A few years back, two friends—a digital artist and a musician—approached me about prototyping their mobile game. They had a clear vision: a side-scrolling game with twenty levels and Cuphead-style boss battles. My quote for developing a proper, VC-pitchable prototype, though offered at a friendly rate, was dismissed as "too expensive." That was the last I heard about the project.

Until two weeks ago.

A chance meeting revealed the path they'd chosen: hiring two developers in a land far away, with an initial timeline of three months. Two years and three developers later, their estimated investment had reached €75K. The prototype looked visually stunning but would only run on the founder's iPad.

They offered €10K to fix the technical issues and make the game playable on other devices—crucial for investor demonstrations and testing. I jokingly countered that for €20K, I could rewrite it from scratch and deliver a solid vertical slice.

They laughed and declined. I did it anyway.

The Cost of "Affordable"

The numbers tell an expensive story:

• Year 1: 2 developers × ~€15K each = ~€30K
• Year 2: 3 developers × ~€15K each = ~€45K
• Total investment: ~€75K

What did this investment yield? A visually impressive prototype with significant technical limitations:

• Build sizes of 400MB made iterations cumbersome
• Performance struggled to maintain 30 FPS, often dropping to 10-15 FPS
• Device overheating during extended sessions
• Limited to running on the founder's iPad, blocking investor and tester access
• Unity project structure with serious lack of best practices

The 50-Hour Alternative

My rewrite experiment focused on fundamentals:

• Lightweight framework with proven pipelines
• 10 levels and 2 Cuphead-style bosses implemented
• Complete menu system
• Multi-platform deployment supporting iOS TestFlight, Ad Hoc builds, plus macOS and Windows
• Stable 60 FPS across test devices with reliable memory usage

The Real Price of Cheap

The contrasts are striking:

• Development effort: 2 years × 2-3 developers versus 50 hours × 1 developer
• Investment: ~€75K spent versus hypothetical €20K
• Quality: Single-device prototype versus stable multi-platform delivery
• Build size: 400MB versus 210MB
• Performance: Unstable 30 FPS versus consistent 60 FPS

Key Lessons

1. Hidden Costs Emerge Slowly Trust me, I've seen this pattern repeat countless times—what looks cheap on paper becomes costly in practice. Initial savings on development often lead to expensive rework, debugging, and delays.

2. Process Defines Outcome Like building a house, good architecture and proper foundations aren't expensive extras—they're essential investments that prevent larger costs down the line.

3. Vet Beyond Price When evaluating vendors, examine their code practices and delivery pipelines, not just their rates. The cheapest quote rarely delivers the best value.

Moving Forward

The goal isn't to argue against cost-conscious development—budgets are real constraints that deserve respect. Rather, it's about recognizing where cutting costs actually cuts value, and where early investment prevents larger expenses later. (And yes, I've learned this lesson the expensive way more than once.)

The next time you're evaluating development quotes, look beyond the immediate numbers. Consider the processes being proposed, the architecture being planned, and the long-term implications of those early decisions. Sometimes, the most expensive choice is trying to save money in the wrong places.

Food for Thought: What "cheap" technical decisions are you making today that might prove expensive tomorrow? The answer might be more costly than you think.

---

Key Facts & Figures

• 2 years, 3 developers → ~€75K spent, zero investor-ready demo beyond founder's iPad
• 50 hours, 1 developer → 10 levels + 2 bosses, multi-platform, stable 60 FPS, pitch ready
• Build sizes: 400MB (initial) vs. 210MB (rewrite)