Should I Use a Publisher to Fund My Gaming App?

About 70% of mobile games never reach 1,000 downloads in their first year, which tells you something rather sobering about how tough this market has become. The decision to work with a gaming publisher isn't just about money... it's about whether you want to bet on your own skills handling everything from marketing to user acquisition, or whether you'd rather trade away some of your profits and control for expertise and funding that might actually get your game in front of players. I've watched dozens of gaming studios over the years grapple with this exact question, and the answer is never quite as simple as you'd hope.

The publisher conversation usually happens when you've got a playable build that shows promise but you're running out of runway to finish and launch properly

Publishing deals in mobile gaming have changed quite a bit since the early days when you'd basically hand over your game and hope for the best. These days the relationships are more varied, ranging from pure funding arrangements where you keep most of your independence, through to deals where the publisher becomes deeply involved in every aspect of your game's development and launch. The challenge is figuring out which arrangement makes sense for your particular situation, and whether any publisher deal is better than just funding the thing yourself or finding alternative routes to market. After helping gaming clients navigate these waters for years, I can tell you the decision depends heavily on where your studio sits right now in terms of resources, experience, and how much you've already built.

What Gaming Publishers Actually Do Beyond Writing Cheques

When you sign with a gaming publisher, you're getting access to a whole infrastructure that most small studios simply don't have. The money is obviously part of it, covering your development costs so you can actually finish the game without everyone having to take second jobs, but that's sort of just the beginning of what these arrangements involve. Publishers typically bring user acquisition teams who've spent millions learning what works in paid campaigns, they've got relationships with Apple and Google that can sometimes (not always) help with featuring opportunities, and they understand the analytics side of things in ways that can really shape how your game evolves post-launch.

The QA testing infrastructure alone can be worth quite a bit. Most publishers run your game through extensive testing across different devices, OS versions, and markets that you probably wouldn't have the resources to cover yourself. They'll catch crashes and performance issues that might have torpedoed your launch if they'd slipped through. The localisation support matters more than you'd think too... it's not just about translating text but understanding what works in different markets culturally and adjusting your monetisation approach accordingly.

Here's what a typical publisher package includes:

• Development funding to cover salaries and costs until launch
• User acquisition budget ranging from £50k to several million depending on the game
• Marketing team handling app store optimisation, creative assets, and campaign management
• Analytics and monetisation specialists who optimise your in-game economy
• QA testing across devices and markets
• Localisation services for key markets
• Live ops support post-launch to keep players engaged
• Cross-promotion opportunities within their existing game portfolio

The live ops support is something studios often underestimate when they're evaluating deals. Launching your game is just the start... keeping it alive with events, updates, and seasonal content requires ongoing resources that can stretch a small team pretty thin.

The Real Costs Hidden in Publisher Agreements

The revenue share is the obvious cost everyone focuses on, typically ranging from 30% to 50% of your game's earnings going to the publisher after platform fees. But there are other costs buried in these agreements that can catch you off guard if you're not reading carefully. Recoupment terms determine when you start seeing any money at all... the publisher recovers their investment first, often with a multiplier attached, which means if they spent £200k on your game, they might need to recoup 300 grand or more before you see your first payment.

Revenue Waterfall Structure

The way money flows through a publishing deal gets complicated quickly. Your game generates £100k in revenue, Apple or Google takes their 30% cut leaving £70k, then the publisher takes their percentage (let's say 40%) of that £70k which is £28k, and you're left with £42k before recoupment calculations even start. If the publisher hasn't fully recouped their investment yet, you might see nothing from that £100k in gross revenue. Understanding how these budget calculations work becomes crucial for planning your studio's cash flow.

IP ownership is another hidden cost that's easy to overlook when you're desperate for funding. Some publishers want to own your IP outright, others want perpetual licensing rights, and some will let you keep ownership but with restrictions on what you can do with sequels or spin-offs. I've seen studios sign away sequel rights without really thinking through what that means if their game becomes successful... you might not be able to make the follow-up without going back to the same publisher on potentially worse terms.

Request a detailed revenue waterfall example with specific numbers before signing anything. Ask the publisher to model out what happens at £100k, £500k, and £1m in revenue so you can see exactly when you'd start receiving payments.

When Your Game Is Strong Enough to Attract Publishers

Publishers aren't interested in game ideas or pitch decks anymore... they want to see a playable build that demonstrates your core loop works and that players actually enjoy it. The bar has gotten quite high over the years. You'll typically need metrics from soft launch or beta testing showing decent retention rates (at least 20% day-1 retention, preferably 30% or higher) and some indication that your monetisation approach works even if it's not fully built out yet.

Demo Requirements That Actually Matter

Your demo needs to run smoothly without crashes, include your core gameplay loop fully implemented, and show enough content that someone can play for 15-20 minutes and get a real feel for the game. Publishers will look at your retention curves, your session lengths, and whether players are coming back day after day. They're going to ask about your target audience and want to see data proving those players exist and engage with your game type. This is similar to what you should be testing in your prototype phase before building the full game.

• Playable build with core mechanics fully working
• Soft launch data showing retention metrics
• Clear monetisation model even if not implemented yet
• Art style and technical quality that meets market standards
• Evidence of product-market fit through player testing
• Realistic development timeline and budget

The team behind the game matters almost as much as the game itself. Publishers want to know you can actually finish what you've started. If you've shipped games before, even small ones, that helps your case quite a bit. They'll look at your burn rate and how long you can survive without their money... if you're about to run out of cash in six weeks, that puts you in a weaker negotiating position than if you've got six months of runway left. This is where understanding what makes development projects successful becomes valuable for your pitch.

Self-Funding vs Publisher Money: Running the Numbers

Let's work through a realistic scenario to see how the numbers actually play out. Say your game needs another £150k to finish and launch properly, and you estimate it'll generate £800k in its first year based on comparable titles and your soft launch data. If you self-fund that £150k, you keep everything after platform fees... so £800k minus 30% platform fees leaves you with £560k, minus your £150k investment gives you £410k profit.

The same game with a publisher taking 40% revenue share would need to generate significantly more revenue before you'd see equivalent returns

With a publisher deal where they're taking 40% and you need to recoup their £150k investment at a 1.5x multiplier (so £225k), here's how it breaks down. That £800k in revenue becomes £560k after platform fees, publisher takes 40% which is £224k, leaving you with £336k. But the publisher recoups their £225k first from their share, so you'd actually receive £336k while the publisher gets their full £224k. You end up with more money in your pocket in year one with the publisher deal in this scenario, plus you didn't have to risk your own £150k. Knowing how to allocate your budget effectively becomes crucial regardless of your funding source.

The calculations shift quite a bit depending on your game's success level. If your game does £2m in first year revenue instead of £800k, the self-funded route starts looking much better because you're not giving away that ongoing percentage to a publisher. Self-funding makes more sense when you're confident in your game's potential, you can access the capital without crippling your studio, and you've got experience running user acquisition campaigns yourself.

How Publisher Deals Affect Your Creative Control

The creative control conversation needs to happen early because publishers have opinions about your game, and some of those opinions will be backed by data from their other titles that's hard to argue with. I've watched studios struggle when publishers push for changes to core mechanics or monetisation approaches that feel wrong to the development team. The tricky bit is that sometimes the publisher is right because they've seen what works across hundreds of games, and sometimes they're wrong because they're trying to force your game into a template that doesn't fit.

Approval rights get written into contracts and they matter quite a bit. Some publishers want approval over major features, art direction changes, monetisation mechanics, and live ops scheduling. Others give you more freedom as long as you hit agreed milestones and your metrics stay healthy. The level of involvement varies wildly... smaller publishers focused on hypercasual games tend to be more hands-on with creative direction, while larger publishers working on midcore or hardcore titles might give you more autonomy if you've got a track record.

Protecting Your Vision

You can negotiate for creative control provisions in your contract. Specify which decisions require publisher approval and which ones you can make independently. Build in a process for resolving creative disagreements that doesn't just default to the publisher getting final say on everything. The relationship works better when both sides respect each other's expertise... you know your game and your vision, they know the market and what's working right now.

The post-launch period is where creative control tensions often surface. Publishers will want to optimise your game based on data, which might mean pushing for more aggressive monetisation, changing difficulty curves, or adding features you're not excited about. Having clear agreements upfront about how these decisions get made will save you headaches later.

Marketing Muscle and User Acquisition Through Publishers

The user acquisition budgets publishers bring can be substantial, sometimes £500k to £2m for games they really believe in. They've got media buyers who spend all day optimising campaigns across Facebook, Google, TikTok, and other channels. These teams know which creative approaches work, how to structure your campaigns for different regions, and when to scale spending versus when to pull back. That expertise is genuinely valuable... user acquisition has become quite specialised and making mistakes here burns through money fast. This is quite different from targeting competitor users which requires a more surgical approach.

Cross-promotion within a publisher's portfolio can drive significant installs at minimal cost. If they've got other successful games, they can promote yours to those existing players. The quality of those installs varies... sometimes you're getting players who just chase rewards across multiple games rather than players genuinely interested in your game type. But done well, cross-promotion can be a decent source of early users while you're still optimising your paid campaigns. You might also want to consider implementing a referral programme alongside the publisher's cross-promotion efforts.

UA Performance Expectations

1. Publishers typically test your game with small budgets first (£5-10k) to validate creative approaches and target audiences
2. They'll look for acceptable CPI (cost per install) relative to your game's LTV (lifetime value) before scaling spend
3. Expect heavy involvement in creative asset development for ads, often dozens of variations tested
4. Campaign scaling happens gradually based on retention and monetisation metrics staying healthy

Ask potential publishers for case studies from similar games showing actual UA performance data. Request details on CPIs they achieved, retention rates, and how long it took to reach profitability on ad spend. Vague promises about marketing support aren't enough... you want specifics.

The app store optimisation work publishers handle includes everything from keyword research through to managing your screenshots, app preview videos, and description copy. They'll run A/B tests on your store listing and typically have relationships with the platform holders that sometimes help with featuring opportunities, though that's become less reliable as the platforms have gotten more selective about what they promote. Make sure you understand what assets you'll need ready before launch day regardless of whether you're working with a publisher or going it alone.

Alternative Funding Routes Gaming Studios Often Miss

Crowdfunding through Kickstarter or Fig can work for certain game types, particularly if you've got a strong concept that resonates with core gamers and you can show enough of your game to prove it's worth backing. The challenge is that mobile games historically haven't performed as well on these platforms compared to PC or console titles... backers seem less excited about funding mobile projects. You'll need to raise enough to meaningfully impact your development while also delivering on backer rewards, which adds work to your plate.

Government grants and tax relief programmes exist in various regions for game development. The UK has Video Games Tax Relief which can cover a decent chunk of your development costs if your game qualifies as British and passes the cultural test. Other countries have similar schemes. These take time to set up and you need to work with accountants who understand the rules, but you're not giving away equity or revenue share, which makes them attractive if you can access them.

Angel investors and early-stage VCs will sometimes fund mobile game studios, though they're typically looking for teams with proven track records or really compelling metrics from soft launch. The terms can be better than publisher deals in some ways... you're selling equity rather than giving away ongoing revenue share. But you're also taking on outside investors who'll want returns, which creates different pressures. Revenue-based financing is another option where you repay funding as a percentage of revenue up to a cap, sort of like a publisher deal but without the marketing support or creative involvement.

Contract work or work-for-hire projects can fund your game development indirectly. Take on client projects that bring in cash to keep your team employed while you work on your own game during gaps between contracts. It's slower but you maintain complete control and ownership. The risk is that client work can take over and your game never gets finished, which I've seen happen more times than I'd like to count.

Making the Publisher Decision Based on Your Studio's Position

If you're a first-time team without much cash in the bank and you've got a promising game that's showing good early metrics, a publisher deal probably makes sense. The alternative is running out of money before you can launch, or launching without proper marketing support and disappearing into the void of the app stores. Publishers reduce your financial risk substantially... you're trading future revenue for the ability to actually finish and properly launch your game.

Experienced teams with successful games already launched have more options because they've got credibility and probably some money in the bank from previous projects

Studios that have shipped games before and have some financial runway should be pickier about publisher deals. You might be better off self-funding if you can afford it, or looking for publishers who'll give you better terms because you're less risky. The leverage in these negotiations comes from alternatives... if you can credibly self-fund or you've got multiple publishers interested, you can negotiate for lower revenue shares or better creative control provisions.

The genre and target market matter quite a bit in this decision. Hypercasual games rely heavily on UA spend and rapid iteration, which makes publishers more valuable there. Narrative games or premium titles might benefit more from keeping creative control and finding alternative funding. Consider whether your game needs ongoing live ops support... if you're building something that requires constant updates and events, having a publisher handle that infrastructure could be worth the cost.

Think about what success looks like for your studio long-term. If you want to build a portfolio of games and establish your own brand, maintaining IP ownership and creative control matters more. If you're focused on making this one game as successful as possible and you're comfortable with the revenue share trade-off, a good publisher partner can accelerate your growth significantly.

Should I Use a Publisher to Fund My Gaming App?

The publisher decision isn't really about whether publishers are good or bad... it's about whether a publisher partnership makes sense for your specific situation right now. You need funding to finish your game and you don't have other viable sources? A publisher deal is probably your best option. You've got cash, you've shipped games before, and you're confident in your ability to handle marketing yourself? Self-funding might serve you better. The middle ground is tricky... that's where you need to really run the numbers and think hard about what you're giving up versus what you're getting.

I've seen publishing deals work out brilliantly when there's good alignment between the studio and publisher, when expectations are clear from the start, and when both parties bring real value to the relationship. I've also watched deals fall apart when publishers overpromised and underdelivered, or when studios felt creatively stifled and grew to resent the partnership. The contract terms matter, but the relationship and mutual respect matter just as much. Choose a publisher you actually want to work with, not just whoever offers the most money or takes the smallest revenue share.

Your game's quality and market potential will ultimately determine its success more than your funding source. A mediocre game with a big publisher behind it will still struggle, while a great game can succeed through multiple different paths to market. Focus on making your game as good as it can be first, then figure out the funding and marketing approach that gives you the best shot at getting it in front of players who'll love it.

If you're working on a gaming app and you'd like some help thinking through your options, get in touch with us and we can talk through what might work best for your situation.

Frequently Asked Questions