Video Game Publishing Agreements - Developers Beware [2026]

In the ever-evolving landscape of video game development, understanding publishing agreements has never been more crucial.

While a decade ago these agreements might have followed a relatively standard template, today’s publishing deals show remarkable variety in their structure and terms.

Sizing up a specific agreement? Run the advance, recoupment, and split through the calculator.

The state of publishing agreements in 2026

Thanks to the 2026 Video Game Publishing Agreement Market Report from Kellen Voyer and Haley MacLean at Voyer Law, we have concrete data on exactly what’s “market standard” this year, and what’s not.

The report analyzed over 130 publishing agreements dated 2017 to 2026, revealing a landscape far more nuanced than many developers expect. The mix itself is worth noting: 62% of the agreements included an advance, 27% did not, and 11% were console-only.

Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, today’s publishing agreements generally fall into three distinct categories, each with its own characteristics and typical terms.

Advance-based publishing agreements

Traditional advance-based publishing agreements remain common, but their terms might surprise you.

The developer’s revenue share averages 57.9%, but that average hides remarkable variation, from as low as 2.5% to as high as 90%. Somebody out there signed away 97.5% of their game’s revenue. The average advance is $602,818, though the median of $270,000 tells us that a handful of very large deals are pulling that average up. The smallest advance in the sample was $20,000 and the largest was north of $6,000,000.

Publishers are also getting smarter about protecting their investments. 84% tie the advance to specific development milestones.

From what I’ve seen, the rest would just have regular monthly or quarterly payments which aren’t specifically tied to approving a milestone. Forward progress would be expected, though.

No-advance publishing agreements

But here’s where it gets interesting: when publishers don’t provide advances, the entire economic structure shifts in the developer’s favor.

These no-advance agreements see developers commanding 67.9% on average, and the floor is meaningfully higher too: the lowest share in this category was 50%, against 2.5% for advance deals. It’s a clear illustration of how upfront risk-taking directly affects revenue distribution.

It’s also something that you should keep in mind when a publisher doesn’t want to pay an advance, but still wants a large portion of revenue (definitely an area for negotiation).

Console-only publisher agreements

The third category, console-only agreements, typically comes into play after a successful PC release.

These deals strike a middle ground, with developer revenue shares averaging 66%. It’s a sweet spot that recognizes both the reduced risk (thanks to proven PC success) and the specialized expertise needed for console publishing.

Across-the-board commonalities in publishing agreements

Some aspects of publishing agreements remain remarkably consistent across all types.

Intellectual property rights, for instance, overwhelmingly stay with developers. We’re seeing this in 93.2% of agreements with advances, and in every single no-advance and console-only deal in the sample. Even on developer breach, the IP stayed put in 93% of agreements.

Agreement duration varies significantly though. Advance deals average 6.98 years, no-advance deals 4.6 years, and console-only deals 3.7 years. 84% of all agreements run a fixed term, and nearly half of those (47%) auto-renew. The remaining 16% are perpetual, which is a long time to be married to a publisher.

Audit rights tell an interesting story about trust and verification, and the numbers run opposite to what you’d guess. They appear in 88.4% of advance-based deals and 71.4% of console-only deals, but in only 66.7% of no-advance agreements. So the developers who kept the most leverage on revenue share, by self-funding, are the least likely to have any contractual way to check the publisher’s math. If you’re negotiating a no-advance deal, put audit rights on your list.

Merchandise revenue, when it’s addressed at all, splits almost evenly. Advance deals average 50.1% to the developer, no-advance deals 51.2%, and console-only deals 43%. The bigger question is whether it’s addressed: merchandise terms appear in 59.2% of advance agreements, 52% of no-advance ones, and 42% of console deals. If yours is silent, you’re negotiating that from scratch later, from a worse position.

Stepped revenue shares: your split is probably two numbers, not one

This is the finding I’d point at first if you only read one section.

In most advance deals, the developer’s revenue share isn’t a single percentage that applies for the life of the contract. It starts low, then steps up to a higher rate once a condition is met. Your contract will probably call these two stages “tranches,” which is just a finance word for stages.

80.3% of agreements with an advance are structured this way. And the two stages are nothing alike:

• Opening stage: 24% to the developer, on average
• After the step-up: 60.3% to the developer, on average

That gap is the whole game. When a publisher tells you the deal is “roughly 60/40 in your favor,” they may be describing only the second stage. You could sit at 24% for a long time before you ever see 60%.

Stepped structures are much rarer without an advance, appearing in only 24% of those agreements, and the shape holds when they do show up: 20% at the start, 64% after.

Two questions worth asking before you sign:

• What specific event moves me from the first stage to the second?
• Is recoupment the only thing that triggers the step-up, or can a time period or a sales milestone do it too?

The answers matter more than the headline percentage. A great post-step-up rate you never reach is worth nothing.

Sequel clauses: a right to ask is not a right to take

55.3% of advance agreements include a sequel clause. Without an advance, it’s 42.4%.

The headline number is the less interesting part. What matters is which kind you have. In 60% of advance deals with a sequel clause, the publisher only gets the right to negotiate for the sequel. In the other 40%, they get the sequel.

Those are wildly different outcomes wearing the same label. A negotiation right costs you a conversation. A sequel right costs you your franchise. Without an advance, the split is friendlier at 64.3% negotiate to 35.7% right, but you still need to read which one you signed.

This is also where a right of first refusal tends to hide, so read those two clauses together rather than separately.

What changed since last year

Voyer has now published this analysis two years running on the same methodology, which means we can watch the market move rather than just photograph it. Two shifts stand out, and both went the developer’s way.

Audit rights on no-advance deals jumped from 47.1% to 66.7%. Last year, most self-funded developers had no contractual way to verify a royalty statement. This year, most do. That’s a real change in a single cycle.

Full-stop recoupment fell from 48.4% to 37%. Fewer publishers are taking every dollar until the advance clears. Nearly two thirds now pay the developer something during the recoupment period.

Advances drifted down over the same period, with the median moving from $300,000 to $270,000 and the average from roughly $675,000 to $602,818. Read those two trends together and the picture is a market paying slightly less upfront while giving developers better terms on the back end and more visibility into the numbers.

One year of movement is not a trend. I’ll be watching whether it holds.

Recent trends: what we’re seeing in practice

While the market data gives us an excellent baseline understanding, our day-to-day work with developers reveals several fascinating shifts in how publishing deals are being structured.

Perhaps the most notable trend is the emergence of the no-advance agreements mentioned above, what I would typically call “marketing-only” publishing agreements, a substantial departure from traditional publishing deals.

These marketing-focused arrangements typically come into play when a developer has already completed their game, at least for PC release.

Instead of the traditional funding-heavy approach, publishers are offering specialized expertise in areas where many developers struggle: marketing execution and platform relationships.

For developers who have managed their development process successfully but lack marketing expertise or console publishing relationships, these deals can be particularly attractive.

Since the game is largely complete, the publisher’s risk is substantially reduced. This often translates into more favorable revenue sharing terms for developers.

Publishers typically commit to a minimum marketing spend (putting real money behind their promotional promises) and often include support for console porting efforts. If they don’t, I’d consider that a red flag that needs to be negotiated (they need to promise some “skin in the game”), or the developer should consider finding a different publisher.

For developers who might face challenges getting approved for console publishing on their own or have no porting experience, this aspect alone can make these deals worthwhile.

Concerning deal terms

We’re also seeing some concerning publisher protection clauses in these agreements, from the developer perspective.

Takeover provisions are very common, particularly in agreements with first-time developers. These clauses typically give publishers the right to take over development (and sometimes ownership of the IP itself) if the developer breaches the agreement.

While this might sound alarming, it’s worth understanding the context: publishers are often investing significant resources into marketing and platform relationships, and they want to ensure they can protect that investment.

For first-time developers, these takeover provisions might be a necessary trade-off.

We often counsel developers who view their first game as a stepping stone rather than their magnum opus. In these cases, accepting slightly less favorable terms might make sense if it means getting that crucial first publishing deal and industry experience.

However, developers who have a deep personal investment in their IP or envision building a franchise should carefully consider the implications of these clauses.

Strategic considerations for developers

As we review publishing agreements for our clients, certain key areas consistently emerge as critical negotiation points.

The specific provisions developers should carefully consider before signing any publishing agreement:

Revenue structure and payment terms

The days of simple revenue splits are behind us.

Many successful developers are negotiating more sophisticated revenue structures that align publisher and developer interests while protecting both parties.

• Consider pushing for a day one royalty structure. You’ll accept a lower initial rate until the publisher recoups their costs, followed by a more favorable split once they’ve covered their investment.
• We’re also seeing success with developers who negotiate increased revenue shares tied to specific sales milestones or recoupment multipliers. These graduated structures can significantly improve your long-term earnings while giving publishers the security they need to make upfront investments.

Rights management and scope

Broad rights (movies, TV, etc.): One of the most common issues we encounter is overly broad rights grants to publishers.

While it might seem harmless to include film, television, or merchandising rights in your agreement, these additional rights can complicate future opportunities if not properly structured.

Consider including “use it or lose it” provisions. If the publisher hasn’t exploited certain rights within a specific timeframe, those rights revert to you.

This approach ensures your IP remains productive while protecting the publisher’s legitimate interests.

Last match rights: Publishers often request “last match” or overly burdensome right of first refusal provisions for sequels or future works. While these might seem reasonable, they can severely impact your negotiating position with other publishers down the line.

If you must include these rights, consider limiting their scope or duration (specific timing for responses), or tying them to specific performance metrics.

Personally, I almost always push back on any “last match,” as this can kill your ability to find a new publisher. The ability for the original publisher to swoop in after a lengthy negotiation with the new one can make the process very difficult.

Platform and territory considerations

In today’s global gaming market, carefully defining platform and territory rights is crucial.

You might grant rights globally, but may want to have a reversion clause if the publisher doesn’t actually publish the game in certain territories. The rights would then come back to the developer just with respect to those territories.

It helps prevent a situation where you could be exploiting those rights with a local publisher, but you’re leaving money on the table due to the publisher getting rights worldwide.

Marketing and promotion commitments

When negotiating marketing-only or marketing-focused deals, specificity is your friend.

Push for concrete, measurable marketing commitments rather than vague promises of “reasonable efforts.” This might include:

• Minimum marketing spend requirements
• Specific promotional activities or event presence
• Regular marketing planning and reporting obligations
• Performance metrics that trigger additional investment

Too often, I hear “you need to trust us” or “why wouldn’t we try to maximize sales.” Don’t listen to this, or at least make sure you are aware that they could end up not performing as expected.

If they are still in compliance with the terms of the agreement you signed, all of that talk is worthless.

IP protection and ownership

While the market data shows that developers typically retain their IP rights, the details matter enormously. Pay particular attention to:

• Clear definitions of what constitutes your IP
• Specific limitations on the publisher’s use of your IP
• Protection of your source code and development tools
• Clear transition provisions if the agreement terminates

You don’t want to lose the rights to anything important in your game. Making sure this is all clearly spelled out in the agreement is vital to maintaining that control.

Looking ahead

The publishing landscape continues to evolve, and no single approach works for every developer.

Your negotiating position will depend on various factors: your track record, the state of your game’s development, your financial situation, and your long-term goals.

The key is understanding which terms are truly market standard and which deserve special attention in your specific situation.

Whether you’re considering a traditional publishing agreement or one of the emerging marketing-only deals, we’re here to help ensure your interests are protected.

Have questions about your publishing agreement? Let’s discuss your specific situation and make sure you’re positioned for success: jump over to my contact page to set up a consultation.