There's a game that I've been privy to some of their conversations where they were able to essentially get funding for the majority of the title before talking to publisher.

So they're basically, you know, the conversation would be more like finishing funds or marketing support more than just financing,

which it's amazing how much that changes the dynamic versus like our game is dead in the

water from day one without a publisher's back.

Wait, are you saying there's a lot of different shapes for sure.

Which is more standard.

I would have thought that dead in the water without a publisher would be more normal.

I think so.

It's also, especially if it's remotely, you know, decent team size and has like heavy costs associated.

It can be weird in indie, A, because games can be very cheap to make.

Like, so a lot of indie games obviously don't cost much money to actually do the development.

And a team can either self-fund itself or just kind of they have day jobs or whatever, right?

Like a lot of the smaller stuff just dying out.

But then the flip side of that as well is if your games are hit,

then you have a lot of money flow into your company accounts.

And maybe you don't need money for the next game, but you do a lot of money flow into your company accounts, and maybe you don't need

money for the next game, but you do want the marketing support, or a platform holder would

prefer it if you had a publisher, or you know, you want to do XYZ. There's lots of other reasons

for a more established indie to work with the publisher than just the money. Money's boring. Like money is money, money,

money is something you need, but in a lot of situations, you don't need it either because you're

making something small enough that you don't need it, or you know, you've done well enough

with previous games that you've got a little bit of budget. What would you consider to be a cheap

...