Humans are unreliable at explaining their own behavior. We read what your customers actually did and use that to reach the unreachable insights.
The people who never answer surveys are already talking where they feel at home. We listen at scale: hundreds of thousands of real player voices across 29 markets, weighted by how much each concern actually changes whether players recommend the game.
Every read carries its evidence tier. Validated means tested against reality with the measurement published. Data-grounded means computed from real voices. Qualitative means a simulation, and it says so on the surface.
Which market says yes, which says no, and exactly what they'll complain about.
Panelists with names, standpoints, and memory, derived from the concerns their market actually raises. They speak first, disagree in public, and remember what you showed them last week.
Would Seoul's ranked players forgive a battle pass at launch?
Vantage is built on frontier research from Stanford, with the scientific method at its center. We hide a game from the system, predict how each market will rank it, then check against how real players actually ranked it.
Everything here comes from the same finding: what people did predicts better than what a model thinks. Stanford University proved this in their latest AI research and we built the product around it.
Publishers entering new markets test reception, creative, and monetization against player audiences grounded in real community voices, before the budget commits.
Trailers, titles, and positioning tested against the audiences who decide an opening weekend, market by market.
Products and campaigns read by the markets they launch into, with the same evidence discipline underneath.
We publish some of these. Each one takes a game launching soon and reads how real players in each market received the games like it, and what they raise. Built from the public store page alone, with nothing from the studio.


