Start with the recurring work and the decision that must be made—not with a job title. The options below are recommendations to test against the publisher’s own workload, not observed market norms.
| Situation | Operating-model option | What should remain accountable internally |
|---|---|---|
| One integration or authentication migration | Bounded engineering project with documented handover | Credentials, deployment approval and ongoing supplier ownership |
| Persistent mobile-launch incidents | External diagnostic followed by an internal or retained QA process | Incident prioritisation, release decisions and acceptance of fixes |
| Recurring metadata and release backlog | Named catalogue-operations ownership, with automation where appropriate | Editorial relevance, uncertain matches and unresolved access questions |
| Several supplier agreements or domains | Specialist rights review plus a maintained permission register | Decisions about permitted use and handling withdrawn permission |
| A small catalogue with limited changes | Shared responsibilities with explicit checklists | Someone must still own each critical task |
| Multi-site supplier consolidation | Cross-functional procurement led by Product or Commercial | Requirements, total-cost comparison, migration and exit planning |
For a direct studio versus aggregator cost comparison, request equivalent scope on both sides. Include coordination, launch maintenance, metadata correction, monitoring and exit work—not only supplier invoices.
A useful internal measure is:
Cost per usable, authorised game = attributable content-service and operating cost ÷ games meeting the documented eligibility criteria
Define the denominator before calculating it. Keep games with unresolved rights or untested availability visible rather than quietly treating them as usable.