adminSelf-publishing has allowed Inkle to make games on its own terms, according to co-founder Jon Ingold. The studio behind A Highland Song, Expelled and TR-49 has continued to publish its own work even after hits such as 80 Days and Heaven’s Vault. Ingold’s view is not that publishers have nothing to offer, but that their support must be weighed against the creative control, flexibility and financial risks of a deal.
Why Inkle chose self-publishing
Inkle’s independent approach began out of necessity: the studio’s work had not found a publisher, so self-publishing became a practical way to get projects finished and released. Ingold says that handling more of the process internally also gives the team control over its development pipeline. Technical support can be useful, but learning those skills in-house can reduce the need to outsource them.
Publishers may offer distribution, industry connections and greater visibility. Ingold acknowledges that a publisher can bring an existing audience and attention that a small studio may struggle to generate alone. However, the size of that benefit is difficult to predict, and relying on a publisher’s reach does not guarantee that a game will find success.
Funding is another possible advantage. Inkle has considered features it has not pursued because they require substantial upfront investment. Localization is one example: translating a word-heavy game can be expensive, and there is no certainty that the cost will be recovered through later sales. A publisher could potentially fund that work, making it a trade-off worth evaluating for an appropriate project.
Creative freedom and control
For Inkle, the central benefit of self-publishing is being able to make decisions about its games independently. The studio can pursue unusual ideas without adapting every project to established genre expectations or outside preferences. It can also revise a project when an approach is not working, which Ingold sees as important to improving the finished game.
That flexibility extends to a game’s size and price. Inkle can shape a project around its own resources and choose how to position it for players. TR-49 launched earlier this year for $6.99, a lower price than many of the studio’s previous games. Ingold said the experiment worked well and that the game sold many copies. Independent control also means Inkle can make decisions about its intellectual property, including whether to consider opportunities such as an Overboard television adaptation.
Image credit: Inkle Studios
The power imbalance in publishing deals
Ingold is concerned that a publisher’s priorities may not match a developer’s plans. A publisher might seek a larger game, expect it to follow familiar genre conventions or request changes before considering a deal. He also criticizes the expectation that developers present a vertical slice: creating a substantial sample without funding can take time and money, while the publisher’s decision may come months later and could require further revisions.
In his view, pitching to a single company can leave a developer with little influence over the process. A publisher can delay a decision, request changes or pass on a project, leaving the studio without a release or income during that period. Selling directly to players is also competitive, but a game is available to a much wider audience rather than depending on one organization’s approval.
Speed matters as well. Publishers may take a long time to decide because they are committing significant funds. For a small developer, waiting through a lengthy evaluation and then receiving a rejection can create serious uncertainty. A self-publishing plan can help a studio avoid relying entirely on that outcome.
Keeping projects sustainable
Inkle is a small studio with two founders and one employee. Ingold said the team had made about 15 games in 15 years. Some titles have attracted substantial attention, while others have not, but managing costs has helped the studio continue working.
The team aims to set a project’s scope according to the budget it is prepared to spend. After a successful game, it may take on a larger project; after a weaker result, it can scale back. During the development of 80 Days, which took nine months to build, the team tracked how much money remained and how long it could continue operating. That financial check influenced decisions near the end of development.
Inkle’s back catalogue also provides recurring income, giving the studio a degree of stability that a new developer may not have. Ingold recognizes that this makes his experience difficult to apply universally: the studio began with savings and income from his part-time teaching work, and its first game did not earn back its budget. Developers considering self-publishing should therefore assess available funds, expected costs and how long they can operate without new revenue.
Sales of Expelled from 2025 were lower than expected, and Inkle followed it with the smaller TR-49.
When a publisher may be worth considering
Ingold still weighs publishing offers against the needs of each project. If a developer does not need a publisher’s financing, marketing may be its strongest reason to consider a deal. Yet it is hard to separate the effect of marketing from a game’s quality, timing or the personal connections that help it reach media and players.
Ingold believes some publishers are particularly effective at marketing narrative games and reaching the audiences for them. He points to Blue Prince, developed by Tonda Ros, as an example of a game that had been intended for self-publication before a deal with Raw Fury helped it reach a larger audience. Image credit: Dogubomb
His advice is to understand what a publisher can specifically contribute, rather than treating a deal as a guaranteed solution. Developers can prepare a self-publishing plan and then compare it with a potential offer, considering the marketing support, funding and distribution against the costs, obligations and control they would give up.
What self-publishing means for independent developers
Inkle’s experience shows that self-publishing can provide creative independence, faster decision-making and direct control over a game’s scope, price and intellectual property. It also brings responsibility for budgets, production and reaching players, and it may limit costly options such as localization. A publisher can add financing and marketing reach, but those benefits vary by project and are not automatic. For developers, the practical choice is to compare what each path offers, plan for the risks and decide which arrangement best supports the game they want to make.
