Homa, Voodoo, Supersonic, CrazyLabs: How Their Submission Bars Differ

The major casual publishers all want a simple loop with strong economics, and they differ in how they take submissions, what they weight most, and how much support they provide afterwards. Choosing the right first submission matters more than the build, because feedback from the first shapes every one after it.

Why this matters

Teams commonly submit the same package everywhere on the same day. That maximises reach and wastes the most valuable thing a first submission produces, which is feedback.

Publishers also differ in ways that affect you well beyond the deal: how much they invest in a title, how quickly they respond, and how much creative control you keep.

Details change, so treat the structure below as the durable part and verify current specifics on each publisher's own creator portal before submitting.

How each publisher takes submissions

All four run a self-serve route, and the experience differs.

• Portal-first publishers want you to register, create a game entry, and upload builds and metrics through their tooling. The process is structured and impersonal, and it works well if you follow it exactly.
• Community-led publishers run active developer communities where account managers are reachable directly. A conversation before submitting is normal and materially improves your odds.
• Data-first publishers expect you to run your own test and submit the numbers alongside the build. Submitting without data is possible and much weaker.

Practically, register with all of them early, because account setup and verification take time you do not want to spend when a prototype is ready.

The submission process itself tells you what a publisher values. A portal that demands metrics before it accepts a build is telling you what it will judge.

What each one weights most

The differences are matters of emphasis rather than kind.

Read the portfolio before deciding which of these applies. A publisher's recent releases are a more reliable statement of what they want than their marketing copy.

The underlying market shift affecting all four is in The Hybrid-Casual Shift Explained.

Genre preferences

Every publisher has genres they have won in and genres they keep trying.

Three practical rules.

1. Look at what they released in the last year, not their all-time hits. Portfolios move.
2. Avoid direct duplicates of anything currently in their catalogue. Adjacent is good; identical is an instant no.
3. Match the depth to the publisher. Some have moved decisively toward games with progression and purchases, and a very thin prototype reads as dated to them.

If your concept sits clearly in one publisher's territory, that is where the first submission goes.

Speed of feedback

Response times vary enough to affect your planning.

Portal submissions with no relationship are the slowest, and silence is a common outcome rather than a rejection. Community routes where you have spoken to someone are considerably faster.

Two practical consequences.

• Do not wait idle. Keep the next prototype moving while a submission sits.
• Set your own deadline. If there is no response within a reasonable window, move on to the next publisher rather than treating the submission as still live.

Building a relationship before you need one is the highest-leverage thing you can do here, and it costs nothing but time in the right communities.

Deal shape differences

The terms differ more than the submission process does.

Look at four things in any offer.

• Revenue share and its basis, particularly whether marketing spend is deducted before your share.
• Recoupment, whether it is capped, and whether it is cross-collateralised across titles.
• Ownership, and whether the game or the concept reverts to you if the deal ends.
• Ongoing obligations, including how many titles you commit to and over what period.

Multi-title commitments are common and are the clause most worth reading carefully, because they bind your studio's capacity for a long period. The full read is in How to Read a Publisher Term Sheet.

Picking who to submit to first

A sequence that works.

1. Shortlist two whose recent portfolio is closest to your concept without duplicating it.
2. Submit to the one with the faster feedback loop first, which is usually the one where you have a contact.
3. Fix what they tell you, then submit the improved version to the second.
4. Keep a third in reserve for the version after that.

Resist submitting everywhere simultaneously. The first response almost always improves the package, and spending that improvement on one publisher rather than all of them is the point.

If everyone passes, that is its own signal and there is a process for it in What to Do When Every Publisher Passes.

What we would do

Register accounts with all the major publishers before you have anything to submit, and join the communities that have them. Relationships are the single largest difference between a submission that gets read and one that sits.

Read four recent releases from each publisher and write one sentence on what they seem to be buying. That exercise takes an hour and it makes the shortlist obvious.

Then sequence the submissions deliberately, and treat the first response as the most valuable output of the whole exercise.

The short version

• All four want a simple loop with strong economics; the emphasis differs.
• Register and join communities before you have something to submit.
• Recent releases describe what a publisher wants better than their marketing does.
• Avoid duplicating anything currently in their catalogue.
• Submit to one publisher first, apply the feedback, then approach the next.
• Read recoupment, cross-collateralisation, and multi-title commitments closely.

Read four recent releases from each publisher and write down what they are buying. If you want help placing a prototype with the right one, tell us about it.

Related reading: What Voodoo Actually Looks For, The Publisher Submission Checklist, and Do You Need a Game Publisher.