Do users understand the game without being told?

A mechanic that is misunderstood at launch costs retention from the first week, and it is expensive to fix once live in front of 2 million users. The team had a high-fidelity prototype and a few weeks before the planned date.

My role

Protocol, recruitment, sessions, analysis, readout

Deliverables

Prioritised report, annotated recordings, verbatims by theme, recommendations

1. RecruitmentUsage criteria

   6 real users, neither employees nor beta testers, familiar with comparable apps.

2. 1:1 sessions40 min

   Free discovery of the prototype, with no guidance. Observing without stepping in, open questions after each interaction.

3. AnalysisBy theme

   Verbatims and behaviours grouped, frequency per participant.

4. Readout4 deliverables

   Prioritised report, annotated recordings, verbatims by theme, recommendations.

Why this approach

1. Free exploration, no instructions

   The question was precisely “do people understand without being told”. No hints on the mechanics: I observed without stepping in, then asked open questions after each interaction.

2. Real users, not insiders

   Neither employees nor beta testers, light to heavy users, familiar with comparable apps: the people who will discover the mechanic at launch.

3. A high-fidelity prototype

   Realistic enough to get credible reactions, early enough that fixes cost only one design iteration.

1. Do users understand how it works without being told?
2. Where do they get stuck, where do they give up?
3. Do they want to come back after the first session?
4. What motivates them or holds them back from engaging?

1. 6/6
   Nobody understands what triggers the rewards

   Do you need to select an item? Do you win after each game or at certain levels? Nobody knows, nobody asks: they explore cautiously, some give up. It isn't a complexity problem, it's an onboarding problem.

   • I'd want to play just to see how it goes the first time.Participant · 25
2. Reflex
   Rules are looked for before betting, and found too late

   Before any bet, users look for the rules. They exist, but come too late in the journey. The feeling of risk slows engagement at the very moment it should speed up.

   • I actually have very little hope of winning on the right area that's coming up.Participant · 41
3. €2 / €20
   The link between stake and reward is unclear

   Nobody knows whether betting more pays more. By default, everyone plays small: revenue left on the table, for lack of information.

   • Is it the same rewards for €2 or €20? That really affects how much I bet.Participant · 21
4. 100 %
   The visual concept makes people want to play

   A unanimous verdict on the graphics, the colours and the collection concept. It is the strongest lever of the product, provided the three previous frictions are fixed.

   • Honestly, visually, it's cool. The app is well thought out, well designed. The card aspect is a very good idea.Participant · 50 · expert user
   • I really like the colour, it really sets it apart. It's really interesting.Participant · 23 · new user

1. P1A micro-onboarding on rewards

   A concrete example before the first interaction, and visible progress during the session.

2. P1Rules at the moment of the first decision

   3 to 5 essential rules, short and scannable, available in context.

3. P2Show the stake / reward relationship per level

   A table or visual progression, to remove the barrier on higher levels.

4. P3Build on the visual concept

   Once the frictions are fixed, amplify colours, customisation and progression.

Every method has blind spots. Here are this study's, and how I accounted for them.

• A prototype, with no real money at stake.

  Risk-related hesitation is probably underestimated: real stakes make understanding the rules even more critical.

• 6 participants.

  The signal is qualitative and unanimous on rewards. Its scale needs confirming with usage data after launch.