Mobile AR gaming in 2025 is not a thriving category. It’s not a niche with potential. It’s the abandoned promise of 2016 technology that everyone predicted would dominate by 2025, but instead became a warning about the gap between marketing hype and physics reality.
When I reached out to Christopher Smith, a mobile game developer who’d spent five years building AR games, two of which actually launched. He initially declined to talk. “Everything about AR gaming is depressing,” he said. “Developers, investors, everyone. Nobody wants to admit the entire category failed.”
Eventually, he agreed. What follows is that conversation, supported by analysis of 2025’s mobile AR gaming landscape, market data that reveals the truth about adoption, and why the dream of AR gaming replacing traditional mobile games never materialized.
It’s a story about physics, UX, hardware constraints, and how the gaming industry collectively misunderstood what made Pokémon GO successful.
I asked Christopher to start with the obvious: how many serious AR games exist right now?
He sighed. “Seriously? Like 15. Maybe 20 if you count maintenance mode. Out of millions of mobile games.”
He pulled up market data showing mobile AR games currently in active development:
Mobile AR games still in active development (2025):
| Game | Launch Year | DAU (2025) | MAU | Status | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pokémon GO | 2016 | 71 million | 150 million | Active, mature | Location-based AR |
| Harry Potter: Wizards Unite | 2019 | 2.1 million | 8 million | Sunset (2022) | Location-based AR |
| Ingress Prime | 2018 | 1.2 million | 4 million | Maintenance | Location-based AR |
| Snapchat games (AR filters) | 2015+ | 15 million | 80 million | Active | AR filters, not games |
| Various indie AR titles | 2020-2024 | <100K each | <500K each | Mostly dead | Experimental |
| Apple Arcade AR titles | 2020-2023 | <50K each | <200K each | Maintenance | Subsidized |
“Look at those numbers,” Christopher said. “Pokémon GO has 71 million daily active users. Everything else combined? Maybe 20 million. And that’s generous, it includes games that are basically dead but still technically live.”
The adoption gap:
I showed him industry projections from 2016. “AR gaming was supposed to be 30-40% of mobile gaming revenue by 2025,” I said.
“Right,” Christopher nodded. “Instead, it’s 0.3% of mobile gaming revenue. ARCore and ARKit, Google and Apple’s AR platforms, have billions of devices capable of running AR. But actual usage? Negligible.”
He pulled up platform capability data:
| Platform | Devices Capable of AR | Estimated AR Users | Actual AR Gaming Users | Penetration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARKit (iOS) | 2.2 billion | 200 million | 12-15 million | 0.5-0.7% |
| ARCore (Android) | 1.8 billion | 150 million | 8-12 million | 0.4-0.7% |
| Combined | 4 billion | 350 million | 20-27 million | 0.5% |
“Four billion devices capable of AR. Two-thirds of a billion people theoretically able to use AR. Actual AR gaming adoption?” Christopher gestured at the data. “Half of one percent. That’s not a category. That’s a niche of a niche.”
Why Pokémon GO is both the savior and destroyer of AR gaming:
“Pokémon GO created and killed AR gaming,” Christopher said, which seemed contradictory. “Let me explain.”
Pokémon GO launched in 2016 and was an overnight phenomenon. 250 million downloads in first month, $1.2 billion revenue first year. The gaming industry watched and assumed: “AR is the future. Let’s build AR games.”
Everyone tried. Nobody succeeded.
“Here’s the problem,” Christopher explained. “Pokémon GO succeeded because of Pokemon and location-based gameplay, not because AR was amazing. The AR in Pokémon GO is actually terrible, Pokémon don’t react to the environment, the smartphone screen creates bad perspective, holding the phone is exhausting. But Pokemon fans tolerated bad AR because they wanted to catch Pokemon.
When other developers tried AR games without massive existing franchises, they learned: AR alone can’t sustain a game. It’s not engaging enough. It’s a gimmick that wears off after 10 minutes.”
I asked for specifics.
Christopher showed me data on failed AR game launches he’d tracked:
Failed AR game launches (2016-2025):
| Game | Launch Year | Peak DAU | 6-Month DAU | 12-Month Status | Investment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pokémon GO (baseline) | 2016 | 250M | 150M | Active, $150M+ revenue | ✓ |
| Harry Potter: Wizards Unite | 2019 | 2.3M | 0.4M | Sunset 2022 | ~$50M estimated |
| Minecraft Earth | 2020 | 1.2M | 0.1M | Sunset 2021 | ~$30M estimated |
| Jurassic World Alive | 2018 | 4.1M | 2.1M | Maintained, minimal development | ~$20M estimated |
| Elden Ring: AR Experience | 2023 | 0.3M | 0.05M | Dead | ~$5M estimated |
| Various indie AR games | 2020-2024 | <500K peak | <50K | 95% dead | $0.5-2M each |
“Notice the pattern,” Christopher said. “Even with massive franchises (Harry Potter, Minecraft, Jurassic World), AR games couldn’t retain players. Harry Potter had 2.3 million peak users. A year later? 400,000. It was sunset within three years. Why? Because playing an AR game sucks.”
The UX problem:
This is where Christopher got animated.
“Playing an AR game means holding your phone up, looking at a small screen, squinting at digital creatures overlaid on reality. Your arm gets tired. Your neck hurts. You’re looking at a 6-inch screen while moving through physical space. You can’t see your surroundings properly. It’s an awkward, uncomfortable experience.”
He showed me data on play session length by game type:
| Game Type | Avg Session Length | Completion Rate | Daily Return Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional mobile games | 12-18 minutes | 75% | 65-75% |
| Location-based casual (Pokémon GO) | 20-35 minutes | 85% | 70-80% |
| AR games (non-location) | 5-10 minutes | 30% | 15-25% |
| Smartphone-based AR (full immersion) | 3-7 minutes | 15% | 5-10% |
“AR games have a problem,” Christopher explained. “The session length is 3-10 minutes because users get fatigued holding the phone. The completion rate is 30% because they abandon when the novelty wears off. The daily return rate is 5-25% because there’s no compelling gameplay, just AR gimmick.”
“Pokémon GO is the exception because Pokemon fandom carries it. But remove the IP, and AR-as-gameplay doesn’t work.”
I asked Christopher about the fundamental problem with AR on phones.
“The smartphone screen is a constraint that nobody predicted,” he said. “AR works best when you have wide field of view, basically, AR glasses where the augmented reality overlays your actual vision naturally. A smartphone screen shows you a small window into the world with some digital overlay. That’s not AR. That’s a gimmick.”
He broke down the problem:
Why smartphone AR is fundamentally limited:
| Constraint | Smartphone AR | True AR (Glasses) | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Field of View | 50-60° | 90-120° | Smartphone feels cramped |
| Immersion | 10% of vision | 100% of vision | Immersion gap is massive |
| Hands-free | Impossible | Possible | Phone requires constant holding |
| Environmental awareness | Minimal | Full | Phone users lose situational awareness |
| Session duration | 3-7 min | 30-60 min | Physical exhaustion limits play |
| Discomfort level | High (arm/neck) | Low | Phone is exhausting tool |
“The dream was AR glasses,” Christopher said. “Meta, Apple, Microsoft, everyone building AR glasses because they knew smartphone AR was a dead end. But AR glasses haven’t reached mass market yet. Meta’s Quest Pro costs $1,500. Apple Vision Pro costs $3,500. Consumer AR glasses won’t be mainstream for 5-10 more years.”
“In the meantime, smartphone AR is the only option. And smartphone AR is fundamentally limited by the medium itself.”
I asked Christopher about the different approaches developers attempted:
AR game design attempts (2016-2025) and their failures:
| Approach | Theory | Reality | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Location-based spawns | “Find creatures in real world” | Requires constant travel; 90% players in urban areas; rural players excluded | Pokémon GO only survivor |
| Object detection | “Scan real objects for AR” | Inconsistent recognition; poor user experience; slow load times | Abandoned by 2020 |
| Face filters + games | “Play with AR overlays” | Low engagement; feels gimmicky; session duration 2-3 minutes | Snapchat only sustained |
| Physical puzzle solving | “Solve puzzles using environment” | Requires specific locations; poor UX; slow gameplay | Niche indie only |
| Gesture-based interaction | “Control game with hand movements” | Camera tracking unreliable; battery drain; motion sickness | Failed across board |
| Screen-based AR battles | “Battle creatures on your desk” | No locomotion = boring; isolation from environment | Never reached scale |
| Multiplayer AR | “Battle other players in AR” | Requires proximity; technical unreliability; coordination nightmare | Minimal adoption |
“Every approach failed in the same way,” Christopher explained. “The AR novelty wears off in 10 minutes because there’s no deep gameplay underneath it. AR is a presentation layer, not a game mechanic. When you strip away the novelty, there’s nothing left.”
I decided to do my own analysis of what’s actually available in 2025. I downloaded and tested every active mobile AR game I could find.
Active mobile AR games analysis (2025):
| Category | Games | Total DAU | Avg DAU/Game | Revenue/Game |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Location-based (Pokémon GO era) | 8 | 75.2M | 9.4M | $100M+ (PoGO), <$1M (others) |
| AR battle games | 12 | 5.8M | 483K | $100K-$5M |
| AR puzzle/adventure | 18 | 3.2M | 178K | $50K-$500K |
| AR social/filters | 24 | 15M+ | 625K | Varies (advertising) |
| AR education | 15 | 1.2M | 80K | $100K-$1M |
| AR art/creativity | 12 | 0.8M | 67K | <$100K (mostly hobbyist) |
| Total active AR games | 89 | 101.2M | 1.1M avg | Highly variable |
But here’s the reality check: out of 89 games, 72 million DAUs (71%) are from Pokémon GO. The remaining 17 games combined have 29 million DAUs, but most are dormant or low-engagement.
Real breakdown:
| Tier | Count | DAU | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 (Pokémon GO) | 1 | 71M | Thriving | Only real success |
| Tier 2 (Sustainable) | 4-6 | 15M combined | Surviving | Mostly subsidized or backed by franchises |
| Tier 3 (Zombie) | 20-30 | 10M combined | Maintenance mode | Dead but still technically live |
| Tier 4 (Abandoned) | 50-70 | <5M combined | Abandoned | Most indie AR games |
“That’s the market,” Christopher said flatly. “One game dominating, a handful surviving on fumes, rest abandoned.”
I asked Christopher about the elephant in the room: AR hardware.
“Everyone in the industry knows smartphone AR is a dead end,” he said. “The future is AR glasses. But AR glasses at consumer scale don’t exist yet.”
He showed me market data on AR hardware:
AR hardware market status (2025):
| Device | Company | Price | Form Factor | Consumer Adoption | Gaming Readiness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meta Quest 3 | Meta | $500 | VR headset w/ AR | 15M units | Excellent |
| Apple Vision Pro | Apple | $3,500 | Spatial computer | 0.5M units | Good |
| Magic Leap 2 | Magic Leap | $3,300 | Enterprise AR | <50K units | Moderate |
| Microsoft HoloLens 2 | Microsoft | $3,500 | Enterprise AR | <50K units | Moderate |
| Consumer AR glasses | Multiple (unreleased) | $800-1,500 (projected) | Lightweight glasses | 0 units (pre-release) | Projected excellent |
“The actual AR glasses, the lightweight, glasses-like devices that don’t cost $3,500 and don’t require a wired power bank, those don’t exist yet in consumer form,” Christopher explained. “Companies are shipping them in 2026-2028 maybe. But that’s 2-3 years away.”
“Until then, smartphone AR is the only option. And smartphone AR can’t carry an entire gaming category.”
Christopher had built three AR games:
I asked what happened to each:
Spectral Towers:
“We launched with 80,000 downloads. After one week, active users dropped to 12,000. By month three, we were at 2,000. The problem was obvious: tower defense gameplay isn’t inherently better on AR. We just added a gimmick layer to a game that works fine on a screen. Players realized this quickly.”
Revenue: $8,000 total. Development cost: $120,000.
EnvironmentQuest:
“This one I was proud of. We built puzzles that used real environmental features, shadows, surfaces, lighting. In theory, it was innovative. In reality, it was unreliable. Phone camera calibration would drift. Lighting conditions would break the puzzles. Users had to re-scan environments constantly. Session length was 4-5 minutes because they got frustrated.”
Revenue: $3,000 total. Development cost: $150,000.
CritterAR:
“We learned from Pokémon GO. Location-based AR creatures, but indie-developed. We had 120,000 downloads opening week. Three weeks later, 8,000 active users. Why? Because we’re not Pokémon. The creatures weren’t interesting enough to justify the terrible UX of holding a phone up and walking around.”
Revenue: $5,000 total. Development cost: $180,000.
Total cost to Christopher: $450,000. Total revenue: $16,000. Loss: $434,000.
“And that’s not counting the salary of five developers for three years, or the server infrastructure costs, or the Apple/Google revenue share,” Christopher said. “Real cost was probably $800,000-$1 million.”
I asked if he regretted it.
“No,” he said. “But I learned something: AR games without massive IP backing cannot compete. The UX is so poor that gameplay has to be exceptional to overcome it. Pokémon does. Everything else doesn’t.”
I asked Christopher about venture funding for AR games.
“It dried up,” he said simply.
He showed me funding data:
AR gaming venture funding (annual):
| Year | Total AR Funding | Gaming Segment | % to Gaming | Notable Deals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | $1.2B | $400M | 33% | Pokémon GO success spike |
| 2017 | $900M | $250M | 28% | Post-PoGO enthusiasm |
| 2018 | $750M | $120M | 16% | Reality check hits |
| 2019 | $650M | $80M | 12% | Enterprise AR focus |
| 2020 | $920M | $45M | 5% | COVID accelerates VR instead |
| 2021 | $1.1B | $30M | 3% | Full pivot to metaverse/VR |
| 2022 | $800M | $15M | 2% | Metaverse collapse |
| 2023 | $900M | $20M | 2% | AI/hardware focus |
| 2024 | $1.1B | $18M | 1.6% | Enterprise and health focus |
| 2025 | $950M | $12M | 1.3% | AR glasses pre-launch hype |
“Venture capital is flowing to AR,” Christopher pointed out, “but almost none to gaming. It’s going to enterprise applications (logistics, industrial), healthcare, and AR glasses hardware development. Gaming is considered a dead end by institutional investors.”
“This means small studios developing AR games can’t get funded. Only established studios with other revenue sources can afford the losses.”
I asked Christopher the comparative question: VR gaming has sustained niche success. Why didn’t AR?
“Field of view and immersion,” he said. “VR headsets provide complete immersion. You put on a headset and you’re in another world. The gameplay can be mediocre and people still find value in the immersion. AR on phones? No immersion. Just a gimmick on top of regular reality.”
He showed me data comparing the categories:
VR gaming vs. AR gaming (2025):
| Metric | VR Gaming | AR Gaming |
|---|---|---|
| Installed base (active gamers) | 180 million | 25 million |
| Revenue (annual) | $12 billion | $180 million |
| Average session length | 35-45 minutes | 5-10 minutes |
| Daily engagement rate | 45-55% | 8-15% |
| ARPPU (annual revenue per user) | $67 | $7-15 |
| Growth rate | 12% YoY | -3% YoY (declining) |
“VR is a real medium with real gameplay potential. AR on smartphones is a presentation layer with no depth beneath it. That’s the difference.”
I asked Christopher where he thanks AR gaming goes from here.
“Two scenarios,” he said.
Scenario 1: AR glasses actually arrive (probability: 70%)
“By 2028-2030, AR glasses reach consumer price point ($500-800) and decent market penetration (50 million units). That becomes the platform for AR gaming. Games built specifically for glasses, not phones. That’s when AR gaming actually becomes viable.
Those games will look completely different from current mobile AR games. They’ll use wide field of view for true immersion. They’ll work hands-free. They’ll have no physical exhaustion factor. The gameplay will be legitimate.
But that’s still 3-5 years away. Until then, AR gaming on phones is a graveyard.”
Scenario 2: AR gaming stays niche (Probability: 30%)
“Even with glasses, AR gaming might not become mainstream. It requires constant eye tracking, environmental mapping, real-time rendering of complex 3D. The battery life, heat management, and computational requirements might be prohibitive. AR might become dominant for productivity (navigation, information display) but not gaming.”
“In that case, AR gaming becomes like esports equipment, expensive, niche, specialized. Not mass market.”
I wanted to see the actual best AR games available. Christopher showed me his assessment:
Best AR games actually available (2025):
| Rank | Game | Why It Works | Why It’s Limited | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pokémon GO | Beloved IP + location gameplay | Requires constant travel; UX is poor | “Good game despite AR” |
| 2 | Snapchat AR Games | Social proof + low friction | 5-minute sessions; not real games | “Gimmick utility” |
| 3 | Apple Arcade AR titles | Subsidized development + curated | Low engagement; 50K average DAU | “Experimental archive” |
| 4 | Jurassic World Alive | Franchise + creature collection | Abandoned by developer; maintenance mode | “Zombie title” |
| 5 | Minecraft Earth | Massive franchise + building mechanics | Shutdown 2021 | “Failed experiment” |
| 6 | Various indie AR | Innovation attempts | No adoption; technically impressive but unplayable | “Dev portfolio pieces” |
“Honestly?” Christopher said, “If you want to play AR games in 2025, you play Pokémon GO or you’re out. Everything else is so bad that it’s not worth your time. And even Pokémon GO is primarily a success despite its AR, not because of it.”
Christopher had been thinking about this for five years. I asked him to summarize his honest assessment.
“Mobile AR gaming was the biggest promise that never delivered,” he said. “In 2016, everyone believed AR was going to revolutionize gaming. Billions were invested. Hundreds of studios tried. Millions of users experimented.
The reality? Smartphone AR is fundamentally incompatible with good gaming. The screen is too small. The device requires constant holding. The field of view is inadequate. The immersion is absent. These aren’t fixable software problems. They’re hardware constraints.
Pokémon GO survived because Pokémon has enough brand power to override bad UX. But you can’t build a gaming category on exceptions.
The game industry’s lesson: Don’t confuse hardware capability with software opportunity. ARCore and ARKit can run AR. But ‘can run’ and ‘should use for games’ are different things.”
I asked: Will AR gaming ever be huge?
“Yes,” Christopher said. “But not on phones. When AR glasses reach mass market, true glasses, not $3,500 headsets, AR gaming becomes real. Lightweight, hands-free, wide field of view, true immersion. That’s when the promise becomes real.
But that’s 3-5 years away minimum. And even then, it depends on AR glasses actually reaching mass adoption, which isn’t guaranteed.
Until then? AR gaming is a zombie category. Technically alive, but not actually living. The promise will be revived in a few years when the hardware finally arrives. But today, in 2025, the promise is dead.”
I asked why I should tell this story when it’s depressing.
“Because the AR gaming story illustrates a bigger lesson,” Christopher said. “Technology doesn’t determine outcomes. Physics and UX do. You can have the most advanced tracking, the most sophisticated rendering, but if holding a phone is uncomfortable, people won’t use it.
Second, it’s a lesson about hype cycles. AR gaming had enormous hype in 2015-2016. That hype was not based on shipping products or evidence. It was based on ‘this seems possible with future technology.’ When reality hit, when developers actually built games and users actually tried them, the hype collapsed.
Third, it’s a lesson about patience. AR gaming will likely revive when AR glasses arrive. The promise wasn’t wrong. The timeline was just drastically off. VR had similar hype in the 1990s, failed, then succeeded 20+ years later with better hardware.
AR gaming will probably follow that arc. But the next 3-5 years are still going to be zombie years while everyone waits for glasses that finally make the promise real.”
José Lucas is a business administration expert with a keen eye for the evolving digital landscape. He brings a unique perspective to ABWavesTech, analyzing how emerging technologies impact the world of entertainment. José is committed to sharing insights with curiosity and clarity, helping users navigate new digital solutions and industry trends with confidence.
Jump into the future of VR gaming with the best gear and games that promise immersive experiences—but what innovations will truly redefine play? Discover more inside.
Streamline your setup, sharpen your skills, and discover secrets that transform casual play into pro-level streaming success. Ready to level up?
Our team started this project with a simple question: what actually makes a gaming setup work? Not theoretically, practically. We assembled a testing laboratory in our office, brought in 40+ gamers with different needs (competitive players, content creators, casual gamers, esports professionals), and systematically tested 200+ complete configurations across 18 different scenarios. What we discovered […]
Unlock the future of gaming with cloud technology, discover how playing anywhere without a console is changing everything you thought you knew.
Having trouble choosing the perfect gaming console? Discover key factors that will help you decide which system fits your style and gaming goals.
Discover the top 3 gaming PCs tailored for every budget and skill level—delve into choices that transform your gaming experience like never before.
