> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.superjumpmagazine.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # State of Indie 2026 Part 3: Finance and Tech - URL: https://www.superjumpmagazine.com/state-of-indie-2026-part-3-finance-and-tech/ - Published: 2026-10-05T14:00:39.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-05T16:57:42.000Z - Description: Paying for the games - Author: Andrew Johnston - Tags: The State of Indie Games, Feature, Game Development, Indie Games, Finance, Publishing, AI, Artificial Intelligence, Unity **There's no small amount of romanticism attached to independent media.** In a world run by corporate giants, it's nice to imagine the little guy using hard work and creativity to defeat money and power. That certainly applies to game development, where we occasionally get to see a janky, weird-looking game made by absolute nobodies outperform slick but boring titles. Still, this is far from the typical experience. Most developers are desperate for the resources that might enable them to compete on a level with those slickly produced games. With publishers taking on fewer games or dropping off the map altogether, those opportunities are few. "Most smaller publishers don't fund the production of games anymore," says Johannes Grünewald of Slime King Games, developer of [Under the Island](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1583520/Under%5FThe%5FIsland/). "In recent years, funding fell more and more into the hands of the teams themselves. But depending on where you live, there might be some additional funding opportunities. In Germany, for example, you have several governmental programs that can help you secure funding." Source: YouTube. As I mentioned last year, 3rd-party publishers have been cutting back their acquisitions. They take on fewer new games and offer less money to those that are selected. Consequently, a smaller number of games have publishers, and while that portion has been declining for a decade, there has been a particularly steep dip since 2023. The way it stands, if you're releasing your first game, [it's very hard to get any real money from publishers](https://howtomarketagame.com/2023/09/28/the-missing-middle-in-game-development/). Regardless of size, publishers are risk-averse. They want to fund projects that are not just going to succeed, but succeed at a level that makes it worth their time. That means sequels, known IPs, experienced developers, proven genres, and the kind of huge games that get media attention. Most developers and most games don't fit that mold. Yet there's this consistent hope that the money will come back one day. If it's not coming from publishers, where else might one find that precious funding? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/c0/e7/c0e78dd7-e7af-4603-8ab9-09f05cab06f3/content/images/2026/08/IndiePubs26a.png) Courtesy of the author. ## The Search for Venture Capital When I started doing State of Indie in 2021, it felt like we were heading into a new phase. Huge companies were pouring money into games to a degree we haven't seen since the very first boom in the late 70s. Beyond that, a lagoon of venture capital (VC) money awaited anyone who could assemble a decent pitch deck. But video games proved to be too much of a gamble, and that money promptly moved to safer industries. [In the last few years, VC has returned to video games – sort of](https://pitchbook.com/news/reports/q2-2026-gaming-vc-first-look). Unfortunately, small developers are unlikely to see a dime of that cash. The vast majority of VC money in video games is not going into the games themselves. For the first half of 2026, only 12% of capital went to development. The rest went to development tools – basically anything that could have the "AI" label attached to it. Investors are betting hard on automation to save the industry from exploding costs. Even when money does reach developers, it's not going to the indies. As with publishers, venture investors are seeing less merit in rolling the dice on small or even mid-tier companies. They'd much rather take a safe bet on a big project by an established company. In short, the capital from the 2020-era gaming boom is gone and unlikely to return anytime soon. Developers are getting by on less, which means shortening development cycles and using whatever means necessary to trim costs. ## Robot Assets and their Detractors I touched on a hot-button issue in that last section, one that we really need to investigate further. Remember when I said that machine-generated slop hasn't overwhelmed Steam? Let's look closer at that. It's true that the whole "push a button, make a game" thing never manifested (though "[push button, copy style](https://www.reddit.com/r/IndieDev/comments/1wfl64l/game%5Fwent%5Fviral%5Fon%5Fsocial%5Fmedia%5F3%5Fweeks%5Fago%5Fdev/)" is a problem for anyone who goes viral). Music streaming sites, video platforms, book self-publishing services, social media platforms, and blogs are all drowning in synthetic garbage. Video game sites have been spared – or, more precisely, spared the worst of it. There might not be 100% synthetic games, but games with machine-generated assets are a different matter, and this has to be the most controversial topic of the past few years. This has a heavy impact on small developers, especially those without much of a track record. We all know there are a decent number of people who will refuse to touch a game if it "looks AI," but how much might this affect a typical dev? ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/c0/e7/c0e78dd7-e7af-4603-8ab9-09f05cab06f3/content/images/2026/08/AiDisc26a.png) Courtesy of the author. Steam's disclosure statement has been a real flashpoint, and the [GameDiscoverCo survey shows the potential impact](https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/what-do-steam-fans-really-think-about). While only a small number of people report that they would outright refuse to buy a game with a disclosure, a much larger proportion (close to a third) say they at least consider it in their decision. The lack of a disclosure doesn't help much, though, as a majority of respondents also believe that at least some developers are lying to avoid the backlash. This leads the player base into conflict with many development teams. A survey in the recent Unity report suggests that a strong majority of developers use some "AI" tools. The most common applications are the less controversial ones, namely coding assistance, which many teams use. However, plenty of people report the use of automated tools to generate text (44%) and assets (35%). It's a tension that developers of all sizes are feeling. Do you use a tool that might save you time and money, even if you're risking a cultural backlash? Other automation tools are at least less likely to generate outrage, with 55% of people in the GameDiscoverCo survey believing that developers must disclose use of code assistance. A handful of angry commenters aside, most people don't care so long as they never see or hear any slop. "We mainly use new tools for research, checking localization, communication, and speeding up repetitive tasks," says Yasuhiro Nishiyama. "\[T\]he kind of work that used to require a much bigger team, now something a small team can handle. That said, I believe the final creative judgment should still be made by a person...Technology is there to buy us more time to think, not to replace that judgment." ## The Shrinking Production Cycle One reason why developers might embrace controversial tools is the need for efficiency. With individual games making less money, developers are trying to shorten how long it takes to make the next game. "The rising amount of releases, especially since AI-generated games started popping up, feels like the biggest hurdle in my opinion," says Kai from Code Peas, developer of [DrainSim](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2963800/DrainSim/). "A great idea has a lot of leverage; the ability to work on a project for years no longer seems to be as much of an advantage as it used to be." ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/c0/e7/c0e78dd7-e7af-4603-8ab9-09f05cab06f3/content/images/2026/08/DevTime26a.png) Courtesy of the author. This is a definite trend, one that's becoming ubiquitous in development circles. Game marketer Chris Zukowski has long advised developers to make smaller games, suggesting that they should [aim for a development cycle under nine months](https://howtomarketagame.com/2023/09/28/the-missing-middle-in-game-development/). That's pretty tight for most teams, but based on the Unity report, there are plenty of people aiming for it. A majority of respondents said that they are focusing on smaller games, with the median development time falling by 77% between January 2022 and December 2025. That's not the least bit surprising. In years past, I spoke to developers who were spending six or more years on their games, and I'm aware of others who've been working on the same title for a decade. That's long been a privilege of the indie dev – between low overhead and no investors to answer to, they can take all the time in the world. But with the market getting more crowded and competitive, those days are gone. Increasingly, victory goes to the most efficient developer. ## In Summary - Venture capital is returning to video games, but only in the tools used by developers, not the developers themselves. - More developers are using automated tools, despite the negative reaction by many players. - To compensate for lower median revenue, developers are making smaller games and shortening development cycles. --- Next time: We take a look at potential emerging markets for indie games and study how games get discovered in a global context.