The success of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 – which sold 2 million copies within 12 days of launch – has meant all eyes are now on its developer, Sandfall Interactive.
As the games industry mulls how to move forward, faced with a saturated market, widespread layoffs and spiralling development costs, the fact that an original title made by a relatively small team could see such massive success gives hope to everyone.
It’s also an emphatic validation of the strategy of Clair Obscur’s publisher, Kepler Interactive, which since its formation in 2021 has focused on original titles with eye-catching art styles and mould-breaking gameplay, including Sifu, Tchia, Scorn, Pacific Drive, Ultros, Bionic Bay, and the upcoming Rematch.
“They respect creativity and innovation in games, they have a very high standard in choosing games to publish, and they are very fun people to work with,” enthuses Shuhei Yoshida, former president of Sony Interactive Entertainment Worldwide Studios, and now a freelance consultant for Kepler. Yoshida has been helping to evaluate game pitches for the publisher since he left Sony in January, as well as helping to promote Bionic Bay and Clair Obscur.
“They have a great balance in looking for innovation in games and investing in commercially viable projects,” he says. “I think the way Kepler chooses games and supports developers is a great example of sustainable indie publishing. I expect many companies in the industry will look for inspiration from what Kepler is doing.”
Coop mode
One thing that immediately marks out Kepler as different is its structure. “Kepler is co-owned by a group of studios, but they all operate autonomously,” explains portfolio director Matthew Handrahan, who joined Kepler from PlayStation in 2022 (before that, he was editor-in-chief of this very site).
“They make a lot of their own choices creatively and commercially in terms of the direction of their business. But there is a collaborative aspect that they can draw upon if they feel they need it. The thing that we definitely are very clear on is Kepler is not sitting here telling anyone what to do.”
The idea is that Kepler can provide support into each studio in terms of things like HR, legal teams, and IT. “And each one of them can draw on that to the degree that they want to, in the belief that if you give people that solid base, they can just focus more on being creative,” says Handrahan.
But the plan was always for Kepler to become a third party publisher, he continues. So in addition to publishing games from its own studios, since 2024 Kepler has started releasing games from outside developers, like Pacific Drive, Clair Obscur, and the newly signed PVKK from Bippinbits, the creators of Dome Keeper. “As we go forward, what we really hope is that people can spot a Kepler game,” says Handrahan.
So what marks out a Kepler title? CEO Alexis Garavaryan has previously emphasised the publisher champions games with “bold art direction and innovative game design” that avoid familiar influences like Star Wars and superheroes. Handrahan says this is essential in today’s market. “I remember writing about Steam being overcrowded for GamesIndustry.biz 10 years ago, and saying, ‘Oh, there’s too many games’,” he says. “Well there’s five times more games being released now. So if you are coming to market with a game, it had better be doing something genuinely fresh.”
What Kepler definitely isn’t doing is chasing trends, which Handrahan says is a dangerous strategy. He gives the example of Balatro imitators. “If you’re making something hot on the heels of that, by the time you get to market, there’ll probably be 150 other alternatives.”
One can’t help thinking, too, of the expensive failure of Concord at PlayStation, which proved to be one hero shooter too many.
The next expedition
Sandfall’s COO and producer François Meurisse says that the fact that studio head Guillaume Broche was deliberately avoiding chasing trends with Clair Obscur was what attracted him to join in the first place.
“Some people predicted to us that it was a tricky [sector] when we started development, and there could be kind of a curse on AA games”
François Meurisse, Sandfall Interactive
He was immediately on board with Broche’s passion for revitalising the kind of flashy, 3D, turn-based JRPGs that had long gone out of fashion. That passion came first: the strategy came later. “A bit after, when we tried to rationalise that yearning he has for this kind of game, we realised that it wasn’t addressed as much in the market, and maybe there was a place for it,” says Meurisse.
The end result went beyond their wildest dreams. “The game has had a success to an extent that we didn’t imagine,” he says. “We smashed our forecasts pretty fast.”
Naturally, thoughts are already turning to a follow-up. “There will be another video game, for sure,” says Meurisse, adding that it’s a little early to say exactly what form it will take. “I can’t wait to dig more into the ideas we already have for the next game,” he says.
“Plus the team has grown up, has acquired new skills throughout production,” he says. “Many of them were junior when we started. We learned to work together. So I can’t wait to get to the next project, because we’ll start from a more efficient position than when we started the company five years ago. And that [comes] with higher expectations as well, so it will be challenging. But I can say that we have – and Guillaume in particular has – great ideas for the next game.”
AA comeback
The success of Clair Obscur has led many to herald the comeback of AA games, a sector that has shrunk significantly over the past couple of console generations – even if it’s a harder category to define in 2025 based on a lack of publicly available budget numbers. “Some people predicted to us that it was a tricky [sector] when we started development, and there could be kind of a curse on AA games,” remembers Meurisse.
“But from our perspective, we didn’t care too much about market considerations. […] In a sense, A Plague Tale or Mortal Shell or Hellblade, games like those were already proof for us that small teams of less than 50 people could have great games and great execution.”
Speaking of team size, much was made of the claim that Clair Obscur was created by a team of around 30, although many were quick to point out that the credits include dozens more people than that, working on things like QA, localization and voice production, as well as a ‘gameplay animation’ team in Korea.
“These kinds of games did exist in much greater numbers about 15 years ago, and I think there are some threads that the AAA industry lost as they grew and grew and grew”
Matt Handrahan, Kepler Interactive
So was the game mis-sold?
“I don’t think so,” says Handrahan. “I think that the creative engine of the game was that group of 30. […] In terms of what the game is – the vision of it and the way in which it’s executed – [that] does come from that nucleus of staff that is at Sandfall.”
“In terms of main credits over the four years of production, we were on average about 30 people,” clarifies Meurisse. “We started with less than 10 people, scaled up until 30, and close to 40, and then scaled a little bit down. You mentioned Korean animators, but it’s important to mention that none of them were full time. They were doing some extras beside some other jobs of animation. So the core team was on average 30 people in the home studio, plus privileged contractors like the lead writer or the composer, for example: I include them in that core team.”
“But of course, we had a galaxy of partners revolving around the project. Kepler in the first place – and I want to really pinpoint that they were really key in the success of the game – plus some other creative people as well, like musician players, translators, QA testers also. And that definitely extends the team, and I’m super grateful we could work with all those super […] passionate partners from all over the world.”
“I think people fixated on this number,” adds Handrahan, “but actually the more useful thing that was being said was that this is not a AAA game, right? You can look at those credits, and it’s still definitely not a AAA game.”
“These kinds of games did exist in much greater numbers about 15 years ago, and I think there are some threads that the AAA industry lost as they grew and grew and grew, and brought in different ways of monetising,” he continues.
“We have to remember there was a time when AAA companies were making games like Vanquish and Mirror’s Edge and Kane & Lynch, and all of these really cool, interesting, not small games, but much smaller scale games. And you’ve seen the number of releases from AAA publishers dwindle and dwindle and dwindle. Now there’s an opportunity for teams like Sandfall to come in and give players something that they really have not been given for quite a long time.”
Which leads us to ask, if Clair Obscur can’t be classed as a AAA game, how much did it cost, exactly? Neither Handrahan nor Meurisse is willing to disclose the true figure. “I would say that I’ve seen a lot of budget estimations that are all higher than the real budget,” muses Meurisse.
Handrahan agrees. “Everybody’s desperate to know what the budget is, and I won’t tell them, but I would guarantee if you got 10 people to guess, I think all 10 wouldn’t guess the actual figure,” he says. “I’m sure Mirror’s Edge and Vanquish cost more, put it that way.”
Keeping the team small
With a success like Clair Obscur, the temptation might be to scale up the studio for a blockbuster sequel: a pattern we’ve seen with successful franchises many times before. But Meurisse says that’s something Sandfall wants to avoid.
“For now, our vision would be to stick to a close team working in the same city with less than 50 people on board, focusing on one project after another, and keeping this agility, and this creative strength, and smartness of a small group of passionate people wanting to do something big,” he says.
“That’s how video games were made for years,” he continues. “The team that made Ocarina of Time or Half-Life 2, I think those were max 60 or 70 people*, and that kind of size allows for good decisions and great creativity.”
He adds that the studio might recruit a few more members, but it won’t start working on multiple projects simultaneously, and they will deliberately avoid growing too big and unwieldy. “We want to keep the organisation that made us successful,” he says.
Handrahan notes that because game making is an iterative process, maintaining only a small permanent team makes sense. “I think keeping a core team to hold the vision and to build out what the game is, and then expanding as you need to through things like outsourcing, is a very smart and sustainable way to manage game development,” he says.
“I think that there’s been a lot of irresponsible practices in the industry,” he continues, referring to the inherent risks involved in ballooning AAA budgets and team sizes. “Some games can make it work. Grand Theft Auto 6 is going to make it work, I think we can all say with great confidence. But there are plenty of games made with very large teams and for huge amounts of money that don’t land, and there is a human cost to running things that way. People lose their jobs. God knows how many layoffs there’s been in the industry over the last few years.”
He worries that the temptation to scale up is too great. “I do see a lot of developers who ship a game and then get some level of success – even very small levels of success or on very small budgets – and then almost instinctively feel like they need to double or triple the budget of the next game. And that is something I definitely question.”
No bloat
He also questions the need to make games bigger. “One of the things that’s great about Expedition 33 is it really respects the player’s time. It gives them plenty to do, and it gives them plenty of satisfaction, but it isn’t arbitrarily 500 hours of gameplay. It’s impactful because it’s scoped correctly. […] It doesn’t have any sense of bloat or extraneous things that are put there just to make it larger and larger and larger.”
“Brevity should be more of a virtue in gaming,” he adds. “Something can be better by being shorter – something that’s being discussed in film at the moment. Every film seems to be two and a half hours long, and I think most people are like, ‘Can they all be a bit shorter, please? Because we have other things to do with our lives’.”
Meurisse notes that the focus for Clair Obscur was always on quality over quantity. “From the beginning, we wanted to do an intense and short experience,” he says. “The first length estimates of the game were closer to 20 hours for the main quest. I think we ended up closer to 30, even 40 hours if you take a bit of time. As a player, there are so many great games out there that I want to experience, [and] what’s important to me is the level of excitement and fun I get from a game, rather than how long it is.”
He also questions the link between game length and price. “The value that players get from games does not align systematically with the length of the game,” he says. “For example, one of my favourite games of all time is Inside, which lasts about two hours, but it’s one of the most polished, and intense [experiences] – and even life changing for some people.”
What are games worth?
Notably, Clair Obscur launched at a price point of $50/$45, at a time when the standard price for big-budget games is creeping up to $80. “I think as that AAA price goes up, I think it creates more of an opportunity to be launching games – more sensibly scoped games – [and] pricing them at that $40–50 range,” says Handrahan. “And I don’t think anyone that played Expedition 33 would think they didn’t get their money’s worth out of that.”
“When we announced the pricing at $50 we did actually have a little of a backlash online,” adds Meurisse, “with people fearing it would be a 12-hour-long game with unfinished content, and that it was suspicious to have a $50 game that was looking like this in the trailers. But in the end we stuck with the price, we doubled down on it, [and] we provided some context about the fact that it wasn’t a AAA.”
“In the end, it was a win-win situation, because it was a way to attract more players towards the game, to have good player satisfaction about their buying [decision], and it could actually end up doing more sales. So maybe players’ perception can change a bit about that kind of price [point].”
The Kepler brand
Clair Obscur has obviously provided a huge boost for Kepler as a publisher, and Handrahan says the plan now is for Kepler to build a brand as the home for high-quality, mid-sized games with a unique vision.
He gives the newly signed PVKK as an example. “The art direction is very high quality, it’s very, very bold. It has a strong narrative component. It has innovative gameplay design. It speaks to wider culture, it’s not an insular vision for a game. I think you get a lot of games that are kind of just about other games, and that is not something we’re interested in necessarily.”
It’s a model that he thinks others could follow. “We definitely want there to be strong associations with the games we do, so if that is something that other publishers could imitate or follow along from, then all the better,” he says, adding that it makes little sense for publishers to cast a broad net of styles and genres in such a crowded market.
But of course, there is a risk to championing unique, untested visions. So what does Kepler do to mitigate that risk? “We definitely do market research,” says Handrahan – although he adds that ultimately the process is subjective.
“I came to this company because I really trusted the taste of the people that I work for. I have always felt that if I’m really excited by a game, there will be other people out there who are excited by it. Yes, you can test that against market research, and that is definitely a function that we have in the company, and we use it. But our litmus test is a subjective level of excitement and belief in the vision and creativity that we see in the games that we sign.”
He points to companies in other media, like A24 or Warped Records, that have taken a similar approach with great success. “We want to be that in games.”
*Fact check note: Valve’s core team was actually 84 for Half-Life 2, without including the many people involved in voice acting, QA, IT, legal, and so on. The team behind Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time numbered around 66, although the people involved in QA testing aren’t listed individually in the credits.
