Building your own team delivers the most control. The engineers absorb your customers and your data model over time, and that knowledge stays with you. The cost shows up as a long ramp-up and fixed costs: hiring well is slow, getting someone productive takes several more weeks, and the cost continues regardless of workload.
Project outsourcing means someone else is accountable for shipping: the provider staffs the team, the partner manages the plan, and they absorb the risk of missing the date. The model works when the outcome can be described and there is someone who can make decisions quickly. It works badly when there is no one to answer questions, since a vendor cannot fill that gap for you.
Team extension is the middle option: you bring in igaming software developers but keep the planning and the management in-house. It moves quickly — a suitable engineer is often available far sooner than a new hire — and it scales down as easily as it scales up. The trade-off is that your technical leaders need the bandwidth to manage them. Without strong internal leadership, you end up paying for hours, not results.
Most of the time, these models are combined. One durable pattern holds the architecture and the core domain in-house, custom education software development while an external team handles the parts that are bounded and specifiable. The rule is easy to state: retain what defines your product, and contract out the well-trodden work.
A few questions usually settle it. To begin with: is this software development blog the product itself, or a cost centre? Next: how long will you need this capacity — a quarter or a decade? Third: who will maintain it in two years? Work through them with real answers and the right arrangement usually chooses itself.