Games UX Research Services for Indies & AAs
What I do
I design and run actionable playtests and usability reviews for indie and AA teams to confirm what's working well and uncover counterproductive friction that's frustrating to players or blocking progression. Fixing these issues before your demo or game is finalized keeps fun challenges intact, improves retention, increases the chances of positive first impressions, and boosts funding and future purchase potential -- and I help you do it in a way that’s fast and easy to act on.
Choose the right service for your needs and budget below, whether you want a quick usability review, a focused mini playtest, or a more thorough playtest with full reporting.
Why get a Usability Review?
Quick, actionable feedback before your build lock deadline
Think of a Usability Review like an appetizer — quick, satisfying, and just enough to whet your appetite. Usability reviews are ideal if you want targeted feedback on how to make your game shine more but don’t have the budget or time for a playtest. They’re especially useful when preparing a build for an event, pitch, or demo, so you can get fast insights on what to improve before showing it to players or potential funders.
The kind of friction matters
Some kinds of friction make games fun — those that challenge and engage players. Other kinds of friction can be counterproductive. Whether accidental or intentionally included, these frictions actually detract from the player experience by discouraging players rather than keeping them engaged.
Common sources of counterproductive friction
This counterproductive friction often stems from usability issues — like confusing controls, unclear tutorials, or hidden systems -- that frustrates players and stalls progression. Players don’t feel accomplished overcoming these; they feel relieved to get past them.
Its impact on your success
Unidentified usability friction in your game can lower the chance of positive first impressions, reduce retention, and as a result, dampen funding or sales potential.
How I help
A Usability Review helps you identify these issues and prioritize issues so you can focus on what matters most, increasing the chance players and potential funders encounter only compelling and fun challenges. I use games UX and usability best practices to diagnose your build quickly and effectively.
3 Review Sizes to Match Desired Budget and Depth
-
Tasty Breadstick - $499
For quick, first-impression polish
Covers ~10–20 mins of gameplay (one core loop / early onboarding).
Best for: Kiosk-style demos, short event showings, or early pitches where players or potential funders only engage briefly.
Answers: “Can someone new to the game get started smoothly and form a positive first impression in minutes?”
Confirms what’s working well and identifies any immediate red-flag frictions (controls, tutorials, UI clarity) that could derail a short demo. -
Breadstick Basket - $1249
For demos where depth beyond the first loop matters
Covers ~45–60 mins of gameplay (onboarding + first few areas or loops).
Best for: extended public demos (Steam Next Fest, Kickstarter) or publisher pitches where players have more time.
Answers: “Does the experience hold up beyond the first impression?”
Goes beyond the Tasty Breadstick by spotting usability friction points past the first loop, providing actionable insights on tutorials, UI, and early systems stay clear — helping funders see promise and players stay excited, rather than giving up or setting the game aside. -
Appetizer Platter - $2499
For multi-hour demos where systems need more time to land
Covers ~1.5-2 hours of gameplay (tutorials + early-mid game systems).
Best for: Vertical slices or multi-hour demos shown to players, publishers or backers who need more than a surface impression.
Answers: “Do mid-game systems and progression features work as intended once players get deeper?”
Goes beyond the Breadstick Basket by reviewing longer-term onboarding, system complexity, and clarity of mid-game progression. Identifies later frictions that only appear with extended play — providing actionable insights so you can smooth these areas before players or funders experience confusion or frustration.
Beyond a Usability Review:
Mini Playtests
A Mini Playtest shows you how real players experience your game, discovering discouraging friction points, confusion, and unexpected reactions — insights you can’t get from a usability review alone. Each Mini Playtest is unmoderated, with 3 real players playing from home and completing post-test surveys — so you see your game through their eyes, in a setting that mirrors real-world play.
Working with me saves you time and money compared to running a small playtest on your own for a several reasons:
— I run playtests with real players from your target audience — so you not only uncover issues that friends, family, or peers might miss, and get insight into how actual players experience your game, helping you prioritize improvements more effectively.
— I take on the bulk of design, management, and analysis of the playtest itself — leaving you free to focus on creating your game.
— I synthesize the raw data into clear, actionable findings — brief summaries, screenshots, video clips, and highlight reels — so you don’t spend hours wading through videos and survey responses while deadlines loom, or end up setting the playtest data aside without learning from it.
— I prioritize findings by player impact, highlighting the issues that matter most to address first — so you know what to tackle first to improve the player experience.
— I can help you run small, iterative playtests throughout development — so issues are caught early before they snowball, reducing the risk of costly rework or launch delays due to waiting for late-stage playtesting that could reveal major issues, and increasing the chance that players and potential funders fall in love with your game.
3 Mini Playtest Sizes to Match Your Build
-
🍕Plain Slice
Covers: ~10-15 minutes of gameplay
(often 1 short core loop, or 1 bite-size demo)
Best for: Short demos, early loops, or builds you want to test quickly before showing to players or potential funders
Answers: Is the opening loop clear? Are tutorials, UI, and core mechanics understandable? Where do players get stuck or frustrated?
Deliverables: Raw recordings, top-level frictions (First Pass Findings doc), 1 highlight clip per player
Outcome: Identifies counterproductive friction in your game’s first loop, helping you fix confusing or blocking elements before greater exposure. -
🍕➕Plain Half PIe
Covers: ~20–30 minutes of gameplay
(often 2-3 shorts loops or small areas, or one short demo)
Best for: Slightly longer demos or early builds where players spend more time exploring your game
Answers: Where do players get stuck or confused beyond the first loop? What parts of your systems and progression feel clear or frustrating? How do players actually play and react to your game?
Deliverables: Raw recordings, top-level frictions (First Pass Findings doc), 2 highlight clips per player
Outcome: Goes beyond the Plain Slice by revealing behavioral insights and emergent player reactions that usability reviews can’t capture, giving actionable guidance to keep players and potential funders engaged instead of giving up. -
🍕🍀Plain Whole Pie
Covers: ~40-60 minutes of gameplay (often 3+ short loops or small areas or 1 longer demo)
Best for: Longer demos or builds where deeper early-game systems need testing before more exposure
Answers: Where do players struggle in extended early gameplay? How do mid-loop systems, tutorials, and progression feel in practice? What surprises, workarounds, or reactions do players show as they engage with your game?
Deliverables: Raw recordings, top-level frictions (First Pass Findings doc), 3 highlight clips per player
Outcome: Goes beyond the Plain Half Pie by revealing friction points, emergent behaviors, and player reactions over longer play, giving actionable insights to smooth issues and ensure players and potential funders experience your game as intended.
Why only 3 players for Mini Playtests?
Mini Playtests are capped at 3 players by design — that keeps costs and turnaround down, while still giving you a clear look at how real players respond to your game and highlighting the kinds of usability and engagement issues that tend to show up early.
For more robust validation, Full Playtests expand to 5 even more precisely recruited players from your target audience and add on an additional more detailed report that surfaces themes seen across players, which you don’t get with Mini Playtests.
Worried your build will be buggy or not ready to test?
This is a totally understandable concern, but good news - buggy builds can be great for playtesting! Playtesting is all about learning, not impressing players. The only builds I’d definitely avoid playtesting are ones that crash constantly, or builds that prevent players from experiencing the part you most need them to for useful insights. I can design the test to warn playtesters about known bugs and guide them to focus on just the areas we care about them playing and giving feedback on.
Even a buggy build can reveal what’s confusing, what’s working, and what’s missing! I’d actually caution against polishing a build beyond what’s absolutely necessary for the playtest — it’s better to catch a design issue early in a buggy or rough build because you may end up needing to do rework to make changes to the game based on what you learned!
When to reach out for a playtest?
A good rule of thumb is the same week your work on a milestone* starts — not ends. I want you to have time to act on the results! But if you’re somewhere else in the process, please reach out to still see if I can help.
* This assumes “milestones” are 1-4 months long, and that the build or part of the game you want to test is what is locking at the end of the milestone.