This text is written by Michail Katkoff, CEO of Savage Game Studios. The goal of this text is to offer three key takeaways:

Underline that teams comprised of talented and inspired individuals exponentially increase your chances of success.
Share some concrete examples for building a talent strategy.
Emphasize that there is no one-approach-fits-all talent strategy. Your studio has to craft one and evolve it over time.

This post is sponsored by Xsolla. If you’re interested in growing your business on mobile and beyond, look no further. Xsolla has dedicated tools that will help you create your own online commerce platform, improve your performance marketing and discoverability, and expand your game business on mobile and PC. Check out Xsolla’s solutions for more information.

As game makers, we tend to have quite similar ideas on what games would find success in the market. After all, we tend to play the same games, go to the same events, subscribe to the same data platforms, read the same blog posts and newsletters as well as listen to the same podcasts. That’s why the market tends to quickly be filled by games that are the same but slightly different - or sometimes just the same.

Yet there are always games that stand out. And those games tend to be made by stand-out studios. We chalk it up under the “it’s all about the execution” paradigm. Or talk about the technical and/or scaling capabilities of the studio. Yet what we often fail to emphasize is that the stand-out execution is the result of talented individuals working exceptionally well as a team.

Since 2016 I’ve been heading studios and thus been responsible for execution. Yet I have to admit that it has taken me years to internalize that the biggest factor contributing to the success of a studio is not how we deconstruct games, how cutting edge our technical capabilities are, or how well we analyze the market. Success is directly correlated to the quality of teams in the studio. Because no matter how bulletproof the design is, how superior the tech and art are or how smartly the product positioning was made, the inability to execute will guarantee failure.

My thesis on building teams has evolved over the years - and it will continue to evolve with experience and through reading books like No Rules Rule, Multipliers, and Extreme Ownership. Yet as of now, the hiring strategy I follow stands on four key pillars.

#1 Communicate a concrete mission

There has to be a reason why top folks in the industry would consider joining your studio. And that reason has to be, in my opinion, the mission of your studio or company. And by the mission I mean what is it that you’re trying to achieve and how do you go about achieving it?

I suggest being concrete with your mission in the beginning. Know what type of games you’re making and who you’re making the games for. It will help you attract the right type of people who are truly passionate about what you’re trying to build.

As time passes and you find your success, you can evolve your mission. Zoom out of a specific genre or audience and focus on the type of experience your company is set to deliver to the players. Though for any studio I’d suggest always focus on a specific genre or audience and build mastery around that.

Most importantly, I believe you should communicate your mission as a journey. You’re on your path of becoming the next Blizzard / King / Supercell one game at a time. This allows to ground the expectations of the new joiners and attract people looking for that epic adventure. After all, Clash of Clan’s wasn’t Supercell’s first game. Nor was Candy Crush Saga the first title out from King.

Mission evolves over time. Start with a concrete mission and move to a lofty one only when you’ve earned it.

“We make games that you can log into and play from any device”
Supercell 2010
“Our goal is to make the best games – games that are played by as many people as possible enjoyed for years, and remembered forever.”
Supercell 2020

#2 Pay top of the market base salary

99 out of 100 studios are strapped for cash. Whether you’re in a pre-revenue phase or putting every Dollar you make to fund growth, you’re likely looking at your cash reserve with an ever-increasing level of anxiety.

With salaries being the major cost factor, most companies will be to try to lowball candidates and pay as little as possible. After all, the less you spend on salaries, the more runway you’ll have.

Personally, I believe that by self-limiting salaries you’ll end up spending more. What I mean by that is that top-performing artists, programmers, and designers have exponentially higher output. This means that hiring top-performers at a higher salary will allow you to save money. Top talent will also reduce your recruitment costs and expedite your hiring lead times because they will attract more talented people to join.

game development math = 1 x great coder > 5 x avg. programmers

And while your strict compensation policy will likely lead to hiring a few up-and-coming talents, as a whole your organization will be mediocre. Lack of high-quality talent will not only limit the type of games you can make but will also risk capping the value of your studio. Not to mention that poor talent in key positions will risk the failure of your whole studio.

As the word gets out that you’re paying top of the market rate, the number of candidates you receive per position, as well as the quality of candidates, will increase. But it will also put more pressure on your leaders to uphold the set values by hiring and retaining employees against those values. The rush of more senior folk with very set ways of working can turn your organization inside out. So be vigilant. And don’t hire based only on the length of the resume.

#3 Forgo (most) bonuses

In nearly every company I worked at bonuses were the cause of gripe. Most of the people were not happy with their bonuses. Seldom was anyone able to predict the Dollar/Euro value of bonuses they would get nor understand how their bonuses were calculated. And sometimes the bonuses even encouraged individuals to take actions that were beneficial to few but harmful for the company as a whole. This is also backed by research done by Dan Ariely (a top behavioral economist) from Duke University, which shows that bonuses increases activity but not productivity nor quality.

If you’re abiding by the second point and paying a top-of-the-market salary, you may forgo the headache known as bonuses.

Now of course it’s not quite that easy. As you find more success, you have to constantly up-up the compensation of your key talent that has enabled you to grow. Your employees will become targets for headhunters and their offers will increase in line with the success of your company and your studio.

The way Netflix has tackled this is almost too simple. According to the experience Netflix has had, employees are keener on taking a slightly smaller guaranteed base salary than a compensation package with a smaller base and larger potential bonus. So at Netflix, they forgo bonuses and pay top-of-the-market salaries. And to figure out what the top-of-the-market salaries are they openly encourage their employees to get offers from rival companies and then match or surpass those offers.

But what about options? Well, it’s a double-edged sword. Most developers don’t understand how options work and if the options are offered as a way to calculate the total compensation package, they create anxiety rather than excitement for candidates. The executives you hire are outliers. They will be very keen on getting juicy option packages.

Instead, I recommend giving options for most of the hires more as potential extra compensation. Something that will make them more interested in the future of the company. The primary selling points, in my opinion, should be in the mission of the studio, the culture, the people, and the solid base salary.

#4 Always test!

“We have to move fast. She’s coming from That Hot Game Company and has many offers on the table. She’s met the team and everyone loves her!”

Personally, throughout the last 12 years, I’ve never had to let go of a person that had passed a rigorous testing process before joining. On the other hand, I’ve had to let go of several high-profile talented professionals who didn’t do the test and were hired based on an interview and the strength of their resume and/or portfolio.

When tests are done properly, they allow the candidate and the company to work together and see if the fit is mutually right. Testing also exposes candidates’ motivation. If they refuse to take the test or if their test is inadequate, it just shows that they don’t have the drive even if they do have the skills.

Most importantly though, testing keeps you from the consequences of a wrong hiring decision. It takes often months to fill a demanding position. You need to advertise the position. Work with recruiters. Do numerous screening calls and interviews. Then negotiate a package and onboard the person. With a wrong hire, you’ve made all the work obsolete and have to essentially start from scratch by again promoting the position.

Tips for a testing process:

Complete screening and interview with the hiring manager before starting the test. Testing takes time, so it makes sense that you’re testing a candidate who you’re truly considering for the position. Completing the first set of interviews should also fire up the candidate to do her/his best with the test.
Invite the candidate to a dedicated Slack/Discord channel for the duration of the test. You’ll be able to communicate throughout the duration of the test, which allows you to also test the day-to-day communication with the candidate.
Test-project, whether coding, design, or art, should take the candidate between 7 to 15 hours to complete. That’s a significant chunk of time given that your candidate will likely have her/his day job while going through the test. Instead of cutting the scope of the test, extend the time to complete the test.
Don’t taste in vain. Firstly, you don’t want to waste the canidate’’s time. Secondly, you don’t want to waste your team’s time going through the test.

Exit poor fits and underperformers in a transparent way

Once you’ve been strict about hiring top talent and paying them a top-of-the-market base salary, the decision to let underperforms go will come naturally. Top talent wants to work with other top talents. Folks who are unable to hang in the company of savages will stand out.

Yet letting a person go is never easy. And frankly, it shouldn’t be easy. Yet many managers want to smooth the communication by coming up with a disingenuous story about why the person is leaving. I know I’ve done this mistake one too many times.

My advice is to avoid this silly corporate theater “of why this person is leaving” at all cost. Firstly, your employees won’t believe it. Secondly, they will think that the company sees them as fools by playing this silly theater for them. And thirdly the rumors about the real reason why the person is leaving will start circulating leading to uncertainty among the team.

So instead, tell the truth. Tell openly and objectively the real reasons why the person is being terminated or why the person chooses to leave on their own account. Your team will appreciate it.

Set your own talent strategy

The four pillars above guide us as we scale up our company. Yet I’ve been in the game long enough not to get dogmatic. Focusing on ‘top talent’ only will lead to a bit of a ruthless environment. Your studio will definitely feel more like a sports team rather than a family. And thus what works for us might be counterproductive to your company values and mission.

I truly appreciate companies that have the opposite approach to mine when it comes to talent strategy. There are plenty of successful studios where the environment is built around hiring more junior (and low-cost talent) and where senior employees focus on coaching and mentoring rather than directly contributing to the software. These types of studios are for sure great places to work and can achieve fantastic results. Because what the more junior talent lacks in experience they can compensate in the drive and by putting in those long hours.

My advice is thus for every studio lead (and a CEO) to underline what their talent strategy is and isn’t. I believe you have to make clear choices of the type of people your company is looking to hire instead of hiring purely based on immediate needs and/or company values that are open for interpretations.

The fact is that the best talent for one company might be a poor fit for another. A concrete talent strategy will lead to building teams that can execute while the lack of this strategy will risk your chances to succeed in the ever more competitive market.