive in ways a split table never shows. Integration is not optional — “Integration of the Playgama Bridge is a mandatory condition for uploading a game” — and the Bridge is exclusive on three axes at once:

• Ads. “No ads from third-party advertisers, including static ad images and text. Ads are displayed only through the Playgama Bridge.”
• Payments. “Payments are made only through the Playgama Bridge.”
• Analytics. “The game does not include embedded analytics systems like Google Analytics (GA4) or similar” — and shipping GA4 anyway is on Playgama’s published list of common rejection reasons.

So your mediation stack, payment processor and event telemetry all come out of the web build, replaced by Playgama’s dashboard. For an ad-funded casual title that is a fair trade; for a live-ops title running on first-party events, it is an architectural decision, not a config change.

The general technical bar is undemanding: archive under 300 MB with index.html at the root, Latin-only file names, Chrome/Firefox/Opera/Safari/Edge, down to Android 5.0 and iOS 9.0. Content rules are stricter than most Western portals: no political or religious imagery or references, no third-party IP (Playgama names Brawl Stars, Sprunki and Squid Game), no real-money mechanics, no games “built entirely” from generative AI assets.

Per-portal gates are where titles die. Playgama’s platform-specific requirements page relays each partner’s bar — its account of what those partners expect, not the partners’ own published docs:

Destination	Gate as stated by Playgama
YouTube Playables	Initial build ≤ 30 MB; playtime ≥ 10 min; no external calls including analytics; portrait plus adapted landscape
GameSnacks (Google)	Initial download < 15 MiB; total ≤ 100 MiB; playable in under 15 s on 10 Mbps; 9:16 portrait
MSN	Build < 50 MB; landscape or both. “MSN only publishes 2–4 games per partner each month”
Telegram Playdeck	≤ 50 MB; loads under 15 s; portrait; must use IAP; platform saves only
Xiaomi	≤ 100 MB; loads under 15 s; Android; playtime ≥ 5 min
Facebook	≤ 200 MB and ≤ 500 files; loading preferably under 3 s; two of IAP, leaderboards, multiplayer, social sharing
Discord	Must include in-game purchases and multiplayer

Notice the pattern: the highest-reach surfaces impose the tightest download budgets. A 30 MB initial build for Playables and a 15 MiB initial download for GameSnacks are engine-selection constraints, not compression tasks — the conclusion we also reached in the WebGPU readiness guide.

On timing, its moderation FAQ gives “3-5 business days” on Playgama and “up to 2 weeks” on partner portals; the submission page says 1–5 business days for Playgama. Plan a month to a partner launch, and every rebuild is re-moderated.

Where does the aggregator actually earn its cut?

On the marquee surfaces, the answer is access, not code. Google’s developer documentation states that “Developer access for Playables is in an early access stage” and directs interested studios to an interest form. Playgama says it has 50+ games live on Playables with 200M+ total gameplays — self-reported, and a scale signal rather than a forecast. If Playables is on your board slide, a partner already inside the programme is the realistic route.

Discord is the opposite case. Its documentation describes Activities as “web apps hosted in an iframe that use the Embedded App SDK to communicate with Discord clients”, running “in an iframe in Discord on desktop, mobile, and web”, and Discord runs its own IAP system for them. Discord is not on Playgama’s IAP-supported list, so the aggregator gets you a distribution slot and ad monetisation there, not the native commerce layer — the trade-off we mapped for instant games inside messaging apps.

The OEM entries need a scope correction. The industry shorthand for this channel is Huawei AppGallery and Xiaomi GetApps, but Playgama’s docs link the Xiaomi destination to a Game Center app on Xiaomi’s global app site rather than to GetApps generally, and publish no Huawei-specific catalogue requirements at all while publishing them for Xiaomi. If Huawei is material, ask what that destination is.

What should a studio do next?

Assuming an ad-funded HTML5 title that already runs in a browser:

1. Ask for the two documents that are not public — the Net Revenue definition with a worked example, and the IAP revenue share. Nothing else moves without them.
2. Get the destination list into the agreement, dated, with exclusions named: Poki and CrazyGames are currently outside what Playgama publishes for you directly.
3. Cost the exclusivity. Price the loss of your mediation stack, payment processor and GA4 events against the partner accounts you no longer have to open. For a first web title that usually nets out positive; for a mature live-ops loop, often not.
4. Build to the tightest gate you care about, not Playgama’s 300 MB ceiling. If Playables or GameSnacks matter, 30 MB initial and 15 MiB initial download are the real budgets.
5. Measure per-surface, not blended. The 50% Playgama-traffic rate and the 70–90% partner-site ladder mean a blended payout tells you nothing about where to invest. Benchmark both against what the direct portals and web shops publish before you decide the aggregator is the cheaper route.

Do not proceed if your title depends on real-money mechanics, licensed IP, or first-party analytics you cannot give up: Playgama’s requirements rule all three out.

FAQ

Does Playgama publish my game to Poki and CrazyGames?

No. Both appear on the Bridge SDK’s supported-platform list, but Playgama’s own documentation states: “We don’t publish games on Poki and Crazygames ourselves, but you can try uploading the game there directly with our SDK integrated.”

What revenue share does Playgama pay?

For games distributed on partner sites, Playgama publishes a tiered schedule on monthly Net Revenue: 70% up to 1,000 USD, then 700 USD plus 80% of the portion above 1,000 USD, then 2,300 USD plus 90% of the portion above 3,000 USD. Plays on Playgama’s own site and through its iframe partner network pay a fixed 50%. It does not publish what “Net Revenue” is net of, nor the in-game purchase share — both sit in the developer Terms & Conditions.

Can I keep my own ad mediation, payment processor and analytics?

No. Playgama’s published requirements state that ads are displayed only through the Playgama Bridge, that only internal purchases via the Bridge are allowed, and that the game must not include embedded analytics such as Google Analytics. Shipping GA4 is on its published list of common rejection reasons.

Will Playgama get my game onto YouTube Playables?

It is a realistic route, not a guarantee. Google’s developer documentation states that developer access for Playables is in an early access stage and points studios to an interest form, so a partner already inside the programme is the practical way in.

Is Playgama’s 450M+ reach figure something I can plan against?

No. The “450M+ players” and “100+ partner platforms” claims are Playgama’s self-reported figures, published without methodology, audit or a stated measurement period, and the “100+” counts link-embedding partners rather than the 20 platforms on the SDK list. Build your model on per-surface data from your first live month instead.

---

Weighing an aggregator against direct portal deals, or working out whether the exclusivity is survivable for your title? Our interactive practice and distribution work cover this decision. Start a conversation and we will read the terms with you.