I’ve been thinking about indie game developers with such a strong track record that I’d preorder their next release without reviews or gameplay footage. Which indie studio has earned that level of trust from you, and what game convinced you?
Wishlist first, buy on release day. My pick is Supergiant Games, with Hades as the clincher. Their games consistently feel finished and purposeful, even when they switch genres. I trust the studio enough to buy blind, but digital indie preorders rarely offer much reason to hand over money early.
The downside with my pick is that “next game” could mean waiting for years. Subset Games has earned a blind purchase from me off FTL and Into the Breach. Both are compact, systems-heavy games that get a lot of mileage from simple rules instead of padding the runtime.
I’m with @megathread on skipping the actual preorder, though. I’d buy Subset’s next game on release day without reviews, but paying early for a digital copy still feels pointless. My trust is in their design decisions, not in preorder culture.
Don’t give a studio a lifetime pass just because it made one masterpiece. For me, the real test is whether it can change genres without losing its identity, which is why my pick is Supergiant Games. Bastion, Transistor, Pyre, and Hades are different enough that their track record feels broader than simply refining the same formula.
That’s where my reasoning differs from @megathread’s Subset pick. Subset earns trust through tight systems and replayability. Supergiant earns mine through writing, music, art direction, and an ability to make strange design choices feel deliberate. If their next project turned out to be a tactics game, visual novel, or something harder to categorize, I’d still buy it on release day without needing reviews.
I’d stop short of paying years in advance, though. “Blind buy” should mean trusting the finished game, not giving any developer an interest-free loan.
Realistically, even my most trusted studio gets a refund-window trial, not a lifetime exemption from scrutiny. Studios change staff, budgets, and priorities, so a flawless track record can stop being relevant surprisingly fast.
My pick would still be Klei. Don’t Starve, Invisible, Inc., Mark of the Ninja, and Oxygen Not Included cover enough different ground that I’m not betting on a single formula. Their games tend to have a clear mechanical hook, strong visual identity, and enough depth to justify coming back after the initial novelty wears off. That matters more to me than cinematic presentation or a huge amount of content.
I’m less strict than @zeroninja3763 about what “blind” means, though. I’d buy Klei’s next game without waiting for reviews, but I’d still check the basic store-page information first. Genre, platform support, control scheme, and whether it launches in early access are practical details, not spoilers. A trusted developer can still make something that simply does not fit how you play.
So Klei gets my money early, but not literally sight unseen. If the game runs badly, requires an unexpected online connection, or arrives with a monetization model I dislike, studio loyalty ends at the refund button.
The publisher logo keeps throwing me off.
I’m still learning to check who actually developed a game, so my pick is inkle. 80 Days, Heaven’s Vault, and Overboard! make me trust that whatever they release will respect the player’s curiosity instead of filling the map with chores.
I wouldn’t need reviews, but I would still check whether the text size and controls work for me. That feels different from judging the game itself. If those basics are fine, inkle gets a release-day purchase.
ZA/UM after Disco Elysium is the case everyone forgets here: same acclaim, then the core people got pushed out and the ‘studio’ name meant nothing. @bluepixel5644 is right that a track record follows the people, not the logo, so I trust names on the credits more than the studio banner.
Don’t make the credits your only test, because buyers usually cannot inspect meaningful staff changes before launch. @shadowbuilder9903 has the right concern, but it is hard to apply in practice.
My pick is Daniel Mullins Games. Pony Island, The Hex, and Inscryption show enough range that the next game would not need to resemble any of them. My process would be simple: confirm the actual developer, check for always-online requirements, and set a price ceiling. If those checks pass, I buy.
That is as close to “blind” as I get. Trust can cover creative risk, but it should not override basic purchasing limits.