How do we define quality in games, and what does it actually mean in practice? In this article I will discuss which definition of quality I prefer, and begin to explore how I apply that definition to games.

1. Quality in Games
How do we define quality in games, and what does it actually mean in practice?
In this article I will discuss which definition of quality I prefer, and begin to
explore how I apply that definition to games.
“Quality is value to some person.”[1]
This is a quote from Gerald Weinberg that has been discussed to great length in
the software testing community [2].
Gerald Weinberg states that quality is relative, and it does not exist in a non-human
vacuum. Every statement about quality is a statement about some
person(s). More quality for one person may mean less for another. Whose
opinion on quality do you take into account when making decisions? In short, the
definition of "quality" is always political and emotional, because it always
involves a series of decisions about whose opinions count, and how much they
count relative to one another. [1]
How does this definition of quality apply to games?
First of all I think about whose opinions about quality that count. Let’s start with
the players, whose opinion should matter since they drive revenue. Perhaps I
have a specific target group of players whose opinion matters more? If my game
is aimed at casual players, perhaps I will not take the hardcore raiders’ opinions
into account, or at least not weigh them equally. So my casual player base has
some opinions on what quality means for them, and I want to make sure that
they perceive the game as having high quality. How do I understand what quality
means to my casual players?
I could study similar casual games and see what has been successful and what
has been less successful. Try to pinpoint what factors drive value for these
players through historical data.
I could also implement different A/B tests [3] and try out different options to see
what is more or less valuable to the players.
Gather feedback from the community about different features, bugs, and future
potential updates could also be an option, although people sometimes do not
know what they want [4].
But apart from the players, there are also other stakeholders whose opinions
about quality count. Shareholders, owners, and managers may have conflicting
opinions with regards to monetization in games for example. A player may see
the most value in getting everything for free, while other stakeholders want to
generate as much revenue as possible. A badly designed monetization system
that does not generate much revenue may be perceived as having bad quality by
both players and other stakeholders, but it might also be that players just don’t

2. use it and it does not affect the value they get out of the game negatively. Since
getting everything for free is not feasible, a perfect monetization system may
have minimal impact on the player while generating revenue and allowing for
further creation of value to the player, in form of new content and features.
To understand what gives these types stakeholders value requires a different
approach. Current and future revenue, brand value, current and future
development costs, and so on. This is a completely different view of value than
what the players have.
It makes sense to make a prioritized list of whose opinions count and their
relative order to each other, and then try to make some weighted calculations to
maximize the value gain.
My assumption is that something that gives players value often gives other
stakeholders value as well, but there are certainly situations where interests
collide.
But it is very tricky. Something that is valuable to a game tester may seem
pointless to a player or a project manager, but the end result could still be a more
bug-free game that also brings value to players and other stakeholders, even
though these stakeholders didn’t see the value up front.
A simple example of a prioritized list of opinions may look something like this:
Stakeholder Priority
Owner / Shareholder 1
Line Manager / Project Manager 2
Business Analyst 2
Player Segment A 3
Player Segment B 4
Player Segment C 4
Game Designer 5
Developer 6
Game Tester 6
Player Segment D 7
You could have such a prioritized list either for specific features or decisions, or
you could have a general list that you use for all types of decisions. However it
might be that different peoples opinions matter more depending on the decision
being taken.
It is by no means trivial to try to maximize the value of the stakeholders who
matter. But it is something you need to think about when you are making a high
quality, high value game.
This is an interesting topic, and something that I will think more about and
explore further.

3. References
[1] Agile and Definition of Quality
http://secretsofconsulting.blogspot.se/2012/09/agile-and-definition-of-quality.
html
[2] Quality is value to some person at some time
http://www.shino.de/2010/07/22/quality-is-value-to-some-person-at-some-time/
[3]A/B Testing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/B_testing
[4] Myth #21: People can tell you what they want
http://uxmyths.com/post/746610684/myth-21-people-can-tell-you-what-they-want