After decades in game development, I’ve seen trends come and go - but it’s become clear to me that small, focused teams build incredible games. Clair Obscur shows what a tight-knit team with a clear vision and disciplined scope can achieve. It didn’t need a massive budget to find both critical and commercial success.
Yet, the industry remains obsessed with chasing the next billion-dollar blockbuster. Smaller, profitable projects get overlooked because they don’t promise the scale of a Call of Duty or GTA.
That’s a mistake.
Team Stability is a Game Changer
Over the years, I’ve learned that one of the biggest contributors to a project’s success is team stability. When a group of developers has the chance to work together over time, they build trust, communication, and shared instincts. That’s not something you can buy or fast-track.
But, the current model often pulls in hundreds of people across multiple time zones, burns through talent, and stretches timelines to the point of collapse.
Big teams and long cycles equals more risk, not less.
We Need a More Sustainable Model
The thing is, we know there’s a better way - and we’ve seen it work. A core team of 40 to 70 experienced developers, given about three years to execute, can deliver something truly special. Bring in additional support - contractors, game audio, co-dev partners - during the final 12-18 months or so to polish and ship.
It’s a model that allows for clear focus, creativity, and - critically - control.
It’s not just about cutting costs. It’s about giving teams the structure they need to do their best work.
Design for a Purpose, Not for Everyone
Another hard lesson: trying to make a game that appeals to everyone usually results in a game that feels generic and compromised. Great games are focused. They know their audience, and they aim to serve that audience exceptionally well.
Trying to recreate the success of a game like Fortnite misses the point. It wasn’t just a game - it was the foundation for a community. You don’t just launch into that space. You grow into it.
Most teams are better off concentrating on delivering something excellent and specific, rather than chasing cultural lightning in a bottle.
The Real Issue: Misaligned Incentives
What keeps this cycle going is pressure from investors and publishers who want massive returns - fast. It’s understandable, but it’s also shortsighted. That push for high-risk, high-reward projects inflates budgets, swells teams, leads to financial nervousness halfway through, which leads to bad decisions, and often leads to disappointing outcomes.
In the process, countless smaller, more manageable games - many of which could be innovative and reliably profitable - are passed over or underfunded.
We end up trading sustainable success for a gamble, time and time again.
A Smarter, More Strategic Approach
There’s a different strategy that I’ve seen work: build small, capable teams and let them explore ideas. When something connects, then scale it up. That’s when it makes sense to bring in bigger investment and expand the vision.
This approach respects both the creative process and the business reality. It’s faster, leaner, and far more agile and adaptable to today’s market.
The Way Forward
In the end, I truly believe our industry needs to refocus. Smaller teams. Shorter development cycles. Clearer goals. And perhaps most importantly, a shift in how we define success in both the short and long term.
It’s not about building the biggest thing. It’s about building the right thing - and doing it in a way that’s repeatable, sustainable, and creatively rewarding. If we can align the business side with that reality, we’ll not only ship better games - we’ll build a better industry.
Comments