What does “core team” mean in a game company?

People generally have mixed feelings about the “boss’s inner circle.”

In the gaming industry, complaints like these are common: bosses prioritize people over tasks, resources are distributed unfairly, and cliques form, undermining the collaborative atmosphere… A former employee at a major studio once vented to me about the company’s “atomic bomb shields”—people who, as if they’d shielded the boss from an atomic bomb in a past life, always get a second chance even when they mess things up.

For the majority who aren’t part of the inner circle, when a project succeeds, it’s hard not to feel envious of the inner circle members who get a larger slice of the pie; and when a project fails, blaming the few people in “key positions” is cathartic and almost guaranteed not to backfire.

But behind such complaints, there’s inevitably a touch of “sour grapes.” After all, the boss isn’t stupid—he wouldn’t trust an incompetent person for no reason.

The gaming industry is a content-driven field with no set formula for success. The high upfront costs and the need for large-scale team collaboration mean that important decisions must be made and driven by a small number of people. And one’s position, the resources one receives, and the tasks one undertakes are closely tied to personal growth and self-actualization.

“Too close to the bugs, too far from the resources.” A friend who works as a game designer once joked about this as the reason for his previous frustration at not being able to advance. If given the chance, who wouldn’t want to be part of the “inner circle”?

Perhaps beyond the jest, the concept of “insiders” is still a topic worthy of serious discussion. In this episode of “Game Tea Roundtable,” we spoke with industry professionals: What does being an “insider” mean in a game company?

An Observer’s Perspective on “Insiders”

1. Organizational Theory Basics: From an organizational perspective, human social networks are hierarchical. Based on “Dunbar’s Number” and personal experience, the sizes of each tier are roughly 5, 15, 50, and 150 people.
2. The Origin of the “Inner Circle”: As a friend once said, “Well, we’ve all said it: human organizational dynamics haven’t really progressed.”Human collaboration is just that tragic. As long as a leader interacts with their subordinates, a small clique centered around the leader is bound to form. For example, if a 3-person clique centered around the leader emerges within a 15-person team, the other two members will likely become part of the inner circle.
3. The Role of the Inner Circle: In the long term, management is essentially about selecting, appointing, and motivating people; in the short term, however, it can easily degenerate into the monetization of personal interests. Informal cliques often serve the direct interests of management, allowing the leader to gain leeway beyond the constraints of established systems.
4. How to Become a “Close Associate”: Being a “close associate” is the result of a convergence of circumstances; there’s no need to obsess over it. However, if you’re willing to invest emotional capital—by frequenting smoking areas, card rooms, and foot massage parlors—you can increase your chances of becoming one.
5. The Dangers of Being a “Favorite”: Friction between projects and institutional frameworks often manifests most clearly in the workplace behavior of “favorites.” In particular, if such a “favorite” is completely incompetent, conflicts will be amplified exponentially and eventually become the subject of industry gossip.
6. Potential Perspectives of a “Favorite”: They understand that the essence of work is “bare rock”; they are more attuned to capital operations and equity; they have a deeper understanding of decision-making chains; they have a more profound sense of resources; and they know how to resolve emotional issues, among other things.
7. How to View “Insiders”: There’s no need to treat them differently. A person’s professional behavior is fundamentally determined by their understanding of the business, their work, projects, and the industry; they may simply be focusing their skills on their job.For me personally, when it comes to game development, I still need to focus on three dimensions: getting things done, solving problems, and creating value—accumulating the strength to break through the market and weather economic cycles. If I fail to build that strength, I’ll end up with “Final Chapter: I’ve Decided to Quit This Industry.jpg.”

Zhabei Bricklayer Gege

"The inner circle" generally means, "When opportunities or resources arise, you go first; if something goes wrong, I’ll take the fall—but if something really major happens, don’t rat me out."

In practical terms, the emergence of “inner circle” members is still driven by the principle of efficiency. For any mid-level manager, when personal energy cannot cover the current scope of responsibilities, finding a reliable person and directing authority and resources toward them is the most efficient way to maintain or expand the business.

Based on past experience, the overall political system of human society has not undergone significant changes since the inception of “organizations.” “Proteges” are a necessary component of an organization’s operation and development; in the process of power being transmitted from the top down, someone has to get the work done.

The above covers the “clean” aspects; now comes the “dirty” part.

Although the existence of inner circles is rational and necessary in itself, the paths to becoming part of one are as varied as they are riddled with flaws.

Since power is not always in the hands of rational and upright individuals, becoming part of the “inner circle”—as a link in the chain of power distribution—becomes a process of currying favor.

Furthermore, the outcomes expected from the exercise of power in certain matters are not always legitimate—or even legal. For example, when a boss wants to launder money, whoever can help him do so becomes part of his inner circle.

These processes—which may be unsavory—are not tolerated by people of integrity, and so the term “inner circle” has come to carry a negative connotation.

We often sharply criticize a certain “favorite” by asking, “Did he save the boss’s life?” but the essence of the matter is often that this person’s “utility” is irreplaceable. Of course, this utility can also mean “carrying forward the organization’s next developmental goal”; for such individuals, we often bestow a title that transcends “favorite,” calling them the “Crown Prince.”

So you see, most of the time, people simply wish to be granted power because they cannot become power themselves.

The Gaming Industry’s Super Employee: Tong King from Chunxi Road

I believe being a “favorite” is the optimal solution for anyone. For those who want to work seriously, if you’re not a “favorite,” you won’t be able to do what you want, and even if you do, you won’t get the rewards you deserve; for those who just want to coast along and get promoted, being a “favorite” will definitely lead to faster promotions and a more comfortable ride.

Any employee who refuses to align with a power faction will eventually get crushed in the workplace—unless you’re absolutely certain you’re the very best of the best in this industry, a genius among geniuses. In that case, you don’t need to become someone’s protégé; sooner or later, others will be lining up to kiss your ass just to become your protégé.

I’m Not a Favored Protégé—Dr. DAMN from Zhenxin Town

The essence of being a “favorite” is actually somewhat like “reducing the cost of trust.” Due to market factors, game development involves a lot of uncertainty; sometimes, relying on proven talent can significantly boost efficiency.

So while many people see this as favoritism or something else, that’s not entirely the case. In reality, to become a “favorite,” you first need to deliver results; only then, when upper management recognizes your achievements, will they rely on you more—that’s the logic behind it.

The key to being part of the inner circle isn’t loyalty to an individual, but proving yourself as someone who can solve problems.

I believe a healthy inner circle culture should be like Nintendo’s—for example, when Hiroshi Yamauchi passed the torch to Satoru Iwata, who wasn’t part of the inner circle, and even dismissed his own son-in-law, simply because Satoru Iwata was the one who could save Nintendo at that time.

The inner circle—especially in gaming companies—should transform interpersonal dynamics into a mechanism for recognizing capability, allowing those who can solve problems to naturally come together, rather than letting those close to the leader create problems.

Industry Navigator: Xu Huijucao Ye

The “inner circle” culture—or the terminology surrounding it—is, in itself, just one small slice of the broader context of an economic downturn, slowing industry growth, and cultural stagnation. However, the emergence of this new phenomenon is also deeply intertwined with the habits of the Chinese people and the nation’s culture.

Where there are “legitimate” connections, there are “illegitimate” ones; where there is a “mainline,” there are “side branches”; there are hierarchies of seniority and distinctions of status. Behind all this lie nothing more than power allegiances, competitive rankings, and the management tactics employed by so-called “big tech firms” to control their workforce.

During the industry’s rapid growth period—or before this term gained popularity—we referred to such individuals as “backbone” or “core,” following the same logic. However, unlike in the past, when “backbone” and “core” could coexist without being identical, the term “legitimate lineage” carries connotations of personal dependence.

In short, in my view, as the economy slows down, this type of culture—prevalent in the “survival strategies” of major tech companies—is nothing to be proud of; on the contrary, it is truly lamentable.

On the one hand, this illustrates that management at so-called major internet companies is becoming increasingly rigid, requiring more non-standard factors to strengthen relationships with senior management in order to secure higher rankings and continue raking in “pathetic pay” for longer.

Second, it indicates that business growth at domestic tech giants is slowing, their cultures are becoming rigid (resembling state-owned enterprises), and personal connections have taken precedence over actual work.

Third, it illustrates the prevalence of a culture where factions proliferate and people band together to pursue self-interest. Many cultural traits that do not belong to major tech companies are brewing and taking root.

Being part of the inner circle isn’t without its benefits; it’s better suited to stable organizations where colleagues work together until retirement.

From the perspective of a “master-apprentice” team, if you’re at a rapidly growing tech giant like ByteDance or Pinduoduo, you’d be better off being a “Black Sun Wukong”—relying solely on your own abilities to soar to the heavens or dive to the depths—and in the end, you’ll still achieve success and attain enlightenment;if you’re at a traditional tech giant like Tencent, NetEase, Alibaba, Baidu, or the food delivery giants, playing the role of “Pigsy”—relying 50% on skill and 50% on connections—and becoming part of the inner circle is also a sound choice.

The same applies to game companies. Your relationship with the company as a whole doesn’t matter much; what matters most are the small teams and modules you’re part of. My advice is to first consider whether you’re working on a meaningful project and whether you have some real skills—only then should you think about other factors.

A rapidly promoted employee at a major tech company

Being part of the “inner circle” primarily means gaining access to more resources—both for yourself and for your team. For individuals, this translates to better compensation, faster promotions, and broader management responsibilities; for teams, it means more challenging work assignments, greater leeway to experiment, and stronger collaborative positions when working with other teams.

Personally, I feel the most important aspect is that being part of the inner circle allows for more leeway when making mistakes. After all, with years of accumulated trust, even if you slip up once or twice, you’ll still have another chance.The gaming industry is brutal right now; often, one failure means you’re out of the running, yet experience is frequently gained precisely through those mistakes. Of course, being part of the inner circle comes at a cost—for instance, you must be a steadfast supporter of the boss, since your fortunes are tied to theirs, and you’ll often have to bear the consequences of the boss’s misjudgments.

The gaming industry changes rapidly, making it difficult to distill definitive rules for success; yesterday’s experience may be obsolete today. In such situations, it’s hard to judge in advance whether a decision is correct, so one must rely on the trust built up over many years—and this sense of trust may be the biggest difference between the inner circle and those outside it.Consequently, non-inner-circle members often find it harder to secure the resources needed to pursue their own initiatives and are often limited to following the boss’s established path; in contrast, inner-circle members find it easier to persuade the boss to allocate resources so they can try out their own ideas.

Schrödinger’s Inner Circle: Ke Yun Road Dragonite

I feel that the so-called “inner circle” is essentially a matter of perspective. People inside and outside a team will inevitably label one another—and this isn’t limited to the gaming industry; it’s likely true in most industries.

In the gaming industry and project environments, which are relatively results-driven, it’s true that there may be “purist inner circles” formed purely through cliquish personal connections outside the workplace. However, I personally feel that whether someone is considered part of the “inner circle” depends not only on the leader but, more often than not, on the individual themselves.Most team leaders don’t build their teams by picking people who just suck up (not to say there aren’t a few exceptionally talented outliers). Instead, they’re more likely to choose members with whom they’ve had smooth communication, who are competent, and who are unlikely to leave.

When a leader at a sufficiently high level joins a new project and brings in team members they’ve already worked well with to quickly establish workflows, it’s actually a reasonable process—but in the eyes of the original project members, this inevitably creates what’s known as the “inner circle.”

Furthermore, the benefits and preferential resources enjoyed by the “inner circle” are objectively real. Conflicts arising during the distribution of benefits are the most fundamental and irreconcilable—there’s no need for anyone to make a show of hiding this (nor could they).It is a well-worn cliché that everyone resists the “inner circle” yet everyone wants to be part of it. But for campus recruits, compared to the benefits offered by the “inner circle,” this status actually entails enormous sunk costs—making it nearly impossible to extricate oneself from the project or team.

Although the industry and teams generally grant campus recruits relatively broad leeway to make mistakes, the skills development and project experience they accumulate within their first two years on the job are neither sufficient to give them the upper hand in the competitive job market for experienced hires nor likely to secure them resources within the team equivalent to those of other core, senior members.Aside from relatively subjective factors like a “sense of belonging to the team” or “wanting to see one’s first project through to the end,” these limitations may ultimately be the more practical reasons behind the so-called “high loyalty among campus recruits.”

Furthermore, the competition to build connections knows no bounds. If a project is large enough and rife with factions, everyone will be vying to prove who is more “legitimate” or whose “lineage is purer.” The inevitable result is a factional showdown (office politics), and the project itself will have no future to speak of.Moreover, there’s a world of difference in the actual work experience between “having a boss back you up, so everyone has to listen to your nonsense” and “having the ability and personality to command respect, so people are willing to listen to your ideas.” If given a choice—regardless of whether one belongs to the inner circle or not—I hope everyone on a project can have an equal voice (and say) in the matter.

Ah Hua, the “Workaholic Emperor” Who Never Leaves the Office Before 11 PM

Let me share some real-life observations from my own circle:

First, it’s true that the “inner circle” is a small group that enjoys advantages in resource allocation. But is that really a good thing from a personal life perspective? Most of the “inner circle” people I know aren’t exactly “practical.”

“The extra resources they get aren’t even enough to cover my overtime pay” (jokingly). “Leaving at 11 p.m. every day, arriving before 10 a.m., on call 24 hours a day.‘A 10% raise with nothing else changing—if it were you, would you accept that?’ ‘Being a “favorite” isn’t going to support me in the next life… It’s just one more bundle of hay in the cow’s trough.’

Perhaps it’s due to my limited sample size, but the “favorites” I know tend to have it pretty “tough.” At first, they have to pay a heavy price to prove they’re worthy of being a favorite—showing unwavering loyalty. After proving themselves, they have to maintain the same quality and pace to ensure the boss believes they’re worth keeping as a favorite long-term. It’s still pretty tough.

Of course, there’s another point: being a “favorite” might hinder the growth of some high-potential individuals—not all bosses have the business opportunities or the ability to nurture promising talent. Once you’ve become a “favorite” due to your outstanding abilities, with good performance and rewards, the boss—out of consideration for your relationship and to save face—often can’t bring themselves to let you go, so you stay. You might end up missing out on many business opportunities that would be a better fit for you.

“Perhaps capable people become the boss’s ‘favorites’ no matter where they go.” Let’s end on a positive note with that—keep up the great work, classmates!

“Youcha Roundtable” is a Q&A column launched by Game Tea House. Every week, we’ll discuss various topics with industry professionals. We also welcome you to share your thoughts in the comments section. We’ll award a Steam key for a game to the two users with the most likes in the comments for each episode.