Southeast Asia is no longer just a fast-growing gaming market. It is becoming one of the most important global ecosystems for brands, creators, and publishers trying to win the next generation of consumers.

According to The Ampverse Playbook, the region already has over 290 million gamers, with projections reaching 330 million by 2028, putting it on par with major global markets in both scale and engagement

But the bigger story is not just the size of the market. It is how gaming in Southeast Asia works fundamentally differently.

A US$6.6 billion market that goes beyond games

According to the playbook, Southeast Asia’s gaming industry generated around US$6.6 billion in 2025, with forecasts ranging from US$7 billion by 2028 to over US$16 billion by 2030, depending on how the ecosystem evolves

What stands out is where that growth is coming from.

Unlike Western markets that rely heavily on high-spending users, Southeast Asia’s growth is driven by:

• Massive player volumes
• High daily engagement
• Creator-led discovery
• Expanding monetization beyond in-game purchases

This shift means gaming is no longer just about downloads or revenue per user. It is increasingly tied to content, communities, and culture.

Mobile-first, but creator-driven

Mobile gaming dominates the region, contributing roughly 70% of total revenue. But distribution and discovery are no longer controlled by app stores. More than 50% of gamers regularly watch gaming content, and many discover games through creators, livestreams, and social platforms instead of traditional ads. 

This changes the marketing playbook entirely. Instead of:

• Running paid campaigns
• Optimising for installs

Brands now need to:

• Work with creators as primary distribution channels
• Design campaigns that are entertaining, not interruptive
• Build long-term community presence

Southeast Asia is not one gaming market; it is six very different ones

The Ampverse report highlights six core markets in Southeast Asia, each with distinct characteristics that shape how brands and publishers should approach them.

Also Read: The real status of blockchain gaming in Southeast Asia: Not hype, not dead — just growing up

• Indonesia

The largest gaming market in the region, with over 150 million gamers. Discovery is heavily driven by creators, making trust and influencer relationships critical for adoption and growth.

• Philippines

A highly social gaming market where content spreads quickly through livestreams and peer networks. Community engagement and viral mechanics play a central role in how games gain traction.

• Thailand

One of the most monetised markets in Southeast Asia, supported by strong esports infrastructure. Players are more receptive to premium brand activations and partnerships.

• Vietnam

A fast-growing market with high engagement but strong price sensitivity. Community-driven retention is key, and campaigns need to balance accessibility with long-term engagement.

• Malaysia

A well-connected market with strong English usage, making it an effective testing ground for regional campaigns. Brands often use Malaysia to pilot strategies before scaling across Southeast Asia.

• Singapore

While smaller in gamer base, Singapore has the highest ARPU in the region and serves as a regional hub for publishers and platforms. It is best suited for premium partnerships and regional strategy development.

What this breakdown makes clear is that Southeast Asia is not a single market, but a collection of very different ecosystems.

Strategies do not translate easily across markets. What works in Singapore’s high-ARPU environment will not work in Vietnam’s price-sensitive market, and creator-led approaches in Indonesia may need to be adapted for Thailand’s more structured esports landscape.

This is where many global campaigns fall short. Instead of applying one-size-fits-all playbooks, brands need to adapt to differences in culture, monetisation, platforms, and creator influence.

Gaming is now a community, not a channel

One of the most important shifts highlighted in the report is that gaming in Southeast Asia is community-first.

Communities drive:

• Retention
• Advocacy
• Cultural relevance

Platforms like Discord, Facebook Groups, and in-game guilds act as long-term engagement engines.

Even more importantly, participation now beats exposure.

Campaigns that involve users, such as tournaments, creator collaborations, or interactive formats, consistently outperform static ads.

Also Read: Gaming app sessions climb across APAC as studios shift focus to player retention

What winning gaming marketing actually looks like

The report suggests that brands need to rethink how they show up in gaming. The most effective approaches today go beyond traditional campaigns and focus on participation, culture, and community.

• Creator-led campaigns, not influencer buys

Creators in Southeast Asia act as gatekeepers of trust, influencing installs, retention, and even perception of a game

Real brand examples:

• In Thailand, PUBG Mobile partnered with top YouTube creator Heartrocker (HRK) to launch a TikTok Branded Effect campaign, allowing fans to interact with in-game elements like helmets and creator-themed visuals. This blended creator identity with gameplay mechanics, driving both engagement and recall
• In the Philippines, creators like Fuego Gaming (Mobile Legends) build audiences through educational gameplay and tutorials, often collaborating with brands like Infinix and participating in esports events and watch parties, effectively bridging content, community, and brand partnerships

• Marketing that feels like gameplay

Gaming marketing is shifting from ads to experiences.

Real brand examples:

• PUBG Mobile’s collaboration with K-pop group BABYMONSTER is a strong example of this shift. Instead of traditional ads, the campaign introduced music-led fan experiences inside the game, including themed mini-games, exclusive skins, and interactive content tied to the group.
• AirAsia also launched its own virtual world on Roblox, allowing users to explore destinations, complete mini-games, and interact with the brand in an immersive environment. Instead of promoting flights through traditional ads, AirAsia turned its brand into a playable experience, embedding travel discovery into gameplay itself.

• Community-first growth strategies

Brands that succeed invest in communities early, not just at launch.

Real brand examples:

• Mobile Legends: Bang Bang builds long-term engagement through esports ecosystems and community tournaments, including teams like AP Bren in the Philippines and Onic Esports in Indonesia, which anchor fandom, competition, and brand partnerships
• Gaming companies and agencies in Southeast Asia actively build Discord communities, Facebook Groups, and creator networks to sustain engagement beyond campaigns, reinforcing that the community is the real retention engine.

• UGC and participation as growth engines

User-generated content (UGC) is becoming a key driver of visibility and engagement.

Gamers are not just consumers. They are:

• Content creators
• Community builders
• Advocates

Real brand examples:

• Programs like PUBG Mobile’s “Next Star” creator initiative actively fund and grow creators across regions, turning players into long-term content engines for the game ecosystem
• Across Southeast Asia, players regularly create clips, memes, tutorials, and livestream content that amplify campaigns organically, often outperforming paid media due to higher trust and relatability 

Also Read: How a US$14.8B SEA gaming market is turning tournaments into media ecosystems

The future of gaming in Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia’s gaming ecosystem is still in its early stages, but the direction is already clear.

Gaming is evolving from a form of entertainment into a full-stack ecosystem that blends content, community, commerce, and culture. The lines between games, social platforms, and media are continuing to blur, with creators and communities sitting at the centre of that shift.

The next phase of growth will not just come from more players or higher revenue. It will come from:

• Deeper integration between brands and gameplay
• Expansion of creator-led economies
• More immersive, interactive brand experiences
• Stronger community ownership and participation

This is also where the biggest opportunity lies.

As the Ampverse report suggests, Southeast Asia’s gaming market could expand into a US$14 billion ecosystem by 2030 when factoring in creators, advertising, and live experiences. But capturing that growth will require a different mindset.

Brands that continue to treat gaming as a media channel will struggle to stay relevant. However, those who treat it as culture — something to participate in, not interrupt — will be the ones who win.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The post Southeast Asia’s gaming boom is bigger than you think — and brands are still getting it wrong appeared first on e27.

At first glance, the Philippine white-collar labour market looks oddly calm. Turnover appears manageable — not many companies are in panic-replacement mode, and the macro uncertainty of the past two years has made professionals more cautious about jumping. For employers, that can feel like stability. It may be something much more dangerous: deferred volatility.

According to the Philippines Talent Market Report 2026 by recruitment agency Monroe Consulting, 54 per cent of candidates say they are considering a job change within the next 12 months, while 66 per cent say they would still leave even after receiving a counteroffer. At the same time, 54 per cent of employers report employee turnover of under 5 per cent, with no replacement hiring.

Also Read: Flexible work is no longer a perk in Philippines, but the price of talent

That is the central contradiction in the data. Employees are not necessarily staying because they are engaged. Many are staying because the timing is not yet right.

That distinction matters for every founder, operator and investor with exposure to the Philippines. Low attrition is only good news if it reflects commitment. If it reflects hesitation, it can flip fast.

The salary gap is broader than pay

The Monroe study also shows that 62 per cent of employers see salary expectations as a major hiring challenge. In comparison, 34 per cent of candidates expect salary increases of 25 per cent or more when changing roles. That sounds like a standard compensation mismatch. It is not. It is part of a much wider expectation gap involving career progression, flexibility, leadership quality and market transparency.

The report’s income bands underline the tension. 41 per cent of respondents earn below roughly US$1,250 a month before tax, 35 per cent earn between about US$1,250 and US$2,680, and 24 per cent earn above US$2,680. In a market where professionals are increasingly exposed to regional benchmarks, remote work options and overseas opportunities, many are no longer evaluating their worth solely through a local lens.

This is especially relevant in the Philippines, where wage decisions are filtered through unusually practical household economics. Urban rent, school costs, transport, food inflation and support for extended family all weigh heavily. Even professionals in relatively stable roles can feel persistently stretched. A higher offer from another employer is therefore not just a professional upgrade. It can be a household risk-management tool.

Counteroffers are losing their power

One of the sharpest insights in the Monroe report is the weakness of the counteroffer as a retention device. If 66 per cent of candidates would still leave despite one, then companies are misreading resignations as a price problem when they are often a trust problem.

By the time an employee has reached the offer stage elsewhere, the decision has usually been in the works for months. Pay may trigger movement, but it is rarely the only cause. Stalled progression, poor people management, inflexible work arrangements and a lack of role clarity all play into the decision. A reactive salary bump does not repair those issues. It merely proves the employer could have done more earlier.

Also Read: Breaking down geography-based salary for your global teams

In the Philippine context, this has a particular sting. Many organisations still retain a relatively hierarchical approach to career conversations. Development is often assumed rather than articulated. Promotion pathways may exist informally but not transparently. Employees stay quiet, wait, observe, and then leave with little warning. From the company’s perspective, the departure appears sudden. From the employee’s perspective, it was delayed.

That helps explain the “Great Detachment” dynamic Monroe points to. Workers are not resigning en masse, but neither are they fully invested. They are present, productive enough, and quietly scanning the market.

The global benchmark is now on every phone

The Philippines has long produced internationally mobile talent. Nurses, engineers, seafarers, finance professionals, customer support specialists and increasingly tech workers all understand what overseas labour markets can offer. What has changed is the speed and visibility of comparison.

A product manager in Manila can now compare compensation with Singapore. A developer in Cebu can be approached by a remote-first employer in Australia. A compliance professional in Makati can benchmark herself against regional financial hubs. Even professionals not actively job hunting are exposed to alternative market prices through LinkedIn, recruiters, peers and online communities.

That is why salary inflation feels more aggressive from the employer side than from the candidate side. Many Filipino professionals are not suddenly becoming unrealistic. They are becoming better informed.

This creates a difficult challenge for companies whose compensation frameworks are still tied tightly to annual cycles and legacy bands. If the market reprices critical talent faster than the organisation can, hiring slows, offers get rejected, and internal retention risk rises.

Why the resignation wave may arrive late, then all at once

The most important insight in the Monroe data is temporal. The risk is not necessarily immediate. It is latent.

Employees may postpone a move during uncertainty, especially if they have dependents or perceive external volatility. But once confidence improves or a sufficiently attractive opportunity arises, pent-up intent can convert quickly into exits. That is when employers discover that their seemingly stable workforce was held together by caution rather than commitment.

This matters particularly in sectors already operating with thin talent benches: technology, digital transformation, cybersecurity, healthcare support, finance leadership, sales and specialised operations. A sudden increase in mobility for these functions could push up replacement costs while time-to-hire lengthens.

Founders and executives should not read low turnover as proof that the retention strategy is working. They should ask harder questions. Are managers having credible career conversations? Is flexibility aligned with employee reality? Are top performers feeling seen before an outside offer lands? Are pay structures designed around market risk, not just internal equity?

Also Read: Why remote working is the future for startups

The Philippines remains one of Southeast Asia’s most valuable talent markets because it combines skills, English proficiency, adaptability and service orientation at scale. But it is also a market where employees have become more transparent about what they want and more willing to leave when those wants are ignored.

The mistake now is to assume that because people have stayed, they have settled. Many have not. They have paused. And workers who pause can quickly become departing workers once the market offers them a better reason to move.

The post Philippines’s calm job market may be hiding a resignation wave appeared first on e27.

Don’t let AI give you a false sense of security.

If you look at regulated industries across Southeast Asia—Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia—the regulators all say the same thing: you must do proper due diligence on your third parties. And rightfully so. Most financial services firms even have dedicated teams for this—privacy, ops, financial risk, cyber.

But here is the reality: those teams are now facing the fact that their vendors are using AI to complete their compliance reports and security assessments. Some are even fabricating assurance reports like SOC 2.

And while the vendors are using AI to speed things up, the people who actually have to secure the relationship are still doing things manually.

It’s a crazy idea. The number of vendors is growing rapidly because, like it or not, in an interconnected world, working with partners is inevitable. Yet, TPRM teams are overwhelmed, understaffed, and stuck in the dark ages of manual review.

Sure, there are tools that scan digital assets from the outside, but most of the time they just deliver false information. They can’t see behind the firewall. And what about the vendors with no digital presence? You can’t scan a physical process.

Also Read: Digital Growth, fragile defences: Inside Philippines’s cybersecurity gap

So what do we do? We send questionnaires. And then some poor analyst has to spend days, weeks, or even months reading every single line to match it against internal policies. And then—the crazy part—they have to do it all over again every single year.

It is time that AI faces AI

In 2026, forcing teams to manually review AI-generated documentation is not just inefficient, it is a structural weakness. The volume, speed, and variability of AI-assisted outputs have already outpaced human-only review models.

The shift that needs to happen is straightforward. Machines should handle pattern recognition, document parsing, and baseline control mapping at scale. Humans should focus on judgment, context, and challenge. That means interrogating inconsistencies, understanding operational realities, and identifying where assurances do not match actual risk.

This is not about removing people from the process. It is about restoring their role to where it actually matters.

Because the real risk is no longer just whether a control exists on paper. It is whether anyone can still tell if that paper reflects reality.

And in a world where AI can generate compliance at scale, trust will depend less on what is submitted and more on how rigorously it is verified.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The post Stop sending humans to an AI gunfight appeared first on e27.

Asia has long been the undisputed leader in manufacturing output, largely thanks to its vast workforce and closely connected intraregional network. That same nexus of efficiency is also symbiotically linked with the region’s fast-paced innovation. 

In fact, Asian companies are known to lead the way with AI adoption, according to recent insights from Boston Consulting Group (BCG). Here are the factors driving that in the region’s manufacturing sector, and lessons to be learned. 

A landscape where AI adoption flourishes 

Not only do Asian manufacturers have access to one of the world’s largest bases of talent and skills, but they also have an enormous amount of data readily available. Data-rich environments are an important lever in facilitating AI readiness and deployment, as algorithms are trained by historical information. This not only helps manufacturers tap into past insights, but keeps a steady pulse on current trends and even possible future outcomes thanks to the predictive capabilities of AI. 

Moreover, the wider narrative around Asia’s position on the world stage is shifting: the region is being more widely recognised as leading the innovation landscape. Coupled with Asia’s long-standing role as the world’s manufacturing hub (HSBC once called it “the world’s factory floor”), the industrial AI boom comes as no surprise. It’s a logical next chapter in a landscape renowned for its manufacturing prowess and technology-first mindset, particularly in pioneering countries like China, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. 

Industrial and manufacturing leads within Asia also have the opportunity for cross-collaboration and knowledge sharing as they develop innovation initiatives via AI. This is against the existing backdrop of a region where manufacturers and industrial suppliers already closely collaborate with one another, particularly in terms of supply chain management. In this scenario, local learning from experiments and testing can quickly become a region-wide capability. It’s a significant advantage Asian countries possess over their counterparts across the rest of the world. 

Also Read: Why trust is the only currency that matters in the AI era

Navigating integration challenges

Of course, deploying industrial AI at scale comes with challenges. The primary barrier in translating the vast amounts of data into actionable insights that benefit operations on the factory floor. 

According to Shinichiro Nakamura, the president of one to ONE Holdings, most factories have the data, but struggle with its integration alongside designing systems, workflows, and human input that yield concrete results. 

Nakamura also iterates that partial AI adoption yields only partial outcomes. For instance, unless the impact is considered across the entire sequence of business processes, not just parts of existing procedures or standards, results will fail to materialise, and projects will falter. 

And factory floor-ready AI needs to be context aware, which means sourcing data around people, too. Information on areas like operator patterns, shift conditions, process deviations, and health and safety priorities is all non-negotiable for AI systems that can be securely embedded into wider operational environments. It’s an important part of thinking about embedded AI from A to Z as part of an AI-native mindset versus a plug-and-play mentality. 

Fortunately, Asian manufacturers are moving in the right direction. While AI adoption is significantly surging across Asia, so is an enterprise-wide approach. Moreover, firms in the region are increasingly recognising the importance of data experts, with chief data and analytics officers (CDAO) expected to rival chief information officers (CIO) in leadership importance. This marks a clear shift from a tech-first to data-first attitude with AI, one that lays stronger foundations for integration and deployment success on the factory floor. 

Forging the human-AI alliance

What’s key is not to approach AI adoption as an isolated strategy per tool, but rather to design end-to-end systems and workflows that propel AI-native innovation. It’s not about one-off deployments but continuous execution and refinement of these tools coupled with carefully articulated human input. That’s what helps factories and organisations bridge AI operationalisation gaps. 

Also Read: The unseen link: How cybersecurity and sustainability converge on Earth Day

Speaking from experience, Nakamura says that human workers on factory floors must be empowered to collaborate with AI as their assistant or support function. Balancing industrial AI with human oversight requires essential processes for preparation, execution, and improvement. 

People have an important role here in overseeing these systems and providing feedback on how they perform. The Japanese philosophy of ‘kaizen,’ which focuses on continuous improvement, is highly applicable to AI deployment strategies with humans kept closely in the loop. 

Asian organisations are quickly moving to enhance key skills among their staff, including AI literacy and analytical capabilities to assess workflow transformations and progress. Leaders are also introducing iterative improvement practices so factories and manufacturers can achieve better results from AI over time. This means constantly testing, learning, and refining models and adjusting strategies accordingly.

Asian manufacturers and organisations are stepping up as innovation leaders in the AI arena. The region has a unique edge in driving productivity and profitability gains, thanks to its sheer industry scale, data density, operational discipline, and cultural practices. The next phase is more than how algorithms are embedded into processes, but how knowledge is shared to foster collaboration within Asia and beyond.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The post How Asia’s factories are leading the way in industrial AI appeared first on e27.

The way that work is done is changing. People are beginning to rely on AI-based agents to do a lot of the heavy lifting in their work. Jobs are becoming more about directing those agents than about doing the details of the work. Teams of implementers are giving way to teams of designers who manage entire products or initiatives. Collaboration between people is still crucial, but the lowest level – the purely technical collaboration – is disappearing.

AI agents are greatly accelerating the speed of work, immensely raising the stakes of misalignment. A Gallup study found that only 41% of employees know what their organisation stands for, which probably explains why Kaplan and Norton’s research found that 90% of organisations fail to execute their strategies successfully. This isn’t a niche problem — it is universal — and it presents a huge risk when employees’ actions are amplified by AI.

A blizzard of agent tools has arrived to provide “agentified” capabilities. But as they say, “a fool with a tool is still a fool”. Alignment still matters. Transparency still matters. Good decisions still matter – perhaps more than before because the speed of work has accelerated. More capability without better alignment doesn’t solve the alignment problem — it amplifies it.

We need a model for agentic and human collaborative work. I propose the term delivery intelligence.

Also Read: Why trust is the only currency that matters in the AI era

Delivery intelligence has these traits:

• Objectives, strategies, and execution plans and actions are all linked.
• Fully transparent, complete line-of-sight: anyone (with visibility controls for sensitive plans) can peruse the network of linked objectives, strategies, and execution plans and actions. That visibility enables people to self-align.
• Agent-based tools can also peruse the network of plans and actions. They can spot problems, make suggestions, and execute where they are given permission to do so. They can act intelligently.
• Agents detect misalignment, find critical paths, and suggest ways to optimise – ways that are aligned with the values and strategies of the organisation (including the leadership styles that it desires).
• Agents complete work that is agent-doable (including software development, analysis, and planning), when you give them permission to do so.
• Agents are fully transparent in what they do, and you can rely on them.
• Agents collaborate with each other and with people.
• Employees feel responsible and autonomous, because work is goal-oriented, not task-oriented, and they are still in charge.
• Decisions are holistic: the ability to detect misalignment makes it possible to define outcome-oriented incentives.
• Rapid pivots are possible – instead of an interlocking mesh of tasks, people have goals, which they thoughtfully and responsibly delegate to agents.
• People can ask “what if? questions, and agents give informed answers, often querying with other agents before answering.
• People become so vastly more productive: it will be like everyone having a team of informed and connected geniuses working for them, available on demand.

Unfortunately, most agent-based tools are missing a key thing: the why. They do not have access to an authoritative network of objectives, strategies, and plans. The risk is that people across the organisation unleash armies of agents that are unaligned with strategic intent. That is why agent-based systems need to directly incorporate awareness of strategic intent.

Unfortunately, most do not. The agent platform must also provide governance that enables the organisation to define policies that constrain agent behaviour, just as policies govern human behaviour.

Also Read: On-chain data and Web3 security: Insights from industry experts

Awareness of intent is critical because those who execute make decisions, too. Execution is a process of myriad low-level decisions intended to turn the higher-level intentions into reality. If agents are executing, then without a backbone of authoritative intention, they are guessing – they have to sort through myriad sources of information and opinions, many of which contradict each other or represent earlier stages of thought. That’s chaos, and that leads to misalignment – potentially more rapidly than before, since agents act so quickly.

The solution

The solution must have these components:

• An agent-based platform that enables people to collaboratively state objectives, strategies, goals, and plans – enabling both people and agents to access all of that context.
• Governance: a system for making sure that the agents do not do things that they should not do.

Together, these make delivery intelligence possible.

Be wary of AI agent platforms that present a free-for-all, where agents operate without an understanding of what you are trying to accomplish, as well as how and why.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The post Delivery intelligence: The missing link between AI agents and strategic alignment appeared first on e27.