DEV Community

Ocean View Games
Ocean View Games

Posted on • Originally published at oceanviewgames.co.uk

Co-Development vs Freelancers vs Full-Time Hires: Which Is Right for Your Studio?

#gamedev #unity3d #programming

At some point, every game studio faces the same question: we need more capacity, but how do we get it?

The answer is not always obvious. Hiring full-time is the default assumption, but it is not always the right one. Freelancers are fast but introduce coordination overhead. Co-development partners sit somewhere in between.

Having worked across all three models (as full-time employees at Jagex, as freelance contractors, and now as a co-development partner) we have seen the tradeoffs up close. This post breaks them down honestly.

Option 1: Full-Time Hires

How It Works

You recruit developers onto your payroll. They work exclusively for your studio, embedded in your team.

Pros

  • Maximum alignment - full-time employees are invested in your project's long-term success
  • Institutional knowledge - they accumulate deep understanding of your codebase, tools, and culture
  • Always available - no competing clients or project conflicts
  • Easier IP protection - employment contracts typically include comprehensive IP assignment

Cons

  • Slow to ramp - recruitment takes 2-4 months. A senior Unity developer in the UK market is in high demand.
  • Expensive fixed cost - salary, benefits, equipment, office space. In London, a senior Unity developer costs £60,000-90,000 per year before overheads. That cost persists whether the project needs them or not.
  • Hard to scale down - when the project ships, you are still paying the team. Redundancies are expensive, slow, and damaging to morale.
  • Skills gaps - your hire might be strong in gameplay but weak in networking. Covering all specialisms requires multiple hires.

When It Works Best

  • Long-running projects (2+ years) with consistent headcount needs
  • Core team roles where institutional knowledge is critical (lead engineer, technical director)
  • Studios with a pipeline of sequential projects that keep the team fully utilised

Option 2: Freelancers

How It Works

You engage individual contractors for specific tasks or time periods. They work remotely, often juggling multiple clients.

Pros

  • Fast to engage - a good freelancer can start within days
  • Flexible cost - you pay only for the hours or deliverables you need
  • Specialist skills - need a shader programmer for 3 weeks? A freelancer is the right tool
  • No long-term commitment - when the work is done, the engagement ends

Cons

  • Coordination overhead - every freelancer needs onboarding, context, and management. Multiple freelancers multiply this cost.
  • Variable quality - the freelance market ranges from exceptional to unreliable. Vetting takes time.
  • No team dynamics - freelancers optimise for their deliverable, not the project as a whole. Integration issues are common.
  • Availability risk - your preferred freelancer may be unavailable when you need them
  • Knowledge loss - when the contract ends, their understanding of your codebase leaves with them

When It Works Best

  • Short, well-defined tasks (shader work, audio integration, specific tool development)
  • Surge capacity for crunch periods
  • Highly specialised skills you need temporarily
  • Early prototyping where the team structure is not yet defined

Option 3: Co-Development Partners

How It Works

You engage an external studio that embeds a team into your project. They operate as an extension of your in-house team, using your tools, attending your standups, and contributing to your codebase.

Pros

  • Team, not individuals - you get a coordinated unit with complementary skills. At Ocean View Games, our co-development engagements typically include engineering, QA, and technical art capabilities.
  • Fast ramp-up - an established team has worked together before. No forming/storming/norming period.
  • Scalable - scale the team up for production sprints, down for content phases. The co-dev partner absorbs the bench cost, not you.
  • Battle-tested processes - a co-dev partner brings their own methodology and quality standards, not just warm bodies
  • Risk sharing - the partner has a reputation stake in the project's success. Poor work loses them future business.

Cons

  • Higher day rate than freelancers - you are paying for coordination, process, and reliability, not just keystrokes
  • Less control than full-time hires - the team has their own working patterns and tools preferences
  • IP considerations - requires clear contractual agreements about code ownership and confidentiality
  • Cultural fit - the partner's working style needs to mesh with yours. A mismatch creates friction.

When It Works Best

  • Projects with defined scope and timeline (6-18 months)
  • Studios that need to scale rapidly without permanent headcount increase
  • Overflow capacity when your in-house team is at full stretch
  • Specialised domains (mobile porting, multiplayer networking, educational games) where the partner has deep expertise your team lacks

Key Takeaway: Co-development is not "outsourcing." Outsourcing implies throwing work over a wall. Co-development means embedding a team that operates as part of yours.

The Real Comparison

Factor Full-Time Hire Freelancer Co-Dev Partner
Ramp-up time 2-4 months Days 1-2 weeks
Monthly cost £5,000-8,000+ Variable Scoped per project
Commitment Permanent Per-task Per-project
Scale flexibility Low High High
Knowledge retention High Low Medium
Quality consistency Depends on hire Variable High (team reputation)
Management overhead Low (once onboarded) High (per freelancer) Low (self-managing team)

Comparison at a Glance

Here is how the three team scaling options compare across the factors that influence your decision:

Factor Freelancer Co-Dev Studio Full-Time Hire
Cost (short-term) ✅ Pay per task ⚠️ Scoped per project ❌ Salary + overheads from day one
Cost (long-term) ⚠️ Adds up over time ✅ Scales with project phases ✅ Predictable fixed cost
Accountability ⚠️ Individual, variable ✅ Team reputation at stake ✅ Embedded in your culture
Scalability ✅ Engage and release quickly ✅ Scale up or down per sprint ❌ Redundancies are slow and costly
Domain expertise ⚠️ Depends on individual ✅ Specialist teams available ⚠️ Limited to your hire's skills
IP control ⚠️ Requires careful contracts ⚠️ Requires clear agreements ✅ Employment contracts cover IP
Onboarding time ✅ Days ✅ 1-2 weeks ❌ 2-4 months (recruitment + ramp)

A Hybrid Approach

In practice, the best studios use a combination. A common pattern we see among our clients:

  1. Core team (full-time) - technical director, lead designer, producer. These roles require deep institutional knowledge and long-term investment.
  2. Production capacity (co-dev partner) - the bulk of engineering and QA work during production sprints. Scales up and down with project phases.
  3. Specialists (freelancers) - short-term engagements for highly specific skills (localisation, soundtrack, trailer editing).

This hybrid model gives you the alignment of full-time staff, the flexibility of freelancers, and the coordinated capacity of a co-dev partner.

How We Work as a Co-Dev Partner

At Ocean View Games, our co-development model typically involves:

  • Embedded integration - we join your Slack, attend your standups, commit to your repo
  • Complementary skills - we bring Unity engineering, mobile optimisation, and QA capabilities
  • Transparent communication - bi-weekly sprint reviews with playable demos
  • Clean handoff - when the engagement ends, you receive clean, documented code with no lock-in

Our work with Domi Online is a prime example. We joined as technical partners, grew with the project, and now operate as the core development team; a relationship that started with a code review and expanded based on trust and demonstrated capability.

Related Reading

Top comments (0)