From Gacha System to Revenue Map: Analyzing HoYoverse's Monetization Strategy

On August 13, 2026, the global gaming community once again witnessed the familiar rotation of a new version from HoYoverse. Genshin Impact transitioned from version 7.0 to 7.1, bringing changes to character banner schedules and wish mechanics. But behind each update announcement, a sophisticated monetization system is operating, and it's time we examine it from a purely business perspective. Over 9 years of tracking the sports and esports industry, I've witnessed countless monetization models built and collapse. From the broadcasting rights systems of the Premier League to the player transfer mechanisms in European football, each industry has its own formula. And this is the first time I've seen a game publisher maintain near-total control over both supply and information in its value chain. This article is not a gaming guide. This is an analysis of how a business system is designed to maximize user spending, and the lessons that the sports entertainment industry can draw from it. The design philosophy of version 7.0 has been clearly shaped from the early days of release. HoYoverse maintains a two-phase structure for each version, with each phase lasting approximately 21 days. This is not random. This structure creates predictable decision windows for players, which translates into steady cash flow for the publisher. In version 7.0 phase two, players witnessed the return of two legacy characters: Flins and Ineffa. The decision to bring these two characters into this phase was not accidental. It reflects a core principle in gaming business: creating artificial scarcity through non-fixed scheduling. No one knows exactly when a character will return, and that uncertainty drives spending. But version 7.1 phase one is where the strategy truly reveals itself. According to the official announcement from HoYoverse, this phase will introduce two entirely new characters: Vesna and Vodyanitsa. This is a carefully calculated move. While phase two is dedicated to reruns - characters that have appeared before - phase one is where the publisher bets on novelty. And in the gaming industry as in sports, novelty always comes with higher value. The simultaneous debut of two new characters in the same phase creates significant financial pressure for players. This is the peak of the monetization model: not only do you have to decide whether to spend money, but you also have to choose between two competing products. This mechanism works similarly to the football transfer market, where clubs must bid for talents appearing simultaneously. For players who have saved resources for version 7.1, this is the decision moment. They have waited, saved, and now must evaluate whether Vesna and Vodyanitsa are worth investing in. Meanwhile, those who spent on Flins and Ineffa in version 7.0 phase two now face the reality of having fewer resources for upcoming new characters. But the truly interesting part lies in the pity mechanism. According to the described design, players are guaranteed to receive a five-star character after a maximum of 90 pulls. This is a significant safety net because it minimizes emotional risk for players while maintaining high randomness. The 50/50 mechanism is even more sophisticated. When targeting an event banner, the first five-star pull has a 50% chance of landing the featured character and a 50% chance of landing a standard character. If the result is a standard character, the next five-star pull is guaranteed to be the featured character. This is sophisticated psychological design: it creates a sense of fairness while maintaining high variance in actual spending amounts. From a business perspective, this system is a masterpiece. It simultaneously addresses two problems: attracting new players through a sense of predictability, and maintaining high revenue through spending variance. Some people will get lucky early and spend less than expected, while others will have to spend more to reach the guarantee threshold. In aggregate, average revenue remains optimal. A notable point is that the pity system is shared between banners of the same type. This means if you pull on a weapon banner and miss the five-star character, you still accumulate progress for future character pulls. Financially, this is a friction-reducing mechanism - it encourages players to switch between same-type banners without feeling they've lost their previous investment. The result is higher spending frequency. The non-fixed schedule policy for reruns is a sophisticated FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) mechanism. When no one knows exactly when an old character will return, players are forced to act when the opportunity appears. Compare this to the football transfer market: clubs never know exactly when a good player will come on the market, and that uncertainty creates irrational prices. Besides the main banner, HoYoverse also maintains the Chronicled Wish - a separate banner for legacy characters. This is a monetization lane for old characters that haven't appeared on the main banner for an extended period. In other words, the publisher can remonetize old assets without disrupting the new character release cycle. This is a strategy that sports leagues should learn from: how to create value from old assets instead of letting them become obsolete. Looking at the overall picture, the banner schedule of versions 7.0 and 7.1 shows a clear picture of how HoYoverse operates its monetization system. Phase one is for new characters, creating the highest spending pressure. Phase two is for reruns, maintaining steady cash flow. And between the two phases are strategically designed rest periods for players to accumulate resources for the next phase. However, there is a concerning issue that needs to be addressed. Among the 28 information points analyzed, 20 have no source citations. Only one point is based on an official announcement from HoYoverse. Some character names and versions mentioned cannot be verified against the current game state, suggesting that the content may be partially generated from unreliable sources or even AI. This is a significant information risk that any gaming content consumer should be aware of. The article itself acknowledges the uncertainty: the exact banner schedule still needs confirmation. This is both a positive reliability signal - the author is not making absolute claims - and an admission that the content is provisional. From a broader perspective, this gacha system has surprisingly similar points to traditional sports business models. The 50/50 ratio works similarly to playoff mechanisms in football: you can win or lose, but there's always an escape route guaranteed. The 90-pull pity system is like a salary cap in tournaments, creating an upper limit but not preventing outspending. And the non-fixed schedule for reruns is like an open transfer market - where timing and opportunities are never guaranteed. The most notable observation from this analysis is the level of control the game publisher holds. HoYoverse is simultaneously the game operator, the gacha rule setter, and the official announcement authority. In traditional sports, these functions are usually separated among multiple parties: federations, clubs, and media. This concentration of power creates operational efficiency but also carries risks regarding transparency and governance. From my experience following matches, I've learned that data doesn't lie, but it needs someone who knows how to listen. And from analyzing this gacha system, I realize that even seemingly random systems have logical structures behind them. The question is not whether they are effective - clearly they are - but whether they are sustainable, and whether consumers are adequately protected. In the context of the gaming industry facing increasing regulatory scrutiny over gacha mechanisms and probability transparency in major markets, HoYoverse may need to adjust some aspects of its business model. But until then, this system remains a case study in psychological design and revenue optimization in the digital entertainment industry. As for the gaming community, they will continue to wait, save, and make difficult financial decisions whenever a new version is announced. This cycle will not stop, because that's how the system was designed from the start. And perhaps that's the most important lesson: in entertainment business, sometimes you don't need to deceive customers, you just need to understand their psychology and build the right system.