🎧 Watch the full episode: Why Internal Playtests Fail: Real Player Feedback Matters (Game UX Alchemists Ep. 3)
In Episode 3 of Game UX Alchemists, our panel of UX researchers Joan, Vicky and Alex—plus host Alim—dive into a hard truth many studios ignore:
Your dev team, friends and family are NOT your players.
If you’re a game UX / user‑research lead, product manager, or studio founder, this one’s for you. We unpack:
- Why internal playtests miss critical issues
- How to recruit the right players—not just any players
- Community-building tactics that keep testers engaged and honest
Pressed for time? We’ve distilled the episode into the highlights below. Let’s jump in! 🙌
Why Internal Playtests Miss the Mark
1. Game Designers know all the answers
Your team built the mechanics, shortcuts and optimal routes. That knowledge creates an unavoidable bias that hides usability problems from view.
2. Family & friends sugar-coat their feedback
Close contacts want to be supportive, so their feedback skews positive or surface‑level.
3. Dev‑only testing equals false confidence
Studios often say, “We played it internally—no issues.” If that test failed, the project would be in trouble anyway. What matters is how real players experience the first hour.
The Power of Testing with Target Players
| What Real Players Provide | Why It Matters to You |
|---|---|
|
Unfiltered, unbiased feedback |
Reveals friction points before launch, when fixes are still cheap
|
|
Genre‑specific insight |
Hardcore FPS fans spot balance flaws that casual testers miss
|
|
Comparable benchmarks |
Competitive players automatically reference titles your game competes with
|
|
Motivated participation |
They’re invested in quality because they want to play the finished product
|
How to Find (and Keep) the Right Testers
1. Build or tap a pre‑screened community
Antidote keeps a living database of vetted players by genre, skill level and device—saving studios weeks of recruiting.
2. Design a laser‑focused screener
Ask about play habits, not just demographics
Include “trap” questions to filter reward‑hunters
Verify language skills if your build isn’t localized yet
3. Treat your community like humans, not data points
Post announcements from personal‑looking accounts
Use quick‑hit channels (e.g., #pets, #memes) to break the ice
In live (moderated) sessions, focus on making players feel heard rather than scrutinized—while in remote, un‑moderated tests, provide clear channels (surveys, follow‑up chats, Discord threads) so their voices are still captured.
4. Reward fairly, but make purpose the star
Players are happy to earn gift cards, but what makes them stick around is seeing their comments reflected in the next build.
5. Level‑up system = accountability
Antidote’s internal “player levels” boost rewards for reliable testers and downgrade no‑shows—keeping quality high without endless policing.
Bringing Player Voices Into Design
- Start early, iterate often – Even gray‑box builds can surface UI pain points.
- Give players space to discuss—whether that’s a moderated Discord channel during a live test or an asynchronous thread after a remote session.
- Clip & share the raw moments – recordings from live or un‑moderated sessions reveal issues more vividly than a written report.
- Balance qualitative + quantitative – Survey scores show trends; player commentary—whether recorded during the session or captured in post‑test interviews—explains why.
Final Takeaways for UX Leaders & Founders
- Real players are your reality check. Skip them, and you’ll end up polishing the wrong problems.
- Community is a long game. The cost to re‑recruit is higher than nurturing testers you already have.
- Playtesting is product development, not QA. Treat it as core R&D, budget and schedule accordingly.
Focus on who you test with, not just how often, and you’ll ship games that feel intuitive, fair and fun from minute one.
Thanks for reading—see you in the next episode summary! 😊
