Watch the full video where our UX team walks through when to use remote or in-person playtesting.
In the 13th episode of Game UX Alchemists, our team discusses when to use remote versus in-person playtesting, exploring the strengths of each approach and how to decide which method fits your research goals.
Understanding Remote Playtesting
Remote playtesting means participants test from their own spaces using their own devices. The main appeal is authenticity, as you see how players actually behave in real-world conditions with their own setups, preferences and play styles.
Players are in their comfort zones, whether that’s on the couch, at their gaming desk, or even in their pajamas. Without a lab environment potentially influencing their decisions, you get to see authentic behavior. And what the team found interesting is how much this varies between players.
Some people are completionists who explore every corner and read every tutorial tip before moving forward. Others rush through onboarding just to get to the main gameplay. Some take breaks, some play for hours straight. This natural variation is what you can miss in controlled lab setting where the environment itself changes how people interact with games.
Key Advantages:
- Scale: You can recruit players from multiple countries and time zones without geographic limitations
- Cost and time: No travel required means lower costs and less time commitment for players
- Speed: Recruiting diverse demographics and collecting hundreds of sessions can happen within a week
- Natural behavior: Players interact with games exactly how they would in their daily gaming routine
Addressing Security Concerns
Security comes up frequently in remote testing discussions. The team walked through how they handle this at Antidote as an example of the protection layers that make remote testing viable even for unreleased games:
- Automatic installation and uninstallation: Players only access builds during active sessions with no lingering files or unauthorized access afterward
- SDK protections: Games won’t launch without proper authorization running in the background
- Cloud streaming: For maximum security, builds stay entirely off player devices, they stream gameplay without ever downloading game files
- Recording detection: Systems flag if players attempt to use OBS or streaming software and block the game from running
- Legal protections: NDAs and ID verification ensure players understand confidentiality requirements and are who they claim to be
The point isn’t that remote testing is bulletproof, but that studios have multiple security options they can layer depending on their specific confidentiality needs.
When to Use In-Person Testing
In-person testing brings players to a controlled environment where they play on provided hardware with direct moderation support. The team highlighted several scenarios where this approach makes more sense:
1) Complex scenarios
The more complex your playtest setup, the more valuable in-person becomes. If players need specific guidance, immediate troubleshooting, or careful moderation, having everyone in the same room simplifies everything.
2) Real-time flexibility
When watching live gameplay, moderators can adjust on the fly. If multiple players struggle with the same mechanic, you can dig deeper immediately rather than waiting to review recordings later. Sometimes studios attend sessions and come up with questions in real-time that wouldn’t have occurred without seeing live gameplay.
3) Technical control
Everyone uses the same hardware, isolating game issues from player hardware variables. If something fails, tech support is right there to fix it.
4) Special populations
For example, testing with kids requires parental supervision. In-person settings let moderators ensure parents don’t over-coach their children while still maintaining proper oversight.
One interesting example shared
A 3-day longitudinal test in Antidote’s game UX lab where the team knew the build would have technical issues. The game crashed every 30-60 minutes, and players needed to complete 15 hours total across the three days.
In this case, in-person testing made perfect sense, moderators could observe exactly when and where crashes happened, immediately restart sessions (wasting only seconds) and allow players to continue playing without frustration. This also gave the development team real-time data on which specific points in the game were causing problems.
Choosing the Right Approach
The team emphasized there’s no universally better option, as it depends entirely on your research goals.
Remote works well for:
- Large-scale validation (hundreds or thousands of players)
- Geographic diversity
- Understanding natural player behavior in home environments
- Quick turnaround
In-person works well for:
- Complex moderation needs
- Unstable builds requiring technical support
- Testing with kids or other populations requiring special oversight
Many studios use both methods at different development stages. Remote for broad validation and scale, in-person for deep dives on specific issues or when hands-on observation adds significant value.
The team agreed that conducting in-person tests at Antidote’s Barcelona lab gives studios a nice bonus. An excuse to visit the city and meet our team face-to-face while planning their research 😊
