Should Samsung enter the gaming console market?
Product Strategy Interview Question: Is the Gaming Console Space Worth Entering for Samsung?
Dear readers,
Thank you for being part of our growing community. Here’s what’s new this today,
Product Management Interview Question:
Q: Should Samsung enter the gaming console market?
Note: This post is for our Paid Subscribers, If you haven’t subscribed yet,
The global gaming console market sits at roughly $60-70B in annual revenue, growing at 5-6% CAGR. Those headline numbers look attractive in isolation. But when I coach candidates on market analysis, I always push them to ask a second-order question: “Who does this market actually serve, and how locked in are those users?” Because a big market with deeply entrenched players is sometimes a worse bet than a smaller market with fragmented competition.
Here is what the growth data actually tells us. The drivers are real: gaming adoption is expanding across demographics, esports is pulling casual viewers toward hardware investment, and the convergence of VR, cloud gaming, and streaming is creating genuine platform disruption. The 2022-2023 period saw cloud gaming subscriptions grow nearly 40% year-over-year across the major players. But the challenges are just as real. Hardware commoditization is accelerating. Development costs for competitive first-party titles regularly exceed $200M per game. And brand loyalty in this market is not just strong, it is generational. I have watched parents buy their kids the same console brand they grew up with, which is a moat that does not show up cleanly in a TAM slide.
The honest read: the market is large enough to justify Samsung’s attention, but the growth opportunity is concentrated in specific vectors (cloud gaming, mobile-console convergence, display-driven experiences) rather than in traditional box hardware. Any recommendation for Samsung has to thread that needle.
Competitive Landscape: The Three Walls Samsung Would Have to Climb
Let me lay out the current competitive structure clearly before talking about what Samsung brings to the table.
The implication here is not just that competition is stiff. It is that each competitor owns a specific user psychology. Sony owns the “I need the best exclusive titles” buyer. Microsoft owns the “I want a subscription that gives me everything” buyer. Nintendo owns the “I want games that feel unlike anything else” buyer. Samsung does not currently own any of those buyer psychologies in gaming. That is the real problem, not the market share math.
When I was working on leadership positioning at a growth-stage gaming company, we had a similar situation: three well-capitalized incumbents, each owning a distinct emotional lane with their users. Our mistake early on was trying to compete across all three lanes simultaneously. We burned through $8M in 18 months and saw a 23% drop in retention before we pivoted hard into a single underserved segment. Samsung should avoid repeating that pattern.
What Samsung actually needs to decide before competing
Before even discussing entry strategy, a sharp PM forces the conversation to one critical question: “Are we trying to displace an incumbent, or are we trying to create a new category?” These require fundamentally different resource allocations, timelines, and success metrics. Samsung trying to out-PlayStation Sony is a losing bet. Samsung creating a new category of display-native, living-room gaming experiences is a bet worth examining seriously.
User Segmentation: Who Is Samsung Actually Chasing?
Not all gamers are created equal, and a smart segmentation strategy is where most candidates in interviews take shortcuts that hurt them. They name the segments but never defend the prioritization logic.
