- 1 hour ago
Indie developers are speaking out about the cost of promoting their games through the YouTube channel Best Indie Games, with some claiming they paid hundreds of dollars for exposure that produced disappointing results.
In this video, we look at the allegations surrounding Clemmy and Best Indie Games, reported promotional prices, developers who say they paid for showcases and social-media exposure, concerns about audience reach and advertising disclosure, and comments from indie game marketing consultant Indie Game Joe.
But is this really a case of exploitation—or is it simply an expensive advertising service that didn't deliver the results some developers expected?
More importantly, this controversy highlights a much bigger problem facing independent developers: with thousands of games competing for attention, how can smaller studios afford to market their games without taking enormous financial risks?
What do you think? Let me know in the comments.
If you enjoyed the video, please give it a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel, and ring the notification bell so you don't miss any future videos!
🎮 SUPPORT THE CHANNEL ON PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/cw/JamesSchierer
Patreon membership is just $1 a month, and the latest Patreon-exclusive video is How September Became One Of Gaming's Biggest Months.
Thanks for watching!
Game On.
In this video, we look at the allegations surrounding Clemmy and Best Indie Games, reported promotional prices, developers who say they paid for showcases and social-media exposure, concerns about audience reach and advertising disclosure, and comments from indie game marketing consultant Indie Game Joe.
But is this really a case of exploitation—or is it simply an expensive advertising service that didn't deliver the results some developers expected?
More importantly, this controversy highlights a much bigger problem facing independent developers: with thousands of games competing for attention, how can smaller studios afford to market their games without taking enormous financial risks?
What do you think? Let me know in the comments.
If you enjoyed the video, please give it a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel, and ring the notification bell so you don't miss any future videos!
🎮 SUPPORT THE CHANNEL ON PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/cw/JamesSchierer
Patreon membership is just $1 a month, and the latest Patreon-exclusive video is How September Became One Of Gaming's Biggest Months.
Thanks for watching!
Game On.
Category
🎮️
GamingTranscript
00:00If you're an independent game developer, getting people to actually notice your game
00:03can sometimes feel almost as difficult as making the game itself.
00:07You can spend years developing something you're passionate about, put it on Steam, create
00:12a trailer, make social media accounts, contact journalists, reach out to content creators,
00:17and still find yourself wondering why almost nobody is playing your game.
00:21And because of that, marketing has become an entire industry surrounding indie developers.
00:26But what happens when an indie developer pays a content creator hundreds or even thousands
00:31of dollars for exposure, and the results don't seem to match what they thought they were buying?
00:36That's the controversy surrounding a YouTube channel called Best Indie Games, which has
00:41recently faced criticism from multiple indie developers over its paid promotional packages.
00:46There are developers who say they've received disappointing results after paying for exposure,
00:51while others are questioning whether the prices being charged are justified in the first place.
00:56And then there are questions about advertising disclosure.
01:00So today we're going to break down what's happening, what developers are alleging, and
01:04what IndieGameJoe has said about the situation, and why this controversy points towards a much
01:09larger problem facing independent game developers.
01:12Before we get into the controversy itself though, we need to understand why marketing is such
01:17a huge problem for indie developers in the first place.
01:20There are a lot of games on Steam.
01:22According to SteamDB's 2026 release statistics, thousands upon thousands of games have already
01:29been released on Steam this year.
01:30The sheer number of releases means that even a genuinely good game can disappear into the
01:36crowd almost immediately.
01:37And that's the key problem.
01:39Being a good game doesn't automatically mean people are going to find you.
01:43The figures presented in the reporting around the controversy are pretty striking.
01:47A large percentage of games released on Steam receive very few reviews, while only a relatively
01:53small percentage manage to accumulate hundreds of reviews.
01:57That creates a brutal situation for developers.
02:01You can make something that took you years of your life to create, release it to the public,
02:05and then watch it get buried beneath hundreds of other games competing for the exact same audience.
02:10And unlike a major publisher, an indie developer may not have millions of dollars sitting around
02:15for advertising.
02:16They might be funding the game themselves.
02:18They might have a tiny team.
02:20They might have spent years working on the project without paying themselves much or anything
02:25during development.
02:26So when the game is finally ready, marketing isn't just another business expense.
02:31It can represent a significant portion of everything they have invested into the project.
02:36And that's when things get complicated.
02:39Developers obviously have options.
02:41They can contact journalists.
02:43They can send review codes to YouTubers.
02:45They could post on social media.
02:47They could participate in showcases.
02:49They can try to build an audience themselves.
02:51Or they can pay somebody who already has an audience to promote their game.
02:55On paper, that last option makes perfect sense.
02:58If you have spent years making a game, but don't have an audience, paying someone who has
03:03an audience to introduce your game to potential players can be a perfectly legitimate marketing
03:08strategy.
03:09The problem is figuring out whether you're actually buying meaningful exposure or simply
03:14buying the appearance of exposure.
03:16And that's where the Best Indie Games controversy comes in.
03:20Clemmy wants the YouTube channel Best Indie Games, also known as Clemmy Games.
03:24The channel describes itself as a place for discovering indie games that might otherwise be overlooked.
03:29And its YouTube audience is reported to be over 190,000 subscribers.
03:35That kind of audience can obviously be attractive to an indie developer.
03:39If you're a solo developer with a game nobody knows about, the opportunity to put that game
03:44in front of a large established audience sounds appealing.
03:47And that's exactly why the allegations being made by some developers have attracted attention.
03:52According to an unconfirmed pricing breakdown shared publicly by developer DevoriaHub, one
03:58promotional package allegedly cost $2,228.
04:03The package reportedly includes a YouTube short, a small feature within a larger YouTube video,
04:08an X post, and a newsletter mentioned.
04:11And that's reportedly the cheapest package in the pricing breakdown that was circulated.
04:16There was also a reported price of $380 for a single tweet.
04:20Now, there's an important distinction we need to make here.
04:24A high price does not automatically mean something is a scam.
04:27If someone wants to charge $380 for a tweet, they're allowed to set whatever price they
04:33believe their advertising space is worth.
04:35The more important question is, what does the developer actually receive for that money?
04:39And that's where some developers say they weren't satisfied.
04:43One developer, BitQuest Studio, said they paid $177 for exposure last year.
04:49According to their account, their game received approximately 1,622 impressions and they said
04:55the showcase did not result in a wishlist increase.
04:58Their conclusion was that they didn't consider the promotion worthwhile.
05:02Another developer, Bag Track Games, described paying approximately $217 including tax for a
05:09Best Indie Game Showcase.
05:10They said their trailer appeared among hundreds of other trailers in a two to three hour video.
05:15They also said their game was posted alongside numerous other games on social media which
05:20they felt effectively buried their own promotion.
05:23And this is where I think the controversy gets interesting because there's a huge difference
05:28between your game will appear in our showcase and your game will receive a specific amount
05:32of attention from our audience.
05:34Those aren't necessarily the same thing.
05:37A game can technically be included in a showcase while receiving very little individual attention.
05:42And from a developer's perspective, that's a pretty important distinction.
05:47One of the issues raised by Indie Game Joe involves the way developers may perceive these
05:52offers.
05:53One argued that the model could particularly affect inexperienced or first time indie developers
05:58because of the psychological situation they're already in.
06:01You've spent years making your game.
06:03Launch is approaching.
06:04You're terrified that nobody will notice it.
06:06Then someone connected to a large gaming audience tells you that your game has been selected for
06:11exposure.
06:12And then you receive a price.
06:14Suddenly that price might not feel like an ordinary advertising purchase.
06:18It might feel like your opportunity to finally get noticed.
06:21Joe described this as potentially targeting vulnerable first time developers although that characterization
06:27is his interpretation of the situation, not an established fact.
06:31And that's an important distinction.
06:33We shouldn't automatically assume someone's intentions based solely on the outcome, but
06:38we can absolutely examine whether the marketing being offered provides enough information for
06:43developers to make an informed decision.
06:45This brings us to another major issue, follower counts.
06:48If a creator has hundreds of thousands of followers across multiple platforms, that
06:53number sounds impressive.
06:54But followers aren't the same thing as guaranteed views.
06:58And views aren't necessarily the same thing as clicks.
07:01And clicks aren't the same thing as wish lists.
07:04And wish lists aren't the same thing as sales.
07:07Those are different stages of a marketing funnel.
07:09And a developer needs to know which stage they're actually paying for.
07:13Joe claimed that a pricing document presented a combined audience of roughly 306,000 people
07:18across YouTube, X, Facebook, and Instagram.
07:22But he questioned how useful that figure is if individual posts are receiving much smaller
07:27levels of engagement.
07:28He specifically cited examples of posts receiving relatively low numbers of likes and views compared
07:34with the size of the combined audience.
07:37Again, having a large follower count isn't inherently misleading.
07:41But if you're selling advertising based on the size of an audience, developers need to understand
07:46what portion of that audience they're realistically going to reach.
07:49There's also a question surrounding showcases.
07:52Best Indie Games has run showcases such as its 2026 Summer and Fall Showcases.
07:57Its Steam Community page promotes these showcases as a way of discovering indie games.
08:02And third-party event listings show the Best Indie Games Summer Showcase listed with a fee
08:07after acceptance.
08:08The controversy isn't simply that developers paid to participate.
08:12Paid showcases are not automatically problematic.
08:16The issue is whether developers understand exactly what they're paying for and whether
08:20their expectations match what is actually delivered.
08:23If you're paying a couple hundred dollars to have your trailer included in a massive showcase
08:28containing hundreds of games, that's a very different proposition from paying a couple
08:32hundred dollars expecting hundreds or thousands of people to specifically engage with your game.
08:37There's another issue raised in the reporting, advertising disclosure.
08:42According to the reporting, some Best Indie Games posts on X include an advertising disclosure,
08:47but the disclosure may appear in replies rather than prominently in the original post.
08:53The reporting also said it couldn't find examples of YouTube shorts that clearly disclosed
08:58whether the promotion had been paid for.
09:00Now we have to be careful here.
09:02The absence of a disclosure on an individual post doesn't automatically prove that the post
09:07was paid for.
09:08We don't know how many of Clemmy's posts are sponsored and how many are simply games
09:12that Clemmy chose to feature.
09:13But when money changes hands, transparency becomes extremely important.
09:18If I'm watching a video and a creator recommends a game because they genuinely love it, that's
09:23one thing.
09:24If that recommendation was purchased by the developer, that's another.
09:28As viewers, we should be able to understand the difference.
09:31And developers should know exactly what they're paying for.
09:34And this is where I want to slow down for a moment because when we're talking about allegations
09:39involving a real person and a real business, it's important not to turn accusations into
09:44established facts.
09:45The controversy has largely developed through social media posts, developer testimonials,
09:50and reporting about these claims.
09:52That means we should distinguish between what has been documented, what individual developers
09:56say happened to them, and conclusions people are drawing from those experiences.
10:00The core criticism is about pricing, reach, results, and disclosure.
10:06But those criticisms aren't the same thing as proving that Clemmy intentionally set out
10:11to exploit inexperienced developers.
10:13That's a much stronger claim, and the evidence presented publicly does not allow us to simply
10:18treat that as established fact.
10:20And honestly, that's why I think the story is more interesting when we focus on the actual
10:24business model instead of simply calling someone a scammer.
10:27Because the business model raises questions regardless of what someone's intentions were.
10:32Indie Game Joe has been one of the most prominent people criticizing the model.
10:36But there's an obvious question that comes with that.
10:39Does Joe have his own financial interest in this?
10:42Joe operates as an Indie Game marketing consultant and has promoted himself as someone who helps
10:47developers with marketing.
10:49His website currently says he isn't taking paid consultancy work and that he continues to
10:53offer guidance for free where his time allows.
10:56His website also highlights his previous work on games including Hypercharge, Unboxed,
11:01and Don't Scream.
11:03According to Joe's comments reported in the controversy, much of the consulting work he's
11:07highlighted was done for free, while his primary income comes from developing games with the
11:12studio.
11:13So there is a potential conflict of interest question worth asking, but that doesn't automatically
11:17invalidate his criticism.
11:18It simply means viewers should consider who is making a claim, what their interests are, and
11:24whether the evidence supports the claim.
11:26That's something we should be doing with everybody involved in a controversy like this.
11:30And this brings us to the reaction from some people online.
11:34One commenter essentially asked, if developers believe they aren't getting value from a service and have data to support that,
11:41what's the news?
11:42Another commenter made a similar argument in simpler terms, maybe the service is just a bad deal.
11:47Maybe it's expensive, but expensive doesn't automatically mean scam.
11:51And I think that's an important part of the story.
11:54If someone says, pay me $380 and I will post your game on X.
11:59And then they post your game on X, that doesn't necessarily mean you've been defrauded just
12:03because the post didn't perform well.
12:05Advertising doesn't come with guaranteed success unless the advertiser explicitly promises a
12:11particular result.
12:12A billboard can be seen by thousands of people and generate zero sales.
12:16A television commercial can cost millions and flop.
12:19A YouTube sponsorship can get millions of views and generate very few purchases.
12:24Marketing is inherently uncertain.
12:26The question becomes whether the person purchasing the advertising was given enough accurate information
12:31to understand that uncertainty.
12:34And that's why I think this story goes beyond one YouTube channel.
12:37The bigger problem is that indie developers are operating in an incredibly crowded market.
12:42They have to develop the game, create trailers, build their Steam page, manage social media,
12:48contact journalists, find influencers, build wish lists, understand algorithms, run advertisements.
12:55And sometimes they're expected to understand all of this while also being the programmer, artist,
13:01designer, producer, and business manager.
13:04That's a lot to ask of one person.
13:05And when you're inexperienced, it's easy to look at a creator with hundreds of thousands of followers and think,
13:11they have the audience, I don't.
13:13Maybe paying them is the solution.
13:15That's not necessarily an irrational decision, but it means developers need to approach these offers like any other advertising purchase.
13:23If you're an indie developer and someone offers to promote your game, there are some basic questions you should ask
13:29before spending your money.
13:31First, what exactly am I buying?
13:33Is it a dedicated video, a 30 second mention, a short, a tweet, a newsletter mention, a spot in a
13:40massive showcase?
13:41Get the exact deliverables in writing.
13:44Second, what are the typical results?
13:46Don't just ask how many subscribers or followers the creator has, ask for average views, ask for average impressions, ask
13:55for click-through rates if they're available, ask what previous campaigns have achieved.
14:00Third, is there any guarantee?
14:02And if there isn't, understand that you're purchasing exposure, not guaranteed sales, wish lists, or views.
14:08Fourth, how will the promotion be disclosed?
14:11First, if your game is being promoted because you paid for it, find out how that relationship will be disclosed
14:16to the audience.
14:18And fifth, can I afford to lose the money?
14:20Because marketing is risky.
14:22If spending $500 means you can't pay an important development expense, you probably shouldn't be treating that $500 as guaranteed
14:29revenue.
14:30There's an uncomfortable reality here.
14:33There may not be a magic marketing solution.
14:35There isn't one creator who can guarantee your game will become the next Stardew Valley.
14:39There isn't one showcase that can guarantee success.
14:42There isn't one publisher who can guarantee your game will become a hit.
14:46And there isn't one social media post that can magically transform an unknown game into a bestseller.
14:52Sometimes a great game gets lucky.
14:54Sometimes a great game gets discovered by the right streamer.
14:57Sometimes a developer understands marketing incredibly well.
15:01And sometimes a fantastic game simply gets buried.
15:04That's one of the harshest realities of making games today.
15:08I don't think the biggest question here is simply, is Clammy exploiting indie developers?
15:13That's a conclusion that requires more evidence than what has publicly surfaced so far.
15:17The more useful question is, how transparent should paid indie game promotion be?
15:22If you're charging hundreds of dollars or potentially thousands for exposure, developers deserve to know what they're actually buying.
15:30How many people are likely to see their game?
15:32How prominently will it be featured?
15:35How many other games will be competing for attention in the same piece of content?
15:39What kind of engagement does the creator normally receive?
15:43And most importantly, is the developer being clearly told they're purchasing advertising?
15:48Those questions don't require us to assume anybody's motives.
15:51They're simply good questions to ask when money is changing hands.
15:54The indie game industry doesn't need fewer people promoting independent games.
15:59If anything, indie developers need more legitimate ways to get their games in front of players.
16:04But developers also need transparency.
16:07They need to know whether they're buying advertising, editorial coverage, a showcase spot, social media exposure, or some combination of
16:15all four.
16:16And they need to be able to judge whether the price makes sense for the audience they're actually reaching.
16:21Because when you've spent years of your life making a game, a few hundred dollars might not sound like much
16:27to a major publisher.
16:28For an independent developer, it could represent a significant portion of their entire marketing budget.
16:34And that's why stories like this are worth paying attention to.
16:37Not simply because of one creator or one controversy, but because they highlight just how difficult it can be for
16:43independent developers to navigate the business side of making games.
16:47But what do you think?
16:49Do you think paid indie game promotion is simply a case of developers needing to do better research before spending
16:55their money?
16:56Or do you think creators offering these services have a responsibility to be much more transparent about pricing, reach, and
17:03advertising disclosure?
17:04Let me know in the comments below.
17:06And if you enjoyed this video, please give it a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel, and ring that notification
17:11bell so you don't miss any of my future videos.
17:14And if you'd like to support the channel even further, you can check out my Patreon.
17:19Membership is just one dollar a month, and the latest Patreon exclusive video is how September became one of gaming's
17:25biggest months.
17:26Your support helps me continue making videos like this and covering the gaming stories that I find interesting.
17:31Thank you for watching, and as always, game on!
Comments