3 ms·

I don't get it. They seem to imply there's more done by contractors than not, with "Network of contractors" and "Lean core of in-house", but in both examples g

by dmoy 10y ago

I don't get it. They seem to imply there's more done by contractors than not, with "Network of contractors" and "Lean core of in-house", but in both examples given (rocket league, blizzard), full time outnumber contractors 2:1 or 3:1?

sidlls 10y ago
It's wasn't uncommon several years ago at one studio I know of to have core components of multiple titles maintained by permanent in-house staff and much of the feature development done by contractors. They had a ratio almost inverted from what you describe (approximately contractor:perm::3:2).
- stevenwoo 10y ago
  N=1 and five years ago but I worked on a console title where the feature development was 3 contractors/1 perm (me who didn't realize contracting was a much better deal) and five perm who supported us when needed. There was also a project that was outsourced entirely to a separate studio that our management fired for non performance and I had to revive the build from a hard drive with the last build and assets so the perm team could take over - so all sorts of permutations possible.
midnightclubbed 10y ago
I agree, the article reads like they had an idea for a story and tried to fit the facts around it. The heaviest use of contractors in the games industry is, as they imply in the article, in test. Typically you'll have a small core test group in-house to handle test during development and then a much bigger outsourced group you'll ramp up prior to release. In a large multiplayer game you may want 100s of testers on hand at any one time, but only for a few days at a time. Outsourcing gives you that. Depending on the game you may be content heavy in which case may use outside contractors (or outside studios) to help with the mass of work but that seems to have dropped off as a practice in recent years. Using Chinese and Indian art outsourcing studios was big 10 years ago. More recently the big players have moved to a model where each of their development studios has a game (or two) in development with a core team working only on that game and a content team who will work on whichever studio needs their help (typically the next game for release). If you are not 'outsourcing' the entire game development you'll typically want most of the core staff in the same location and full-time. Design, code, technical art and art direction all have to work very closely together. Not something you can easily split around the world or assign to short-term contractors. Psyonix did outsource their console versions to another studio (likely comprised of full-time employees), which is common with smaller companies who would rather not have to ramp-up their engineering staff for console support. It also saves Psyonix the large capital expense of purchasing development kits.
- dmoy 10y ago
  Ok thanks, what you described sounds much more realistic and in line with what I've heard from family members who did video game testing than the narrative the article was talking about.

by dmoy 10y ago

sidlls 10y ago

It's wasn't uncommon several years ago at one studio I know of to have core components of multiple titles maintained by permanent in-house staff and much of the feature development done by contractors. They had a ratio almost inverted from what you describe (approximately contractor:perm::3:2).

stevenwoo 10y ago
N=1 and five years ago but I worked on a console title where the feature development was 3 contractors/1 perm (me who didn't realize contracting was a much better deal) and five perm who supported us when needed. There was also a project that was outsourced entirely to a separate studio that our management fired for non performance and I had to revive the build from a hard drive with the last build and assets so the perm team could take over - so all sorts of permutations possible.

midnightclubbed 10y ago

I agree, the article reads like they had an idea for a story and tried to fit the facts around it. The heaviest use of contractors in the games industry is, as they imply in the article, in test. Typically you'll have a small core test group in-house to handle test during development and then a much bigger outsourced group you'll ramp up prior to release. In a large multiplayer game you may want 100s of testers on hand at any one time, but only for a few days at a time. Outsourcing gives you that. Depending on the game you may be content heavy in which case may use outside contractors (or outside studios) to help with the mass of work but that seems to have dropped off as a practice in recent years. Using Chinese and Indian art outsourcing studios was big 10 years ago. More recently the big players have moved to a model where each of their development studios has a game (or two) in development with a core team working only on that game and a content team who will work on whichever studio needs their help (typically the next game for release). If you are not 'outsourcing' the entire game development you'll typically want most of the core staff in the same location and full-time. Design, code, technical art and art direction all have to work very closely together. Not something you can easily split around the world or assign to short-term contractors. Psyonix did outsource their console versions to another studio (likely comprised of full-time employees), which is common with smaller companies who would rather not have to ramp-up their engineering staff for console support. It also saves Psyonix the large capital expense of purchasing development kits.

dmoy 10y ago
Ok thanks, what you described sounds much more realistic and in line with what I've heard from family members who did video game testing than the narrative the article was talking about.