Innersloth co-founder warns indie developers about predatory deals

Innersloth co-founder and programmer Forest Willard stated that a notable share of the publishing contracts independent developers sign today leaves studios no chance of earning money on their own game. He looked through a number of such contracts and described what he saw bluntly: "there are some truly monstrous deals for games that don't deserve it".

Willard runs Outersloth — the fund through which the studio invests in other people's indie projects. The conversation took place at the Seattle Loves Indies Creator Expo (SLICE) 2026 festival; the developer did not name specific examples or publishers.

He doesn't blame the developers — he blames those who offer such terms

Willard separated the two sides of the deal. The author who agrees to bad terms he defends: for many, the very fact that they managed to make their dream game already counts as success. "I would never blame a person for a deal like that", he said.

But there is a second level of success, which he "wishes and wants for everyone": to receive money after release. "Some of these deals don't lead to that, — Willard noted. — There are really bad contracts, and for offering them I certainly can place blame".

"Blink twice if you're being held hostage"

Separately, Willard is surprised that some teams keep working with the same publishers after predatory terms. "They must be doing something incredible, because I just don't understand it", he said.

The situation irritates him enough that he thought about speaking out openly against the practice. He picked a harsh comparison: it resembles a hostage situation, where a person is asked to blink twice if they can't speak freely.

Why he never did invite all the affected developers over

At the same venue Willard took part, together with Among Us co-creator Marcus Bromander, in a talk hosted by Ty Taylor. The moderator noted that through Outersloth the studio gives other developers that very safety cushion. Willard clarified: only sometimes and far from everyone. "It will never be enough. It doesn't work that way. No one is ever enough for everyone", he said.

He admitted he had considered a public offer: if you were sent a contract from such-and-such publishers, write to me, I'll sign you instead of them. He spoke about it cautiously: a promise like that would turn into a flood of requests from cornered teams, and helping individual studios doesn't change the terms on the market itself. "If I had unlimited funds or a billion dollars, I would make a statement like that", Willard added.

He describes his own starting position as privileged: before indie development he worked at Microsoft and saved money precisely in order to move into independent projects. He called himself a person who provided that starting capital for himself.

What the argument is really about: who bears the risk

Willard's words echo what Hooded Horse head Tim Bender said earlier on the Game Developer podcast. By his logic, a correct contract distributes risk so that it is borne by the participant capable of withstanding it. Instead, according to Bender, publishers for years put developers before a choice: either the game brings in a great deal of money, or the publisher takes almost everything it earns and the studio has to manage on its own.

It is exactly this imbalance that Willard describes from the position of a person who now offers terms himself. Funds like Outersloth behave like the side capable of taking the risk upon itself — and against the backdrop of the rest of the offers, that looks like an exception.

Why developers themselves are increasingly becoming investors

Willard's statement should be read as a symptom of a broader process. Over recent years several studios that broke out with a single game, instead of putting all their profit only into their own projects, have started financing other people's. Such funds come to the market with a developer's experience rather than a financier's, and for the first time encounter terminology, negotiations and contract edits from the position of the one who pays. Judging by their reaction, what they see diverges from what the industry says about itself publicly.

This is probably connected to the fact that raising outside money for an independent project has become harder, which means the terms are dictated by whoever has it. The appearance of new funds from among former indies corrects the balance slightly: competition for good projects grows, and the developer has something to compare the contract they received against. But the volumes of such funds are incomparable with the market's need, which is what Willard emphasises.

If the trend holds, a notable effect will be the publicity of terms: the more experienced developers on both sides of the table start calling bad deals bad out loud, the harder it will be to offer them as an industry standard. For now, the state of affairs with contracts in independent development looks worse than it is customary to assume from the outside.

Will this force publishers to rewrite their terms, or will indies keep signing such contracts?