I want to quickly describe two playtesting scenarios for you:
Option 1:
You’re settling into your favorite gaming chair, controller in hand, snacks within reach. You spent months perfecting your setup and tweaking it to your liking. The lighting is just right, your monitor is at the perfect angle and you’re wearing those comfortable pajamas that make you feel like you can conquer any virtual world.
Option 2:
You’ve been asked to attend an in-person test. So you travel across town and find the building located on a busy high-street. You walk in and get instructions to play in a sterile conference room with uncomfortable chairs and three developers watching your every move while taking notes.
Which scenario do you think would give you a more authentic gaming experience?
Here is my take on this:
The Comfort Factor Nobody Talks About
In my opinion, the most valuable feedback comes from people playing within their natural environment. At home and in their pajamas.
This might sound obvious, but the gaming industry has been slow to embrace this reality. I’ve been a gamer for most of my life and I know that my gaming performance and enjoyment varies dramatically based on my environment.
When I’m at home, I’m relaxed. I make the same decisions I would make during my regular gaming sessions. I react naturally to frustrating moments and I celebrate victories the way I normally would.
Some of my best gaming memories happen during those spontaneous moments when I’m completely absorbed in the experience, whether I’m playing solo or sharing the controller with my son during weekend sessions.
But put me in a testing lab with strangers watching me play and suddenly I’m hyperaware of every click or reaction. I start second-guessing myself.
- Am I playing this right?
- What do they want me to do here?
- Should I be talking more about my thought process?
This isn’t just my experience. A lot of gamers I’ve spoken with about playtesting have shared similar feelings about the artificial nature of traditional testing environments.
The Problem with Traditional Playtesting
Labs are great when security and confidentiality are critical. I’m not suggesting we throw out controlled testing environments entirely. However, in those settings, players are rarely as comfortable or authentic as they are on their own couch, desk or even a bed.
Too often, I see studios rely on bringing players to game events or into rooms, placing them in front of developers, and asking them hundreds of questions about their experience. While this approach has its place, it comes with significant limitations that many developers don’t fully consider.
The problem with that approach is threefold.
- First, it’s not natural. Gaming is typically a personal, intimate experience. We play games to escape, to relax, to challenge ourselves in a safe space. When you remove that personal element, you’re fundamentally changing the nature of the experience you’re trying to test.
- Second, it’s not comfortable. Comfort affects everything from reaction time to decision-making to emotional responses. An uncomfortable player might rush through content they would normally savor or they might be more conservative in their choices because they feel like they’re being judged.
- And let’s be honest, it’s a little biased. Players are more likely to say what they think you want to hear rather than how they really feel. This people-pleasing tendency is human nature, but it can completely skew your feedback data.
What Real Players Actually Want
Speaking with other gamers has reinforced my belief that authenticity in playtesting comes from authenticity in the environment. Players want to test games the same way they would actually play them.
They want to use their own equipment, sit in their own chair and play during the times when they would normally game.
Some of my most honest gaming opinions have come during late-night sessions when I’m tired and my patience is lower. Others have come during relaxed weekend afternoons when I have time to really explore and experiment.
These different contexts reveal different aspects of a game’s design and they’re all valuable.
When players are in their natural environment, they’re more likely to exhibit their real gaming behaviors. They’ll quit when they’re actually bored, not when they think they should. They’ll spend time on the parts of the game they genuinely enjoy, not the parts they think the developers want them to focus on.
Building for Real Players
In-person tests are still important, especially for studies that need close observation and tight security. I’m not advocating for the complete elimination of controlled testing environments. But I do think the industry needs to balance traditional methods with more authentic testing approaches.
And the way to do it is to conduct more remote playtests.
But I can already hear your burning concerns:
- It sounds great, but what about security?
- Hmm, but it’s complicated to setup, I need so many apps
- How can I invite and communicate with players? How do I share games with them securely, share updates, manage the whole process?
These challenges are exactly what led my co-founder Karim and me to build Antidote. We wanted to create a solution where game devs can open, edit and launch a remote playtest securely in under 10 minutes (more info about security here).
We wanted to enable players worldwide to test games from the comfort of their home because we recognized this fundamental truth about authentic feedback.
The goal isn’t to replace all traditional testing methods. Instead, it’s to give developers access to the kind of genuine, unfiltered feedback that only comes when players are truly comfortable and behaving naturally.
If you want to run a remote playtest without logistical headaches, check out our platform that is used by both indies and AAA studios.
We offer a free trial so you can check out all the features and capabilities with zero risk 🙂
