If You Are Looking to Hire, Have You Ticked These Boxes?

The games industry is slowly opening back up to hiring, but that does not mean recruitment is getting any easier. In fact, the opposite is true. There is more talent on the market than we have seen in years, and while this gives studios greater choice, it also creates a new kind of pressure. Candidates are sharper, more informed, and far less willing to tolerate disorganised or unclear hiring processes. They expect professionalism, structure, and respect for their time. If you are about to open a role or begin hiring again, this article is your prompt to pause and make sure everything is in place before that job post goes live.

You only get one chance to make a first impression. If your hiring process lacks clarity or shows signs of internal confusion, it will turn candidates away. And it will do so quietly, often before you even know they were interested. These are the steps I believe every hiring team should have in place before the first CV is reviewed. Taking the time to get this right does not just improve the quality of your hires. It reduces drop-off, speeds up timelines, and strengthens how your studio is seen by those who may one day join it.

What is the budget?

This is where most processes fall apart, and yet it is still overlooked more often than you would expect. If you do not have a confirmed salary band and a clear understanding of what the business is comfortable offering, you are not ready to hire. Publishing a role without this information is not only premature, it sets the stage for disappointment. Candidates who are told one figure early on and offered something else later will lose trust instantly. Under-offering not only damages your brand, it also makes it significantly harder to re-engage the talent you just lost.

Changing the seniority of a role mid-process will nearly always result in rejection. Candidates apply based on what was presented to them. If that suddenly shifts from senior to mid-level, or if the job title is downgraded without warning, it sends a clear message that internal alignment is missing. This leaves candidates questioning whether the role ever truly existed in the form it was sold. If you are not firm on what the role is worth or where it sits in the team structure, you should not be advertising it. Clarity on budget is not a box to tick halfway through. It is a starting point.

Who are they speaking to, and how many stages will there be?

One of the quickest ways to frustrate or lose a strong candidate is to surprise them during the process. Whether it is an unexpected interview stage, an unannounced take-home test, or long delays due to internal scheduling, these things all signal a lack of preparation. Candidates want to know what they are signing up for. That includes how many stages there will be, who they will speak to, whether there is a task, and what the likely timeline looks like. If you cannot provide those answers from day one, it will reflect poorly on the studio, regardless of how good the opportunity may be.

It is essential to plan for every stage. That means ensuring everyone involved in interviews is fully briefed, available, and aligned on what they are assessing. If a key stakeholder is going to be on annual leave during the process, build your timeline around that in advance. If there is a test involved, it should never be sent before at least one meaningful conversation. Asking candidates to complete work before speaking to a human being at the studio tells them you do not value their time, and that the company is not willing to invest even the smallest amount of effort upfront. That message sticks, and it pushes good people away.

Do you need this person, or is this a luxury hire?

It may sound blunt, but this is one of the most important questions you can ask before beginning any hiring process. If a role does not have sign-off, if the team has not agreed on the need, or if the position is vaguely defined as a nice-to-have rather than a must-fill, you are entering dangerous territory. Candidates are incredibly tuned into instability, and nothing puts them off faster than sensing they are being hired into an undefined or uncertain situation. Nobody wants to join a company and spend the first six months figuring out why they were brought in.

From the outside, changing a job spec halfway through a process may seem like flexibility, but to a candidate, it reads as disorganisation. It suggests a lack of clarity about where this person will sit in the team, what they are responsible for, or even who they report to. If you are still figuring out the structure or deliverables, now is not the time to interview. You need to be able to confidently answer what success looks like in the role, how this hire will contribute, and what the long-term plan is. If those pieces are not in place, you are likely wasting valuable time, yours and theirs.

Why This Matters...

These issues are not hypothetical. They show up in real conversations with candidates every single day. I see people walk away from roles they were genuinely excited about because the structure was not there. I see studios confused when their offers are rejected, despite the opportunity being strong. Often, these situations could have been avoided with a small amount of preparation and internal alignment. I also see the clear positive results when the above steps are taken, and everyone ends up winning.

When studios take the time to prepare properly, recruitment moves faster, candidates feel more respected, and the chances of making a successful hire go up significantly. That does not mean every role will go perfectly. Sometimes, things change. Funding gets reallocated. Teams restructure. But these should be the exceptions, not the norm.

Before you hit publish on that job spec, make sure you have ticked these boxes. Your future hire, and your reputation, depend on it.