Top Hat Studios on Publishing Indie Games

Introduction

Top Hat Studios has built a reputation as an indie publisher with a distinctive catalog spanning diverse genres and styles – from the Metroidvania Crypt Custodian (which we actually played with my daughter!) to the survival horror Labyrinth of the Demon King to the adventure-RPG game Under the Island. Can you take us through the founding story of Top Hat Studios? What led to the creation of the company, and how has your publishing philosophy evolved since those early days?

Joe B., owner of Top Hat Studios: We've been around much longer than many people know. We started primarily as a porting and co-development studio a long time ago - probably something like 11-12 years now. It's actually quite the story how we became a publisher, so I'll try to shorten things… basically, we found a niche doing porting and co-development for a lot of companies in Southeast Asia and Brazil. At the time, these companies didn't have access to console tooling yet, so we started acting as publisher of record for them as an extension of the porting relationship.

Then, in parallel, we were doing porting particularly for PS Vita, which happened to have a mild wave of popularity within a certain sector of the indie scene, thanks to collectors and enthusiasts. It was kind of the perfect storm, which allowed us to have enough capital, technical resources, and visibility to start looking for projects to invest in – mostly from small creators and developing markets abroad. Our first hire on the publishing side of things contributed a lot to scouting and production early on, so most of our early catalog was the result of being embedded in grassroots, highly global communities. We were an incredibly small team punching above our weight for the longest time early on.

What I will say additionally is – as you can imagine with much of our early portfolio being the result of business in Asia – the running theme behind many of our games is the label of "Asia-Inspired", which most typically takes the form of "Japanese-inspired" in the western consciousness. This is a reflection of the personal taste of staff here to a degree (myself included), but also our general love of connecting creators from all regions of the world together. We've all spent a lot of time in Asia, and are actually quite deeply connected there.

Now – don't get me wrong – I think over time, as you'd imagine, we've refined this brand identity quite substantially, and the games we sign now may resemble this image a lot more closely. While we still work with lots of small creators from all over the world for sure, early on, we were definitely resource-limited in the methods by which we could publish, since our publishing was spun solely out of our own investment capital and no one else's. I'd say our philosophy has changed only in the sense that we have substantially more capital from past successes and many more resources now, so we aren't scope-limited like we were maybe 7-8 years ago. We'll always strive to be the best "grassroots Japanese-inspired game publisher" we can be, so to speak.

Choosing Games

Looking at your portfolio, you publish everything from pixel art roguelikes to hand-drawn adventures to 3D horror games. What's your process for choosing which games to publish? When you evaluate a pitch or prototype, what specific qualities or signals tell you "this is a Top Hat Studios game"? How do you balance creative vision with commercial viability?

Joe B.: I sort of spoiled this in the first question already, but as mentioned, we consider our brand to be “Japanese-inspired games,” which is no doubt a wide-reaching net to cast. In many cases, you could say it’s “Japanese- and retro-inspired,” since the two aren’t always the same, but due to historical context, they have many overlaps.

Brand is extremely important to us – not for our own benefit, but for developers themselves. What many developers are negatively affected by when working with publishers is often the “generalist” mindset that many other publishers operate with. Publishers often act more like pure financiers than actual publishers in the truest sense of the word, especially when compared to other industries. This can work sometimes, but essentially every time a “generalist” signs a game, they are starting from square one when it comes to finding an audience for it.

I’ve seen publishers in the past (some of which are no longer around) sign completely opposed titles and try to market both at the same time. You end up building multiple siloed communities in real time, and often there’s no overlap at all – even if you try to connect similar games down the line – because there’s simply no cohesive brand for fans to latch onto. Don’t get me wrong, some of these publishers do a great job in isolation, regardless, but our concern with developers is always ensuring they benefit from working with us universally, not situationally.

We “grew up” as a company in grassroots, organic developer communities, and we still believe in maintaining the fairest and most balanced relationships we can with developers. So brand cohesion and evaluation from a marketing perspective are very important to us – after all, it’s our job to market the game. This isn’t a replacement for marketing, but it allows us to start from, say, point C instead of the very beginning at point A. It gives everyone a head start, which – especially if you’re a new developer – can be a massive benefit early on.

We would never want to sign a game where the developer feels burdened to do all of the heavy lifting themselves. Everything else is very much downstream from that. We sign games we feel we can turn into success stories under that categorical umbrella.

Speaking of "a Top Hat Studios game", is there a unifying thread or philosophy that connects your diverse catalog? What makes a game distinctly suited for Top Hat Studios versus other indie publishers? Are there specific themes, design approaches, or developer relationships that define your identity as a publisher?

Joe B.: Once again, I’ve maybe overly blabbered a bit in advance of this question, but to add to my previous comments, I do think we care tremendously about ensuring we’re aligned with the developer in terms of interests and goals. We often see this dynamic where publishers and developers are simply not aligned on incentives – something I could write an entirely separate essay on.

This isn’t unique to this industry, but it’s very easy to surface when there’s a disparate benchmark for a title between all parties working on it. We always like to ensure we’re as aligned with a developer as possible when we start working together. We really want to be a developer’s long-term partner through growth and beyond. It shouldn’t be surprising, as a result of that thinking, that some developers we’ve worked with have 2, 3, or more games with us on a recurring basis.

I’d say that what defines our identity as a publisher from a working perspective is three things in particular.

Firstly, many people are surprised at how many things we handle not only internally, but also free of charge for developers. A common response after seeing our contract is, “Wait, that’s completely free? No strings attached?”

Secondly, people are often very, very surprised at our global footprint – particularly in Asia (namely China and Japan). We really pride ourselves on being a truly global partner and having strong pull across multiple regions and communities.

Lastly – and I know this might sound quite crazy – we actually play games, including the ones signed with us. We never get creatively involved or anything of the sort, but playing the games throughout their development ensures that we and the developer are constantly on the same page as the game evolves. Not to speak badly about anyone, but when I used to do consulting around the publishing side of the industry, you’d be surprised how many publishers had people involved who would say at the last minute, “Wait…this game has this feature?”

From our side, we think it all ties together. How can you market a game if you don’t play it?

You have some recently released, particularly interesting titles: Crypt Custodian, Labyrinth of the Demon King, Silly Polly Beast, and Under the Island. Can you share what drew you to each of these projects? What makes them special, and what key factors do you believe drove their success in today's crowded indie market?

Joe B.: It’s a great question, and I think delving into the specifics of each game would probably be quite a lengthy dissertation. What I will say is that in each case, we felt these titles perfectly fit all of the aforementioned attributes we look for alignment on when partnering with a developer. In every instance, we felt very closely attuned to both the game and the developer, and we spent ample time making sure we were all on the same page and that the relationship made sense.

We got involved at different stages – for Labyrinth of the Demon King, it was essentially at the paper pitch stage; for Crypt Custodian, we had a pre-existing relationship with the developer; and for Silly Polly Beast, it was quite late. So in each case, we had to evaluate and ensure we understood the differing needs of each project, and that there was clarity and alignment on who was contributing what and why.

At the heart of it, we feel games perform best when developers are deeply passionate about what they’re working on and also feel that at least some of the stress of going to market can be alleviated through another partner’s involvement and shared risk. When you’re truly dedicated to a project, that stress can never fully be washed away – your game is basically your baby – but if you feel like your marketing, financials, etc., are at least taken care of on a foundational level by someone you trust who is sharing in the game’s risk, it goes a long way.

It allows a developer the room to focus their time on reaching their maximum potential. To simplify it, we believe mutual trust and dedication to projects under the umbrella of a cohesive, shared brand and community make a big difference when the right resources are deployed.

Games' Success

The indie game market has become extraordinarily competitive, with over 14,000 games released on Steam in 2024 alone. From your perspective as a publisher working with small teams on niche titles, what do you believe are the critical success factors for indie games in 2026? What separates titles that find their audience from those that get lost in the noise?

Joe B.: It’s a popular topic as the game industry continues to get more saturated year by year, and I think there’s a tendency to want to scientifically categorize games into neat, identifiable buckets where certain attributes innately determine success or failure. Everyone wants to know the answer to this question, and what I would say is this: it’s easier to tell if a game will fail than it is to tell if a game will succeed.

What I mean by that is, when you’re a publisher evaluating a game, you really need to understand why you’re looking at it and what attributes would make you want to work with it. If the only thing that would make you want to work on the game is some sort of risk mitigation, such as pre-existing KPIs, then chances are you don’t actually know how to work with the game.

What separates titles that succeed from those lost in the noise is having qualities their partners can comfortably work with for successful promotion, whatever form that may take. Every game is unique – what matters is whether someone knows how to sell it. For the titles we sign, we work with games where we are that someone.

I also want to mention that success is an equation built from many factors; it’s not a standardized, singular metric. Some people may sell 10x the copies a typical game in their genre would sell and still feel like they failed. Others may sell 2x their net funding and feel like they’re on top of the world. At the end of the day, it’s like any other business – a certain monthly income may be life-changing for a mom-and-pop café but a total failure for a corporate-owned chain restaurant.

Again, this is why ensuring complete alignment between yourself as a publisher and a developer is so important. We’d feel terrible if the metrics for success between a developer and us weren’t aligned, because our goal is to find that mutual success, not force our own definition upon the developer. If the developer needs to adhere solely to your definition of success as a publisher, chances are something went wrong. You’re not doing the developer a favor – you’re helping their game succeed. You need to be the one meeting their metric of success.

Marketing and promoting indie games requires creativity and resourcefulness, especially when budgets are limited compared to AAA publishers. How does Top Hat Studios approach marketing for diverse titles like the ones mentioned in the questions above? What strategies, channels, or tactics have proven most effective for building awareness and converting interest into sales in such a competitive environment?

Joe B.: There’s no silver bullet for marketing, which is a hard pill to swallow. Back in the day, this was the entire purpose of publishers – to provide unique strategies and channels for marketing and figure out the best ways to get a product successfully into the hands of its target audience. Somewhere along the way in the past 10-12 years, things became very standardized within the industry, and marketing turned into a pure numbers-and-procedures game.

While I’d love to give a more granular deep dive into marketing here, I’d probably talk your ear off. What I can say is that different games inherently require different tactics, and knowing what those tactics are requires deep analysis of the game’s strongest selling points. Some games resonate better with streamers, some with specific social media strategies, some with advertising, trailers – the list goes on – and it all goes hand in hand with the brand selling the game in the first place.

Of course, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t also pursue other avenues or handle the more procedural aspects of marketing. It’s just that knowing which promotional channels are most ideal for your game can go a long way in determining where to spend the most effort, time, and money.

If you spread your efforts too thinly across too many activities instead of focusing them primarily in the right places, you shouldn’t be surprised if a hyper-generalized approach only produces average market results rather than surpassing them. Individualized marketing tactics produce individualized results.

Conclusion

Looking at 2026 and the future of indie publishing, what's your outlook? With platform changes, evolving player preferences, tighter budgets across the industry, and new challenges emerging constantly, how is Top Hat Studios positioning itself to continue finding and supporting great indie games? What opportunities or trends are you most excited or concerned about?

Joe B.: Great question. Every company in every industry is stuck between the paradox of “don’t reinvent the wheel” and “adapt to a changing landscape.” We’ve been around for more than a decade now, and while some things have changed, we’ve never felt backed into a corner – and I think that’s a luxury in an industry that evolves as quickly as the games industry.

We like to say that our core motivations and mission statement are unwavering, and that also means our belief in our brand and its core tenets is unwavering as well. Other things, in terms of execution, are downstream from that. There is, of course, a world where the current business model shifts slightly – as I mentioned in response to the first question, it already has since our inception. However, there’s a difference between how you approach the market from a business strategy perspective and how you execute that strategy – something I think is too often dismissed as being one and the same.

We’re very excited about the continued growth we’ve experienced as a company and the opportunities our success has allowed us to consider, including much bigger titles and developers that years ago we wouldn’t have dreamed of working with. We’re also excited about the strides the industry is making toward recognizing the value of “indie,” and how creators of all sizes and levels of experience are starting studios and making fantastic games around the world. There are so many exciting developers working on amazing projects globally.

That said, I do think the “indie-ification” of the game industry is a double-edged sword. This is something that happened to the film industry – and even more so to the music industry. People now think of “indie music” as a genre, but “indie” wasn’t just an arbitrary descriptor. It originally referred to something inherent. Now, in the music industry, “indie” often describes a sound reminiscent of influences from a time when things weren’t monopolized by major labels and distribution channels.

I fear that the game industry is at risk of a similar shift – that “indie” as a descriptor will eventually refer only to an echo of the industry’s past. People tie themselves in knots over what is or isn’t an “indie game,” and while that’s its own can of worms, I can say this – when an “indie” team is developing an “indie” game, virtually everyone involved is deeply passionate about it, regardless of partners or budget. This isn’t always the case as teams grow larger and larger, where things can be reduced to rote procedures and pure numbers on spreadsheets.

As the industry expands, I worry about the underlying meaning changing, and “indie” taking on a more cynical connotation – denoting only genres, aesthetics, or budget ranges. The more people – and therefore money – that flock to gaming, the more these definitions shift. And the more they shift, the more the people who were once defined by those labels risk being left behind.

In a way, I think this is an important secondary goal of Top Hat Studios – balancing growth while ensuring that these exact creators don’t get left behind.

Joe B., Owner of Top Hat Studios

Interview conducted by Kirill Tokarev