Innersloth co-founder warns indie devs of 'abysmal' publishing deals

Innersloth co-founder Forest Willard has reviewed publishing deals signed by fellow indie developers and says the market contains "truly abysmal deals for games that do not deserve that."

Willard, who also oversees the studio's Outersloth funding initiative, made the comments in an interview with Game Developer at the Seattle Loves Indies Creator Expo (SLICE) 2026. He attributed the judgment precisely: the deals exist, they are worsening, and developers keep signing them — sometimes repeatedly with the same publishers.

What did Willard actually say?

He drew a careful line between the two sides of each transaction. "I wouldn't ever blame anyone for taking that kind of deal," he said, acknowledging that for some developers, simply being able to make their dream game represents a level of success. "And to that end, I almost can't blame people for [offering] that kind of deal."

But he identified a second tier of outcome he wants for every developer: earning money after a game ships. "Some of these deals are not conducive for that," he said. "There's some really bad deals — I can definitely blame people for offering those."

Willard did not name specific publishers or terms. He did note that he has watched developers continue working with publishers even after accepting what he characterized as abusive terms. "They must be doing something incredible [because] it doesn't actually make sense to me," he said.

The situation agitates him enough that he has considered direct intervention — comparing his impulse to a hostage scenario where you ask someone to "blink twice." He has even contemplated a public offer: "hey, if you've got a deal from these publishers, let me know, I'll sign you instead." He stopped short of making it, aware that such a promise would invite a flood of requests from struggling studios.

Why can't Outersloth fix this?

Willard addressed the limits of his position earlier the same day in a fireside chat with fellow Among Us creator Marcus Bromander. The two entered development from financial security — Willard previously worked at Microsoft and saved money before going indie, calling himself a "self-induced nepo baby." Moderator Ty Taylor observed that the pair now provide that safety for other developers through Outersloth.

Willard corrected the scale of that claim. Outersloth can occasionally provide a safety net, he said, but it would "never be enough" for all indie developers. "It can't be. No one can ever be enough."

He tied the point directly back to the deal environment: "This is another reason why Outersloth will never be enough, right? If I did have limitless funds or a billion dollars, I would make that statement." The takeaway in plain words: rescuing individual developers does not repair the market producing bad contracts.

How does this compare to other publisher commentary?

Willard's position aligns with earlier remarks from Hooded Horse CEO Tim Bender on the Game Developer Podcast. Bender argued that exploitative terms violate the basic function of contracts.

"The reality is the best way for contracts to allocate risk is to have them borne by the part that can best absorb that risk," Bender said. "We're in a situation where so many publishers over the years have told devs 'look either you make lots and lots of money to get what you want or we will essentially take the scraps of most of what you make and you're just going to kind of have to wing it and muddle it from there.'"

Outersloth operates on the model Bender described: a funder with capital absorbing risk rather than extracting it from the studio. That is why, Willard's comments suggest, the arrival of each new developer-turned-publisher is welcomed by the industry — it adds a bidder to a market where the incumbents' terms keep sinking lower.

What changes for studios?

For developers weighing funding offers, the practical signal is concrete. Willard has personally reviewed the deals circulating in the market and reports that some terms make post-release profit structurally impossible. He declined to name offenders, so studios cannot simply check a blacklist — they must scrutinize revenue recoupment (the order in which a publisher recovers its investment before developers see income) and IP control themselves.

For the funding side, the message is that capital alone cannot correct the imbalance. Outersloth, by Willard's own description, is a partial and occasional counterweight. The dealmaking environment, in his assessment, may be worse than the public record shows — and no single fund, at any scale short of a billion dollars, intends to change that.

Whether more developer-led funds follow Outersloth's model, and whether any publisher is publicly named for the terms Willard describes, remains the signal to watch.