iWorld
Demand for telco OTT video & broadband; Netflix, Viu long way to go: MPA
MUMBAI: Media Partners Asia (MPA) yesterday launched the Asia Video Consumer Panel, a research report offering detailed insights into how consumers engage, use and interact with video content in emerging and mature markets, focusing on TV and digital video platforms, including key regional and local OTT video operators.
MPA, a leading independent consulting and research provider focused on Asia media & telecoms, offers a range of customized services to help drive business development, strategy & planning, M&A, new products & services and research.
The panel covers six Asian markets – Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand – with a 1,000 user panel size in each market, taking in millennial and older demos as well as skewing towards mobile in emerging markets such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand.
Commenting on the report’s key findings, MPA vice president Aravind Venugopal said: The importance of bundling with telecom and IP-based pay-TV operators to drive online video adoption is becoming critical, as illustrated by our survey. As we are still very much in the first innings of the SVOD online video cycle in most Asian markets, the journey for most platforms from building awareness to generating trial users, and then to finally converting them to regular users, is long and arduous.
In four of the markets surveyed – Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and Philippines – local players have taken the lead when it comes to building awareness and conversion, led by incumbent pay-TV and free TV operators, a number of which are reliant on local and Asian content, and in certain cases, sports. Global and pan regional SVOD services focused on providing international content, are fighting to take the lead, though conversion has been low in general. In terms of both awareness and conversion, Netflix and iflix both lead in selected markets with Viu also robust across most markets.
Some of the key highlights of the panel include:
Telco and pay-TV integration. The importance of bundling and OTT integration deals with telecom and pay-TV operators to drive adoption has emerged as key with most survey respondents indicating that they opted for OTT services via their telco or pay-TV operator. Netflix was an exception, with a high proportion of subscribers indicating that they opted for a direct sign up.
NPS in negative territory. Net Promoter Scores or NPS, which range from -100 to 100 and measure the willingness of customers to recommend a company’s products or services to others, were largely negative in most markets. The exception was Netflix, which received a positive score in four of the six surveyed markets, and also leads the NPS rankings in four of the six markets surveyed. Users in Indonesia, Singapore and Hong Kong tended to award negative NPS to almost all SVOD-based OTT video service providers. Users in Thailand, Malaysia and Philippines appeared to be more positive about OTT video service providers.
Key features. Feature sets that were most often highlighted as being essential to users was the ability to stream online video to TV, followed by the ability to download. These are also reflective of the type of content contained in the services, as well as the type and quality of broadband infrastructure available.
Content. The importance of day and date content, particularly Hollywood movies, was reflected in the survey with the genre coming out on top of the list of ‘must have’ genres for a premium SVOD service. This was closely followed by new Korean dramas, new Chinese dramas and new Hollywood series. Sports is also increasingly important.
UI /UX and lack of localization. A significant proportion of users indicated that they were unable to locate/find shows in the services – indicating either a lack of content, or limitations of the UI/UX – this, significantly, was highlighted as an issue even for Netflix. A numbers of respondents also indicated that the poor dubbing/subtitling of shows was a concern.
Pay-TV consumption. In two emerging Asian markets (Thailand, Indonesia) and in Hong Kong, the consumption of pay-TV is trending lower, with streaming/on-demand services accounting for a vast majority of content needs. In some instance (i.e. Hong Kong), the incumbent pay-TV operator (i.e. Now TV) is driving the legal consumption of streaming video services.
Piracy. There remains increasing prevalence of pirated STBs. On average, 5-10% of the surveyed base admitted to using a pirate STB to access pay-TV services.
Payment mechanisms. In the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia, the frequent topping up of prepaid credit balances is commonplace; on average, respondents topped up their services over three times a month. This provides insight on how much consumers are willing to pay for SVOD services and potentially supports the case for sachet pricing.
The Panel, conducted in partnership with BDRC Continental, covers six Asian markets (with a total sample size of 6,000 individuals), cutting across a broad range of demographics. The full findings from the second phase of this survey will be released in April 2017, providing readers with updated views, new data and additional metrics.
Gaming
India’s new online gaming rules take effect today, banning money games and creating a regulator
The rules, in force from today, separate e-sports from gambling and impose jail terms and stiff fines on violators
NEW DELHI: India’s online gaming sector woke up this morning to a new reality. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026, came into force today, May 1st, turning a year of legislative intent into enforceable law. The message from New Delhi is blunt: e-sports and social games are welcome; online money games are not.
The rules operationalise the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming (PROG) Act, passed by Parliament in August 2025. Together, they represent the most sweeping regulatory intervention India has made in its booming digital gaming market, one that generated Rs 23,200 crore in 2024 and is projected to grow at a compound annual rate of 11 per cent to reach Rs 31,600 crore by 2027. The stakes, in every sense, could not be higher.
A sector out of control
The urgency behind the legislation is not hard to find. An estimated 45 crore Indians have been affected by online money gaming platforms, with losses exceeding Rs 20,000 crore. Addiction, financial ruin, money laundering, and suicides have all been linked to the sector. Seventy-seven per cent of the market’s revenues came from transaction-based games, a figure that made regulators deeply uneasy.
The government’s response, effective as of today, is categorical. Online money games, whether based on chance, skill, or any mix of the two, are banned outright. So is their advertising, promotion, and facilitation. Banks and payment processors are barred from handling related transactions. Unlawful platforms can be blocked under the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
The penalties are designed to sting. Offering or facilitating online money games can attract up to three years in jail and a fine of up to Rs 1 crore, or both. Repeat offenders face a minimum of three years, extendable to five, with fines between Rs 1 crore and Rs 2 crore. Advertising such games carries up to two years in prison and fines of up to Rs 50 lakh, with repeat violations attracting higher penalties still. Cyber cell officers at state and union territory levels, including at police station, district, and commissionerate levels, are empowered to investigate offences.
The new sheriff in town
At the centre of the new framework sits the Online Gaming Authority of India, a digital-first regulator constituted as an attached office of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, headquartered in Delhi. It is chaired by the additional secretary of MeitY and includes joint secretary-level representation from home affairs, finance, information and broadcasting, youth affairs and sports, and law and justice, a deliberately multi-sectoral design built for a complex sector.
The authority’s powers are broad. It will maintain and publish lists of online money games, investigate complaints, issue directions, orders, and codes of practice, hear appeals on user grievances, and coordinate with financial institutions and law enforcement to ensure effective and timely action.
Its decisions on game classification are to be completed within 90 days, a time-bound commitment that industry players have welcomed after years of regulatory ambiguity. Classification can be triggered by the authority acting on its own initiative, by an application from a service provider, or by a notification from the central government. Games will be assessed on objective factors: whether stakes are involved, whether players expect monetary winnings, the revenue model, and whether in-game assets can be monetised outside the game. The outcome is recorded in a determination order specific to the game and provider.
E-sports gets its moment
While the crackdown on money gaming dominates today’s headlines, the rules also carve out a structured path for e-sports and online social games. Registration, required when notified by the central government, applies to all games offered as e-sports and is based on factors including risk to users, scale, financial transactions, and country of origin. A successful application yields a digital certificate of registration with a unique number, valid for up to ten years. Service providers must display registration details, designate a point of contact, comply with data retention requirements, and follow directions on facilitating payments.
Online money games are explicitly ineligible for recognition or registration as e-sports under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. The separation is deliberate, and the industry has noticed.
Akshat Rathee, co-founder and managing director of NODWIN Gaming, called today’s operationalisation “encouraging,” pointing to publisher-led registration of esports titles and a time-bound determination process as creating “much-needed certainty for all stakeholders.” He added that the “continued emphasis on clearly separating esports from online money gaming is critical in preserving the integrity of competitive gaming as a skill-driven discipline.” He described it as “a proud moment to see official acknowledgement of the broader benefits of responsible esports and gaming, from building confidence, discipline, and teamwork to creating new career pathways for young talent,” and said the framework sets “a strong foundation for the ecosystem to scale in a more structured and globally competitive manner.”
Animesh Agarwal, co-founder and chief executive of S8UL, was equally bullish. “This clarity is critical in unlocking investor confidence and attracting multi-genre brands, while also enabling organisations to take a more long-term view, whether in investing in talent, scaling teams, or building globally competitive formats,” he said, adding that it “strengthens trust among audiences and mainstream stakeholders, positioning esports not just as a sport, but as a fast-growing youth entertainment category in India.”
But Agarwal urged caution on several fronts. There remains limited clarity around financial frameworks, particularly in how esports earnings are treated by banks and financial institutions. A well-defined pathway for the formal recognition or registration of esports teams is still evolving, as are structured player protections. He also called for smoother visa processes for esports athletes competing in international tournaments and for government support in developing infrastructure, including bootcamps, training facilities, and access to high-performance equipment across titles.
Vishal Parekh, chief operating officer of CyberPowerPC India, pointed to downstream effects on education and careers. “With formal recognition and policy backing, colleges and institutions are more likely to take the sector seriously, whether through dedicated esports infrastructure, training programmes, or curriculum integration,” he said, adding that this helps students view gaming as a viable career spanning roles across competitive play, content, game development, and allied industries. He noted that as esports gains prominence in global multi-sport events, the framework strengthens India’s position in international competitive gaming, and called on the ecosystem to provide the right infrastructure and access to high-performance hardware to unlock opportunities in talent development and job creation.
Protecting users, one safeguard at a time
The rules introduce a layered system of user protections calibrated to the risk profile of each game. These include age verification, age gating, time restrictions, parental controls, user reporting tools, counselling support, and fair-play and integrity monitoring. Service providers must disclose their safety features and internal grievance mechanisms when applying for determination or registration.
A two-tier grievance redressal system sits atop these safeguards. Users who are dissatisfied with a platform’s resolution can escalate to the authority within 30 days. The authority aims to dispose of such appeals within a further 30 days. A second appeal lies before the secretary of MeitY, who must also endeavour to resolve matters within 30 days. Enforcement proceedings will be conducted in digital mode wherever possible, with cases targeted for resolution within 90 days from receipt of a complaint.
Penalties under the framework are proportionate, taking into account gain from non-compliance, loss to users, the gravity of the offence, and whether violations are recurring. Mitigation efforts by service providers will also be considered when determining penalties. All penalties imposed under the Act will be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India.
The money follows the rules
For investors and founders, the implications are immediate and significant. Sagar Nair, head of incubation at LVL Zero Incubator, a 100-day sprint designed to accelerate early-stage gaming startups across India, argues that with real-money gaming now prohibited, capital will shift “away from transaction-driven models toward content-led, IP-driven, and global-first gaming businesses.” He acknowledged trade-offs: for operators with exposure to real-money formats, the market becomes more restrictive in the near term. But he argued that by clearly separating esports and non-money gaming from online money gaming, “India is positioning itself as a hub for responsible, creative, and scalable game development.” The opportunity, he said, is “to view India not just as a monetisation-first market, but as a talent, IP, and scale market,” adding that “for founders and investors willing to adapt, this shift could ultimately strengthen India’s position in the global gaming landscape.”
The government frames the wider impact in equally ambitious terms: a boost to India’s creative economy and digital exports, new career pathways for young people, protection for families from predatory platforms, and a stronger voice in global digital governance. India, it argues, offers a model for other countries grappling with the same tensions between gaming’s economic promise and its social risks, one that shows innovation and strong safeguards need not be mutually exclusive.
Whether the framework delivers on those promises will depend on enforcement, always the hardest part. But from today, the architecture is firmly in place: a regulator with teeth, a classification system with deadlines, penalties designed to deter, and a clear dividing line between games that build careers and games that destroy finances. For a sector that has grown fast and governed itself loosely, May 1st, 2026 is the day the free ride ends.
