Switch Theme:

Paid playtesting?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

Bit of a straw poll/opinion survey, here.

I'm considering (emphasis on considering) paying someone to perform play-testing on games I have in development because getting play-test feedback from those who've downloaded the rules appears to be like getting blood from a stone. Bitter experience with Horizon Wars showed that, however hard I try to compose a perfect manuscript, I really need a second pair of eyes and a second brain to review what I've written in order to assure me that what I've written makes sense and that the game that appears on the tabletop is roughly equivalent to the game I've been playing throughout the development stage.

The kind of thing I'm looking for is someone who is prepared to play multiple games under different conditions, to write a detailed mechanical battle report, illustrated with photographs, for each game and to provide a detailed analysis of the rules with unrelenting criticism and constructive suggestions. Generally speaking, I would be looking for a turnaround of no more than one month and a final report consisting of a minimum of 5,000 words (1,000 per batrep plus analysis) plus photographs to effectively illustrate all points - these need to be accurate, but not pretty. I'm thinking that this would represent about 8-10 hours of work, spread out over a month (reading and understanding the rules, playing several battles and writing up the report), and I'd be willing to potentially pay up to £200, with repeat business for high quality play-testing.

With sites like Taskrabbit, Freelancer and Upwork, I thought someone might already be out there offering such a service, but I can't find anything. So:

1. Does this sound reasonable in terms of time/money?
2. Do you know of anyone already doing this?
3. Would you be interested in doing this?

Regards,

Robey

   
Made in gb
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





Bristol, England

I'd be up for it.
Sounds like a minimum wage type of job as it SHOULD be fun.
Multiple games is a bit vague for £200 and without knowing the system it's hard to gauge how long a game would take. 8-10 hours sounds tight, I'd say a day of playing/learning and a day of write up is feasible so 30 hours still hits that minimum wage bracket.
I've plenty of models, terrain and opponents.
Colour me interested.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/28 12:22:40


 
   
Made in gb
Sword-Bearing Inquisitorial Crusader





Near London, UK

 precinctomega wrote:
I'm considering (emphasis on considering) paying someone to perform play-testing on games I have in development because getting play-test feedback from those who've downloaded the rules appears to be like getting blood from a stone.
I've had similar experience, which is part of why I set up a specific playtest day for my IRE project. I'm hoping that watching other players in person means I'll get back some good data even if no-one really feels like writing up their thoughts.

I apologise, I did mean to chat Zero Dark for a bit at Salute, but obviously we never quite managed to run into each other. (Despite some aimless wandering on my part).

1. Does this sound reasonable in terms of time/money?
2. Do you know of anyone already doing this?
3. Would you be interested in doing this?
1. It sounds broadly right. Like Alex, I feel it might take a bit longer than 8-10 hours to do a really solid play-test, but it sounds like about the right price for the work.
2. Not for wargames, although it's obviously an established concept in the video gaming industry. (Although increasingly replaced by "early access". But there developers often have the advantage of getting back metrics and statistics even if the players don't feel like giving personal feedback).
3. Probably. I'm not sure I could do it for every game, as I feel there's certain genres I'm not familiar enough with to have a good point of reference, but I'm usually quite good at thinking and talking rules.

DR:80S(GT)G(FAQ)M++++B++I+Pinq01/f+D++A++/sWD236R++++T(S)DM+
Project log - Leander, 54mm scale Mars pattern Warhound titan 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

If you're wanting quality feedback, then it's definitely work. Either it catches someone's eye, and they're happy to give it a try, or you need to come up with something else to motivate them.

I think your timeframe is too long, though.

Working from KOG light as a reference point, I'd assume a timeline like this:
- 30 minutes to read through
- 15 minutes setup
- 2 hours playthrough
- 15 minutes teardown
- 1 hour writeup.
= 4 hours total time spent on a 2-hour game

From that 1 hour of writing, I'd expect 1 good page of text and another page of pictures output = 2 pages total.

At $10/hr, that's $40 worth of labor. If Seattle $15/hr, $60 total.

$50 per game report.


   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 precinctomega wrote:
1. Does this sound reasonable in terms of time/money?


No, unless your definition of "multiple games" is more like "play one game". Reading over the rules with a critical eye and attempting to edit your work (including looking for any ambiguous/broken rules to fix) is a several-hour job on its own, then you're talking at least an hour or so per game just for the playing time. Setting up to photograph it at even vaguely useful quality is even more work (and requires $$$$$ in camera gear), as is taking notes on everything so you can write up a useful report. And since I doubt you're sending out game pieces/terrain/etc to play with your testers are going to have to spend more time putting together a set of everything they need. The end result is that you could easily burn through that 8-10 hour estimate and only get a single game out of it.

And it's unclear if your £200 is to the one person you've picked as a playtester, or if you're handing out £200 to every player involved in the process. If it's the first case then the £200 number drops significantly because you're going to have to split it between two or more people.

3. Would you be interested in doing this?


Not likely. It seems like a lot of work for a pretty underwhelming hourly rate. I'd probably be interested in the job itself, if it came with a more reasonable payment offer.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User



England (North West)

Given that lots of people do playtest for free and provide good feedback, I'd say the amount you are thinking of offering is very generous. I don't think it needs to be anywhere near that sort of amount. I think it is worth paying someone to proof read and edit the rules, but that is different to playtesting.
If the rules will be released commercially, what about offering a credit in the rules and a free printed copy when they are published ? If you already have a set of rules published, don't you have a hard core group of players for that game who write battle reports and publish them ? Wouldn't any of them be interested in playtesting ?

 precinctomega wrote:

3. Would you be interested in doing this?


I think to get an answer to this question you need to give a bit more information about the genre and style of game. For someone to agree to playtest it has to be a game they have figures for and would want to play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/29 06:46:55


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Polkovnik wrote:
Given that lots of people do playtest for free and provide good feedback, I'd say the amount you are thinking of offering is very generous.

I think it is worth paying someone to proof read and edit the rules, but that is different to playtesting.


Most of those "free" playtesters are #SponCon receiving free preview copies as part of a pre-marketing push, or else they're already heavily-invested as total fans of the current / previous / related version of the thing. It appears that a lot of the feedback is iffy at best.

I agree that editing is a valuable service.

   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User



England (North West)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Most of those "free" playtesters are #SponCon receiving free preview copies as part of a pre-marketing push, or else they're already heavily-invested as total fans of the current / previous / related version of the thing.

I've got no idea what you are talking about here.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It appears that a lot of the feedback is iffy at best.

I am talking from my own experience. I have had very good feedback from playtesters for my rules.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Polkovnik wrote:
Given that lots of people do playtest for free and provide good feedback


Define "good". I suspect that most of the people who are willing to do playtesting for free are people who want to get free rules and maybe have some fun playing a new game, and don't have the skills or motivation to do proper playtesting (which is work, not fun). The exception would be people who are already your fans and therefore have a stake in improving the game, but you aren't going to find those with random forum posts on a general gaming site.

I'd say the amount you are thinking of offering is very generous.


I don't think you have much understanding of how little money that £200 really is, even without having to split it between multiple people in a gaming group. Depending on exactly how many hours the OP is asking for in "multiple games" it ends up being somewhere between below minimum wage to a little higher than a decent retail job, pretty far off what you'd be paying for skilled labor in other industries.

If the rules will be released commercially, what about offering a credit in the rules and a free printed copy when they are published?


that nonsense. If you're a for-profit business and you're hiring people to help make your product you pay them in cash, not "thank you" notes or whatever other excuses you can come up with to avoid paying your employees.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User



England (North West)

 Peregrine wrote:

Define "good"..


Why, don't you know what the word means ? I suggest you try a dictionary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think you have much understanding of how little money that £200 really is, even without having to split it between multiple people in a gaming group. Depending on exactly how many hours the OP is asking for in "multiple games" it ends up being somewhere between below minimum wage to a little higher than a decent retail job, pretty far off what you'd be paying for skilled labor in other industries..


You can't compare it to wages though, because this is a hobby and it is something people do because they enjoy it. I charge £25 or £30 per hour for maths tuition, but if someone wanted me to proof-read and edit a set of wargames rules I would do it for less (maybe £10 or £15 per hour), because it is something I find interesting to do and can be done from the comfort of my home.
Most rules playtesting is done for free - in fact I've never heard of anyone being paid to do it. Most rules authors soon get a group of reliable playtesters who are happy to do this because they want to be involved in the development of the rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/29 13:12:06


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Cheltenham, UK

Most rules authors soon get a group of reliable playtesters who are happy to do this because they want to be involved in the development of the rules.


Define "most". I'm a published game designer and manage game communities of 800+ players, many of whom express great interest in helping test new rules-sets, but I can count the number of pieces of feedback (note, pieces of feedback, not actual, evidenced playtesting) on both hands.

Other game designers I've spoken to agree that the best place for feedback is gaming conventions. But at a con, participants only ever play the game with the pre-conditions you create and learn the game that you teach to them, not the game in the book.

It seems like a lot of work for a pretty underwhelming hourly rate.


Well, it represents my quarterly royalties, after tax for my Q2 sales. Not sure I'm prepared to pay play-testers more than I'm getting paid for writing the rules in the first place!

So I guess, much as one doesn't get into games design because you want to be rich, the same would apply to play-testing.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

At a con, you're showing what should be the most engaging part of the game. If you can't get a strongly positive response, you should probably rethink in a big way.

Games design is mostly for one's own satisfaction of making something fun. I had never considered monetizing my games. The difference between what you choose to do for fun, vs what you have to do to get paid is immense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/29 22:43:49


   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Polkovnik wrote:
Why, don't you know what the word means ? I suggest you try a dictionary.


Obviously I know what the dictionary says about the word "good", thanks for the pointless nitpick. What I'm asking is what YOU consider to be "good playtesting".

You can't compare it to wages though, because this is a hobby and it is something people do because they enjoy it.


Nonsense. This is nothing more than an excuse to avoid paying employees for their work.

Most rules playtesting is done for free - in fact I've never heard of anyone being paid to do it.


Ask WOTC then, they have full-time playtesters working for them.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Infiltrating Prowler





Portland, OR

Polkovnik wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:

Define "good"..


Why, don't you know what the word means ? I suggest you try a dictionary.
"Good" is a subjective term, what one person classify as good another person would classify as mediocre or even not-good. That is why examples on what good feedback is vs what isn't really helpful feedback.

The trick with playtesting is to qualify to testers what they are supposed to be doing and looking for during a playtest. Many times the mistake people make when having someone playtest, they simply give them the rules to test and ask for them to tell them what they think. Not that it isn't necessarily bad but it creates too big of a scope for the playtest. Playtests themselves should be defined and have particular goals in mind.

For example, if you are testing rules for understand-ability, game setup, learning. Then tell your playtesters that you aren't going to tell them how to play the game, give them the rules and pieces. Then ask them to read the rules to see if they flow properly, if they are understandable and if they can play the game. They don't have to play a full game, you are really testing setup, breakdown and learning simply based on the rules. Then there should be a question form with a few questions asking basics questions with maybe a comment/feedback section for freeform feedback.

Another example is if you want to test the combat system. In which case you don't need a full game to test either. You usually don't want to mess with rules from start, explaining how to setup. This tends to require people who already know the rules or understand the basics. Give them a scenario where they are already in optimal distances. Outline what you are trying to test in the flow and nature of the combat, does activation make sense, does combat flow properly, was it easy to understand when to roll, what to roll, targets, modifiers, etc.

If you are testing balance, then usually that requires the full shebang. You want them to have the rules, hopefully have an understanding of how to play (although not necessary) having them setup from start to finish. Part of that usually involves some army building aspect to see if players lean towards fluff or themes or towards min/maxing (both aspects are important to test). If they are only testing fluff/themes then you need to direct them to try to min/max otherwise you won't get a full rounded experience. Often game play tends to work for one or the other, but neglects testing of both which causes inconsistencies in play.

One of the main questions always asked is, "Did you have fun, explain why or why not?". You don't want your questions and feedback to be simply yes or no. You don't want to leave it open ended and expect them to volunteer information. Often the worse feedback are things like, "It was fun", "It was boring, hated it", "I think it is unbalanced", etc where they don't actually give examples of why or why not.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

The OP defined "good" feedback in the OP: detailed play and commentary, a detailed critique, with pictures, from multiple playthroughs.

What he wants for his 200, and whether he'll have takers, that's hard to say. If what he wants playtested is comparable to what he's already gotten published, then the game is significantly more complex and time-consuming than KOG light . Just understanding and playing would take longer. Plus, there is an intent to have multiple people in the playtest team. I'm not at all sure 200 would cover what he's asking for.

   
 
Forum Index » Game Design
Go to: