Find out what players think of your game — while there’s still time to fix it
A structured playtest with a mixed panel of testers: playthrough videos with live commentary plus a questionnaire. You don’t get “like / dislike” — you get a concrete list of what to fix, and in what order.
For your task
Prototype validation
Did the player understand what to do in the first 5 minutes? Where did they stall, where did they want to keep going? We surface blockers and growth points — while they’re still cheap to fix.
Investment review
Would you buy it? At what price? Who would you recommend it to? An independent outside view — numbers and opinions instead of guesses.
Five steps to a verdict
Panel assembly
Genre experts, non-genre players, target audience, a QA eye — just 4 distinct profiles already deliver a stable consensus. The panel’s diversity is the value: you see the full picture, not one opinion.
Think-aloud playthrough
Each tester voices their thoughts while playing: what they like, what confuses them, where they want to press again. These moments are more honest than any form.
Genre-specific questionnaire
Ratings on your genre’s own criteria — narrative, roguelike, action or idle. Plus questions on price, audience and the desire to keep playing.
Find what recurs across everyone
A 3–4 of 4 consensus is an iron signal. Two testers independently proposing the same fix is gold. A one-off opinion is a note, not a priority.
Prioritized report — and a measured result
A clear fix-list: what to fix first, what gives the most effect for the least effort. After the edits, a second round measures what changed.
How a 2D-chan ended up in Omsk
We started with 4 testers — and got the first stable consensus. Then scaled to 20: a professional gamedev writer, genre connoisseurs, non-genre players, co-op Discord sessions, a Linux/Wine test, a first female perspective. All 20 independently flagged the same strengths — and one shared growth barrier.
- The “real vs drawn backgrounds” debate (7 to 4 votes) was closed by one insight: a light grade on real photos — and both camps are happy.
- A hidden legal risk surfaced: brand logos and readable license plates in photos — a key signal before a commercial release.
- The “hooked → willing to pay more” correlation held: a spread from 100 to 1000 ₽ tracked directly with tester engagement.
On delivery
- A summary — the essentials about your game in 4–5 lines
- A ratings table: every tester × every criterion
- A list of strengths — what to lean on and not touch
- A prioritized fix-list by “most effect / least effort”
- Price and audience guidance — in the players’ own words
- Cross-patterns and unexpected insights — what you can’t see without a panel
- On a repeat round — an objective measure of progress before and after edits
We’ll send the full “Omsk” case report (20 testers) for free — see the format and depth of the breakdown before ordering your own.
Request the sample reportReady to test your game?
Write to us — we’ll talk through your game, its genre and which tester panel fits best.