How Game Dev Producer researches, writes, fact-checks, and maintains every article — our commitment to accuracy, source quality, and genuine usefulness.

Editorial Policy – Game Dev Producer

Game Dev Producer is an independent editorial publication focused on the production, business, and publishing realities of indie game development. Our mission is to give developers, producers, and small studio founders access to the same practical, data-informed guidance that AAA teams and experienced publishers use—but tailored to the constraints, economics, and opportunities of independent development. We publish on pre-production planning, scope management, publisher negotiations, team structure, marketing strategy, and the post-launch realities that often determine whether a game succeeds or fails. Editorial standards matter enormously in this space because bad advice on scope, budgeting, or publishing strategy can cost developers months of wasted work or thousands of dollars they can’t afford to lose. Our credibility depends entirely on getting the fundamentals right: sourcing from practitioners who’ve actually shipped games, checking claims against real market data, and being transparent about what we know and what remains uncertain.

Our Editorial Team

Chris Nakamura has spent fourteen years in game production across mobile, console, and PC platforms—roles that have given him a specific vantage point on how indie and mid-size studios actually operate. He shipped his first mobile title in 2012 at a bootstrapped five-person studio in San Francisco, then spent seven years as a project manager and producer at two AAA studios (working on console titles with budgets in the tens of millions and teams of 150+), before returning to independent development in 2019. That arc—small, medium, large, back to small—matters. Most writing about indie development either comes from people who’ve only ever worked indie (and thus lack perspective on process discipline and how larger teams solve scaling problems) or from people who’ve only worked at major publishers (and thus fundamentally misunderstand the constraints indie teams face). Chris has lived both realities and the transition between them.

His editorial approach is shaped by having been wrong before. He shipped a game in 2015 that missed its launch window by eighteen months partly due to scope creep he didn’t catch early enough. He’s negotiated with publishers, walked away from bad deals, and self-published. He’s managed a team of twelve and a team of two. He’s seen which production management frameworks actually survive first contact with reality and which ones collapse the moment a key team member gets sick or a core feature doesn’t work as planned. This is not theoretical knowledge. When he writes about milestone planning or why certain publisher deal structures destroy indie studio morale, he’s writing from direct experience—often painful experience.

How We Research

Every article on Game Dev Producer starts with the same foundational question: What do we actually know about this, and where is that knowledge coming from? For a topic like publisher deal structures, research begins with primary sources: retrospective postmortems from developers who’ve navigated those deals (primarily from the Game Developers Conference Vault, which archives dozens of talks each year where producers and founders walk through real negotiation outcomes). We then cross-reference against the IGDA’s annual developer surveys, which include quantitative data on which publishing arrangements correlate with sustainable studio operations. For market visibility and discoverability, we rely on Steam visibility data aggregated by platforms like SteamSpy and Game Discoverability Now, plus qualitative analysis from Gamasutra postmortems where developers share launch sales figures and marketing spend.

The verification process is deliberate. When an article claims that “mobile games with session lengths under three minutes see 30% higher day-one retention than those between three and seven minutes,” we don’t cite that statistic from a secondhand summary—we track back to the original source. If that’s a Newzoo report or a GDC presentation, we note which year and which conference, and we check whether the data was based on a survey of 50 games or 5,000 games. Survey methodology matters enormously; a conclusion drawn from a sample of indie developers on Reddit carries far less weight than one from the IGDA’s survey of 3,000+ developers across all sectors. When sources conflict—and they often do, because the games industry is fragmented and regional differences are real—we report the conflict explicitly and explain why different studios might see different results based on their genre, platform, or target audience.

For topics like optimal team structure or sprint planning methodologies, we also draw on documented case studies of specific successful studios. When an article discusses how a producer should manage scope creep, we cite studios that have publicly discussed how they prevented it (or failed to). When we discuss publisher red flags, we’re drawing from both lawyer-reviewed contracts that developers have publicly analyzed and from the GDC postmortems where producers have discussed which contract terms created problems for their studios. This is a field where practitioners publish their lessons learned; we use those sources as our primary material.

Anecdotal evidence is only included when it’s contextualized. If a single developer’s experience contradicts industry data, we acknowledge that contradiction explicitly. We don’t build arguments on “I know someone who…” stories; we use those stories to illustrate patterns that have been confirmed by broader data.

Source Standards

We prioritize sources in this hierarchy:

Primary research and primary sources: Game Developers Conference presentations and postmortems where developers discuss specific projects, decision-making, and outcomes; IGDA developer surveys; Steam and platform data compiled by established analytics firms; case studies published by studios themselves; official documentation from platform holders (Unity, Unreal Engine, Steam Steamworks documentation); and contracts or deal terms that have been publicly analyzed by industry lawyers or business advisors.
Peer-reviewed and rigorous secondary sources: Newzoo and SuperData market research reports (these are industry-standard for market size and trend data); books by established industry figures with track records (Salen & Zimmerman on game design, Swink on game feel, Pressman on project management); published postmortems in journals or symposia with editorial review.
Established trade publications with editorial standards: Gamasutra (which requires sourcing and attribution), Game Developer magazine (where postmortems are written by developers themselves), and IGDA articles authored by named industry professionals with credentials.

We reject:

Press releases and marketing materials from publishers or platform holders, even when they contain useful information—we verify any claims against independent sources first.
Unverified claims or data points that lack a named source or methodology. If an article claims “70% of indie games fail to recoup their development costs,” we need to know: whose survey? How was “fail” defined? When was this data collected? (The answer changes significantly if the data is from 2015 versus 2023.)
Sponsored research or studies funded by companies with financial interest in the outcome, unless those conflicts are clearly disclosed and we’ve independently verified the methodology was sound.
Aggregated secondhand reports of statistics that might have been altered or misrepresented. We go to the original source, not the summary.
Personal opinions presented as data. We publish opinion pieces and editorials clearly labeled as such, but we never embed opinion into what appears to be factual analysis without distinguishing between the two.

Accuracy and Fact-Checking

Every claim of fact—every statistic, date, market figure, or attributed quote—is checked before publication. If an article states that Steam had 11,000 games released in 2023, we verify that figure against publicly available data (SteamSpy, Valve’s own statements, aggregators that compile this data). If we’re citing a postmortem from a specific GDC presentation, we verify the year and speaker. If we’re quoting a developer’s tweet or interview, we don’t paraphrase; we pull the exact quote and note the source and date.

When sources conflict, we name the conflict. If one analyst firm reports the global games market grew 5% last year and another reports 3%, we explain both figures, note why they might differ (definitions of “games market” vary; regional inclusion varies), and explain which figure we’re using for our analysis and why. We don’t pretend there’s consensus when there isn’t. The games industry doesn’t have the kind of unified data collection that, say, the automotive industry has; conflict in the data is normal and honest. What matters is that we’re transparent about the discrepancy.

Corrections are taken seriously. If someone who works in the field contacts us and points out that we’ve mischaracterized a common contract term, or misrepresented what a platform’s guidelines actually say, we investigate within 48 hours. If the correction is warranted, we update the article and add a timestamped correction note at the bottom explaining what was wrong and what changed. Significant corrections are also noted when the article is shared on our social channels.

Keeping Content Current

The indie games industry changes annually. Platform policies shift. Market conditions evolve. Publishing deal structures change based on competition for developer talent. Articles on Game Dev Producer carry a “Last Reviewed” date, and we conduct a systematic annual review of our evergreen content (articles that aren’t about specific time-bound events). During that review, we check whether the core claims still hold, whether new data has emerged that changes the analysis, and whether platform or legal changes require updates.

We also update immediately when governing bodies release new guidance. When Steam changes its revenue share structure, or the IGDA publishes new developer survey data, or the App Store modifies its review guidelines, relevant articles get updated within two weeks. In a field where a single policy change from a major platform can reshape business strategy for thousands of studios, staying current isn’t optional—it’s essential to our credibility.

Corrections Policy

If you believe you’ve found a factual error—whether it’s a misquoted statistic, a wrong date, a mischaracterization of contract terms, or an outdated claim—please report it to us at gamedevproducer.com/contact with as much detail as you can provide. Include the article URL, the specific claim you believe is incorrect, and what the correct information is along with your source.

We investigate every correction request within 48 hours. If we determine the error is valid, we correct it within 7 days and add a correction note to the article. Minor corrections (a typo, a changed link) don’t require a note. Substantive factual corrections are marked with a timestamped correction block so readers can see what changed and why.

Editorial Independence

Game Dev Producer earns revenue through two channels: Amazon affiliate links (when we recommend tools, books, or software) and contextual display advertising. Neither of these revenue streams determines what we recommend or what our articles conclude. If an article recommends a specific game engine, that recommendation is based on whether it actually fits the use case discussed—not on whether that engine company is an advertiser. If we mention a publishing service or middleware tool, we’re mentioning it because it’s relevant to the topic, not because it drives affiliate revenue.

We carry no sponsored content, no paid article placements, and no manufacturer-funded reviews. Publishers and tool makers sometimes contact us asking if we’d write about their product or service; we decline. We write about products and services when they’re relevant to our editorial mission, using the same research standards we apply to everything else. If a tool is worth recommending, we recommend it. If it’s not, we don’t. The difference is that recommendation is made on merit, not on payment.

Editorial decisions—what topics we cover, what we publish, what we investigate—are made by our editorial team based on what we believe serves indie developers best. If covering a topic would require us to criticize a platform holder or publisher, we cover it anyway. If the data suggests a common piece of indie development advice is wrong, we publish that analysis. Our credibility depends on being trustworthy, and we can’t be trustworthy if our revenue streams shape our conclusions.

What We Don’t Do

We don’t provide personalized business or legal advice. We publish general guidance on contract red flags, publishing deal structures, and team management—but “the revenue share structure in your publisher contract includes a clawback clause” is a fact; “you should take this deal” or “you should walk away” is personalized advice that depends on your specific situation, which we can’t assess from an article. For that, you need a lawyer or an experienced business advisor who knows your project.
We don’t review games or evaluate gameplay, art, or design quality. Game Dev Producer is about production and business—not about whether a game is fun or beautiful. That’s not our editorial domain.
We don’t create content underwritten or funded by publishers, tool makers, or platform holders, even if they fund an educational initiative we might otherwise support. If Unity or Unreal wanted to sponsor Game Dev Producer content about their tools, we’d decline and instead publish independent analysis if it’s relevant.
We don’t publish unvetted developer testimonials as data. A developer sharing their experience is valuable context. But “most indie developers do X” requires actual survey data, not a collection of anecdotes. We distinguish sharply between case studies (here’s what happened to studio Y) and trends (here’s what the data shows about the broader market).
We don’t report rumors or insider gossip about unreleased games, business dealings, or industry personnel, no matter how interesting they might be. We report documented facts: announcements, published contracts, released data, on-record statements.
We don’t allow advertising or content to influence coverage. If a major advertising client is also a publisher whose deal structures we’re criticizing, we don’t soften that criticism. If a product we recommend stops advertising with us, we don’t