The Indie Publishing Debate: Are Most Publishers Predatory, and What Are the Alternatives?

The relationship between indie developer and publisher has long been framed as a necessary symbiosis. The creator brings the vision; the publisher brings the resources, reach, and market savvy to make it a reality. But what if that foundational pact is, for many, fundamentally broken? That’s the incendiary claim now forcing the industry to look in the mirror, coming from an unlikely source: a publisher himself.

In late January 2026, Tim Bender, CEO of Hooded Horse—the publisher behind breakouts like Manor Lords and Against the Storm—launched a direct critique into the heart of his own sector. He publicly stated that the majority of indie game publishers are "predatory and opportunistic," and that most developers should avoid them entirely. Coming from the head of a notably successful publishing outfit, this is a damning indictment from within. It raises a pivotal question for every solo dev and small studio: is seeking a publisher a step toward success, or a potential trap? And if the traditional gatekeepers are failing, what paths to players truly remain?

The "Predatory" Accusation: Dissecting the Common Publisher Model

Bender’s critique zeroes in on a specific, pervasive business model he sees as exploitative. He describes a "spray and pray" approach where a publisher signs a large portfolio of games with relatively small, upfront advances. The publisher’s continued support—funding for marketing, additional development, or porting—is then contingent on the game hitting certain commercial metrics or wishlist targets shortly after announcement or during early access.

The consequence for developers is a brutal catch-22. If your game doesn’t achieve that early "success" signal in the publisher’s eyes, you are often functionally abandoned. You remain bound by a contract that likely grants the publisher a significant share of revenues, but you receive no further investment or active promotion to help you reach those targets. The developer is left with their passion project, an unfavorable deal, and the immense challenge of finishing and marketing the game alone. Bender frames this not as sharp business, but as predation on the indie dream, where a creator’s artistic drive is leveraged against them by a partner focused solely on a spreadsheet’s bottom line.

The Self-Publishing Revolution: Tools and Success Stories

If publishers are to be avoided, what’s the alternative? Bender’s answer is unequivocal: self-publishing is a "very viable" path. He argues that developers, who know their game intimately, are often best positioned to ship it directly to their audience. This counters a long-held industry axiom that a developer cannot also be an effective marketer and distributor.

Crucially, Bender doesn’t just issue a rallying cry; he points to the arsenal now available. He recommends key resources that demystify the process:

• GameDiscoverCo (by Simon Carless): A newsletter and platform offering deep-dive analytics on what’s succeeding on stores like Steam and why.
• "How to Market a Game" (by Chris Zukowski): A foundational guide and community focused on practical, actionable marketing strategies for indies.
• Gamalytic: A tool for analyzing Steam market data, competitor performance, and tag strategies.

This self-publishing advocacy is validated by some of the industry’s most staggering success stories. Poncle, the one-person studio behind the genre-defining Vampire Survivors, handled its own publishing. Similarly, Pocketpair, the developer of the global phenomenon Palworld, created its own publishing arm. These studios bypassed traditional publishers entirely, retained full creative and financial control, and reaped historic rewards—proving the model’s potential at the highest levels.

Hooded Horse: Positioning as the Ethical Alternative

Having condemned the mainstream model, Bender naturally positions Hooded Horse as the principled exception. Their approach is defined by selectivity and partnership. They focus narrowly on specific genres they understand deeply, like strategy and simulation (Manor Lords, Terra Invicta), and enter into fewer, more committed deals. The stated goal is long-term support, treating the developer as a true partner rather than a lottery ticket.

This ethical stance extends beyond contract terms into one of the industry’s most contentious modern debates: generative AI. Hooded Horse has a strict, separate company policy of refusing to work with any developer that uses generative AI tools, even for placeholders. Their concern is that AI-generated assets could inadvertently slip into the final game build, creating a legal and ethical morass. This policy frames creative integrity and clear asset ownership as non-negotiable pillars of their publishing philosophy.

A New Litmus Test: AI Policy as a Partnership Signal

The AI debate, highlighted by Hooded Horse’s stance, is no longer a tangential issue but a new factor in assessing publisher alignment. For a developer, a publisher's policy on AI tools can serve as a clear signal of their broader values and risk tolerance. The industry stance is fractured:

• Nexon’s CEO has stated he assumes every company is using AI.
• Sega faces reported internal resistance from developers against its proposed AI policies.
• Embark Studios (The Finals) uses AI for some voice lines but emphasizes it is not used to replace people.

For indies, especially those considering self-publishing, navigating this terrain is fraught with risk. Two critical frameworks dictate the practical reality:

1. The US Copyright Office ruled in early 2025 that AI-generated art without sufficient human "creativity" is not protected by copyright, leaving such assets legally vulnerable.
2. Steam requires developers to disclose AI use in their games, which results in a public tag on the store page—a potential reputational and commercial risk in a community wary of AI’s implications.

Therefore, a publisher's AI policy—whether restrictive like Hooded Horse's or permissive—now acts as a tangible litmus test for the kind of partnership on offer, directly tying back to the core themes of ethics, control, and shared vision.

Tim Bender’s provocative statements serve as a vital clarification of power dynamics and a stark warning about common pitfalls. The modern indie scene presents a clearer strategic choice than ever before. The path forward demands rigorous due diligence. Before signing any contract, developers must audit not just the deal terms, but the publisher's track record of support for underperforming titles. Simultaneously, they should explore the self-publishing toolkit—not as a fallback, but as a viable primary strategy.

The ultimate takeaway is empowerment through informed choice. The power dynamic has shifted; the most successful indie developers will be those who approach publishing not as a plea for salvation, but as a strategic business decision made from a position of knowledge and optionality.

Tags: Indie Games, Game Development, Video Game Publishing, Self-Publishing, Generative AI