오락동 — casual game portal inside the Toss app

Context

오락동 is a 12-minigame portal that runs inside the Toss app, fixed 5 issues before review by checking against 8 past rejections, and serves 4 platforms — web, Android, iOS and Toss — from a single codebase. 오락동, a minigame portal inside the Toss app, operates as our own service for users automatically signed in through Toss. It must pass Toss review requirements, including a terms-consent gate, payment product policies, back-button handling, and advertising policies. In particular, Toss does not support subscription product registration.

Problem

The same games must be deployed to the web, Android, iOS, and Toss, making maintenance impractical if the codebases diverge. Our previous app, 브리핀, had 8 rejections during Toss review, so proactive measures were essential to avoid repeating those failures.

What we did

Built for 4 platforms from a single monorepo using pnpm workspaces and Turborepo.
Turned 브리핀's rejection history into a checklist and proactively fixed 5 issues before applying for review.
Designed ad removal as a 30-day consumable pass instead of a subscription to comply with Toss policy.
Connected 12 games through a single coin economy, with a structure for earning 1 coin per game.
Automated review packaging with a skill, reducing the time required to approximately 2~3 hours.

Results

Metric	Value	Notes
Minigame lineup	12 games	Active lineup
Pre-review fixes	5 issues	Checked against 8 past rejections
Platform coverage	4 platforms	Web · Android · iOS · Toss, a single codebase
Open-source porting tests	3 ports passed	vitest 60 · 37 · 42 passed
Review packaging automation	Approximately 2~3 hours	From build to sandbox testing

Timeline · Scale · Stack

Timeline: Google Play release track in 2026-06 → Toss review application in 2026-07
Scale: 12 games, 4 platforms
Stack: React · TypeScript · Vite · Canvas/PixiJS · Zustand · Fastify · PostgreSQL · Capacitor

What this case shows

In the Apps-in-Toss environment, passing review is a greater hurdle than game development. Turning rejection history into a checklist and fixing issues proactively is the most cost-effective way to pass.