Watch the full video where our UX Lead, Joan Costa, walks through how we structure interviews & focus groups at Antidote!
What is the Game UX Lab?
Antidote has a dedicated Game UX Lab in Barcelona where players come to test games in person, with our team watching and supporting everything in real time. Teams are welcome to attend and observe sessions as they happen, which often leads to some of the most useful research moments.
For studios based in North America, we also support in-person playtesting in San Francisco, hosted by Berkeley University’s lab.
Facilities and Setup
The Barcelona lab has 12 high-spec PCs, typically arranged as 10 stations in the main playing area with a separate observation room. The layout is modular, so if a test requires a specific setup like six versus six multiplayer, we can rearrange accordingly.
The observation room is where the magic happens from a research perspective. The team monitors all screens simultaneously, takes real-time notes and can adjust the direction of post-session discussions based on what they observe during play.
While PC is the most common setup, the lab can accommodate mobile and other platforms depending on the research needs.
Recruitment
Recruitment for lab tests follows a similar process to remote testing but with one key difference: players need to be physically present, so location matters.
We start by pulling from our existing player base, filtering for people who match the required demographics, gaming profiles and location.
For playtests where our community doesn’t have enough local players, we run targeted campaigns to find compatible candidates in the right area. We also offer a “bring your own friend” option, where studios can invite players from their own community as long as they fit the required profile.
Because players need to commit to showing up in person, we always recruit backup players. Last-minute cancellations happen, and having backups ensures the test runs smoothly regardless.
Confidentiality and Security
Security in the lab works on several layers, many of which mirror what we do on the Antidote platform, but with added physical controls.
When a client brings a build, all game files are locked under passwords and restricted so players can only execute the game itself, not browse or access any underlying files.
When players arrive:
- Phones and personal belongings go into individual lockers that players lock themselves and keep the key for
- NDAs are signed before any playtesting begins
- Game access is restricted to the session only, with files cleared from machines once the test is complete
- Closed network: the lab operates as a closed system, controlling what gets installed and what enters the environment
At the end of every session, all files are securely deleted from the lab machines and any requested materials (videos, surveys, reports) are sent directly to the client.
What a Typical Session Looks Like
When players arrive, the team introduces them to what the session involves, what feedback is expected, and what the schedule looks like. From there, players head to the playing area and the research begins.
The team monitors everything from the observation room throughout. If something unexpected happens during play, there is time to add a question to the post-session discussion before it ends.
We try to make players as comfortable as possible. We provide drinks and snacks, and for full-day or multi-day tests, the team has lunch together with players. This also helps with moderation since it gives the team a chance to guide conversation away from the game itself, avoiding any information sharing between players before sessions are complete.
Focus groups work particularly well in person. When everyone is in the same room with no distractions, it is easier to make sure all participants contribute and that the discussion stays balanced.
Real-Life Applications
Due to confidentiality agreements we can’t name specific games, but here are some real examples of how lab tests have run.
1) Prototype Testing with Technical Issues
Challenge: A client brought an early-stage prototype that wasn’t fully stable. The build had known technical issues, including occasional crashes and out-of-bounds bugs.
Our Approach: The team monitored all player sessions live from the observation room. Whenever a crash or technical issue appeared on screen, someone went in immediately to resolve it so players could continue without losing momentum. Game designers and producers from the client’s team were also present, watching sessions live alongside the Antidote team.
Results: The live observation setup allowed the team to spot unexpected player behavior in real time and add relevant questions to the post-session discussion. One producer noticed a player engaging with an enemy in an unintended way and was able to speak with them directly after the session.
2) Week-Long Longitudinal Test
Challenge: A studio needed players to test their game across an entire week, requiring consistent attendance and reliable session management over multiple days.
Our Approach: Players came to the lab daily for the full week. By day three, the routine was established and players were logging in, starting recordings and managing their sessions independently without needing guidance.
Results: Having players on-site for a full week created a natural dynamic between participants and the research team. Daily consistency made data collection reliable and progression easy to track across sessions.
3) Playtesting with Kids
Challenge: Two separate clients needed to test their games with children aged 6-11, checking whether kids could understand tutorials and controls without external help.
Our Approach: Both tests were run in the lab with parents present for legal and supervision reasons. Kids played independently without parental input, which was a deliberate part of the research design.
Results: Watching kids navigate tutorials without adult guidance revealed issues that wouldn’t have surfaced otherwise. In one case, a tutorial instructed players to “press RB” – something any regular gamer would understand immediately. For the kids in the test, it meant nothing. Catching that kind of assumption gap is exactly what this type of testing is designed for.
