Platform Wars: What Video Game Consoles Can Teach Us About Motorsports Regulations In the WEC and WRC
Video games and motorsports have long shared a cultural connection, most visibly through the rise of sim racing. But the overlap runs deeper than fans or aesthetics.
Underneath both lies a common economic engine: platform strategy.
This post explores how racing series, like video game consoles, operate as multi-sided platforms. Their success depends not just on spectacle, but on attracting and retaining developers; in gaming, that means studios; in motorsports, it means manufacturers and elite teams.
Framed this way, it becomes clear why the WEC is expanding while the WRC is losing ground, and it also provides a repeatable framework on which to base future regulations changes.
What are “platform economics”?
A platform connects two or more interdependent groups, typically producers (sellers) and consumers (buyers). Think Airbnb, Amazon, or eBay.
These aren’t just products, they’re ecosystems.
Among all business models, platforms are uniquely powerful. Once critical mass is achieved, they generate value by facilitating interactions: sellers find buyers, buyers get what they need, and the platform takes a cut.
But getting started is hard. The central challenge: do you pursue supply or demand first?
In gaming, history has shown that high-quality games drive success right out of the gate, so you have to make a console that’s initially very attractive to producers.
Want More Insights Like This?
Subscribe to Return On Racing — the weekly newsletter from Vaucher Analytics covering actionable motorsports strategy, cost breakdowns, and sponsor intel.
In less than 500 words.
The video game console as a platform
Consoles like PlayStation and Xbox don’t just sell hardware, they connect:
Developers, who create games and want to sell them via the console platform
Players, who buy and play them via that same platform
Publishers, accessory makers, and service providers, who add value to the ecosystem
While all sides matter, the platform lives or dies by its developers.
No games = no players = no platform.
Sony’s original PlayStation (PSX) proved this. It wasn’t the most powerful console of its generation on paper, but it provided advantages over established incumbents Major studios backed it early, its content library exploded, and the PlayStation brand is now a global powerhouse.
What attracts developers?
To win over developers, a console must compete on the following dimensions:
Technical accessibility – Low barriers to entry
Revenue share & economics – Clear monetization and cost control
Platform roadmap & longevity – Predictable rules and long-term stability
Support & relationship management – Strong developer support and communication
Marketing & co-promotion – Visibility and platform-driven promotion
Policy flexibility & control – Freedom to create without sudden rule changes
Now swap “developers” for manufacturers (or just “motorsports teams” generally), and you’ll see exactly what motorsports series must deliver to thrive. The table below makes this crossover clear.
| Dimension | Gaming Console (Developers) | Motorsport Series (Manufacturers) |
|---|---|---|
| Technical accessibility | Easy-to-use SDKs, engine compatibility, development kit availability | Clear regulations, predictable homologation, transparent BOP, low entry complexity |
| Revenue share & economics | Fair platform cut, monetization tools (DLCs, subs), dev funding | Manageable budgets, cost caps, ROI from brand visibility and sponsor access |
| Audience reach & discoverability | Large player base, good store placement, organic discovery tools | Global fanbase, strong media reach, guaranteed coverage and storytelling opportunities |
| Platform roadmap & longevity | Transparent upgrade cycles, long-term hardware support, cloud/hybrid future | Stable ruleset, tech roadmaps (e.g., hybrid/EV transitions), long-term commitment from series |
| Support & relationship management | Developer relations teams, priority support, community feedback loops | OEM liaison teams, regular technical dialogue, collaborative rule development |
| Marketing & co-promotion | Spotlight in showcases (e.g., E3), inclusion in bundles, platform-driven promo | Series-led marketing campaigns, docuseries, media support, fan activation tied to manufacturers |
| Policy flexibility & control | Creative freedom, fewer restrictions on content, modding tools | Brand autonomy, technical experimentation, freedom in livery/sponsorship presentation |
Like consoles, motorsport series must offer a compelling environment for their “developers”, the manufacturers and teams that bring the show to life.
In the console world, platform owners want to secure exclusive titles to entice players to buy their console, and this can be the reality in racing as well, with major brands often wanting or needing to prioritize among several motorsports options. And just like Sony and Microsoft fought to win over developers, the WEC and WRC are competing for factory support.
The next table shows why one is winning, and the other is losing relevance.
| Platform Success Metric | WEC (LMP1 → Hypercar) | WRC (World Rally Car → Rally1) |
|---|---|---|
| Technical accessibility | Two entry pathways (LMH & LMDh), modular rules, privateer-friendly structure | Mandatory hybrid originally; high cost and complexity |
| Revenue share & economics | Targeted cost reduction, BoP limits spending escalation, spec components | Hybrid system adds cost, no BoP, privateer teams run with fewer means |
| Audience reach & discoverability | Le Mans anchor, global calendar, high visibility, compelling Hypercar narrative | Rallies kept behind streaming service, weaker storytelling, branding lacks public impact |
| Platform roadmap & longevity | Ruleset through 2032, planned evolution with OEM buy-in and tech clarity | Constant strategic uncertainty (hybrid rollback rumors, Hyundai exit threats) |
| Support & relationship management | Close collaboration with OEMs, ACO/FIA co-developed rules with manufacturer input | OEMs publicly frustrated by poor communication and unilateral FIA decision-making |
| Marketing & co-promotion | “Hypercar” as halo label, strong OEM synergy with road car programs | Road-car tie-in not fully emphasized to the public, rallying not popular in the US (a large potential market) |
| Policy flexibility & control | BoP in place for competitive parity, innovation within clear limits, flexibility across chassis types | Rally teams have expressed frustration over rule changes, give the impression their desires aren't always immediately considered |
Final thoughts: Time to build on the platform
The histories of the WRC and WEC have unfolded almost counter-cyclically.
When LMP1 costs spiraled out of control, the WRC thrived under the World Rally Car formula: factory teams, public engagement, and tight racing.
But as the WEC took decisive action to reset its platform, launching Hypercar to lower costs and welcome new manufacturers (as well as allow for cross-compatibility, ,another video game analogy, with IMSA) the WRC veered off course.
Instead of continuing down a path which saw now-legendary cars take to the special stages, the WRC seemingly pursued an internal agenda: hybridization at all costs.
The result?
Higher spending, lower participation, and a fading connection to fans and road car programs, even when rally should absolutely be seen as the most direct proving-ground for displaying reliability and performance to end-consumers.. The fact that hybrids were made optional in 2025, just three years into Rally1, speaks volumes: there is no longer a coherent regulatory vision.
Going forward, the FIA must recognize that its championships are platforms first, sporting contests second. That means rulebooks should not just reflect technical ambitions, they must serve first and foremost the strategic purpose of attracting and retaining contributors.
Motorsport needs a framework of unifying principles, not fragmented experiments.
Whether it’s the WRC, the WEC or any other motorsport series, each should be guided by shared pillars: accessibility, economic sustainability, long-term commitment, and a clear value proposition for manufacturers, ensuring that future regulations changes build on previous momentum and maximize the shared gains for all parties involved.
Photo credit: Martin Katler via Unsplash