How do I get more feedback from players?

Lower the friction of giving it, since players provide feedback in proportion to how easy it is, and most won't make an effort while many will if it's effortless. The biggest lever is an in-game feedback or report flow that takes seconds and meets players where they are, rather than directing them to an external form or site they have to seek out, the effort of leaving the game to provide feedback loses most of it, while a quick in-game option captures feedback from players who'd never otherwise bother. Beyond friction, make it clear that feedback is wanted and that it matters: players give more feedback when they see it leads to action (a changelog showing requested features shipped, responses to reports), so closing the loop on feedback you receive encourages more. Letting players upvote existing feedback also increases participation by giving a low-effort way to contribute (a click to upvote rather than writing a new submission) while showing you demand. And capturing some feedback automatically, crashes especially, collects technical issues from the many players who experience them but would never manually report, supplementing the feedback players actively give. The combination, low-friction channels, visible action on feedback, upvoting, and automatic capture, maximizes both the quantity and representativeness of feedback you collect, getting input from the broad base of players rather than just the small minority motivated enough to overcome friction and provide it through difficult channels.

Why is automatic crash capture better than asking players to report issues?

For technical issues like crashes, automatic capture collects far more, and more accurate, data than asking players, because most players who hit a crash never report it, they just stop playing, so report-based collection misses the large majority of crashes and the data you do get is incomplete. Automatic capture doesn't depend on the player doing anything: when a crash happens it's recorded with complete, accurate context (stack trace, device, version, breadcrumbs) and collected automatically, so you get the full picture including the silent crashes players would never have reported, and the captured technical data is more accurate and detailed than a frustrated player's description. This is especially valuable for collection because it removes the friction and motivation barriers entirely, you collect the issue regardless of whether the player would have bothered to report it, which for crashes is most players. That said, automatic capture and player-given feedback serve different purposes and are complementary: automatic capture is ideal for technical issues like crashes (where the data is technical and player effort is the bottleneck), while in-game feedback channels are for the input that requires the player, feature requests, opinions, non-crash bugs, and context only the player knows, which automatic capture can't gather. So for collecting feedback, the best practice is both: capture technical issues automatically (to collect the crashes and errors players won't report) and provide low-friction structured channels for player-given feedback (to collect the requests, opinions, and player-described issues that need the player's input), which together give you a fuller, more representative body of feedback than either alone, and far more than relying on players to manually report technical issues they mostly won't.

Best Practices for Collecting Player Feedback

Q: What are the best practices for collecting player feedback?

Make giving feedback low-friction with in-game channels, since players give feedback in proportion to how easy it is, and an in-game flow that takes seconds collects far more than sending players to an external form, including from the many who'd never go out of their way. Structure the collection, prompt for the useful details and let players upvote existing items so you see demand without everyone re-submitting, turning collected feedback into an organized, prioritizable body rather than a scatter of one-off comments. And capture what you can automatically, crashes especially, so you collect technical issues without players reporting them, since automatic capture collects the large majority of issues players would never manually report. Good collection gets you more and better feedback by lowering the effort and organizing the input as it arrives, so the practices serve maximizing how much feedback you collect (low friction), making it actionable (structured, upvoted), and capturing what players won't report (automatic capture), which together give you a fuller, more organized, more representative picture of player feedback than relying on whatever players happen to volunteer through high-friction channels.

Quick answer: Make giving feedback low-friction with in-game channels, structure it so it's actionable, let players upvote so demand is visible, and capture what you can automatically. Good collection lowers effort and organizes input.

The feedback you collect is only as good as how you collect it, friction and disorganization cost you most of it. Here are the best practices for collecting player feedback.

Make Giving Feedback Low-Friction

Players give feedback in proportion to how easy it is, so make giving feedback low-friction, an in-game flow that takes seconds beats sending them off to an external form. Lowering the effort gets you far more feedback, including from the many players who'd never go out of their way to provide it.

Bugnet provides an in-game report and feedback flow, so giving feedback is low-friction. Making feedback low-friction is the biggest lever on how much you collect, since most players won't make an effort, but many will if it's easy.

Structure It and Let Players Upvote

Unstructured feedback is hard to act on, so structure the collection, prompt for the useful details, and let players upvote existing items so you see demand without everyone re-submitting. Structure and upvotes turn collected feedback into an organized, prioritizable body rather than a scatter of one-off comments.

Bugnet supports structured reports and upvotes, so feedback arrives organized and demand is visible. Structuring feedback and enabling upvotes is what makes collected feedback actionable, turning raw input into a clear picture of what players want and how many want it.

Capture What You Can Automatically

Some feedback doesn't need the player at all, so capture what you can automatically, crashes especially, so you collect technical issues without players reporting them. Automatic capture collects the large majority of issues that players would never manually report, complementing the feedback they do give.

Bugnet captures crashes automatically with full context, so technical issues are collected without reports. So practice collecting player feedback by making it low-friction, structuring it and enabling upvotes, and capturing what you can automatically, getting more and better-organized feedback by lowering effort and capturing what players won't report.

Make giving feedback low-friction with in-game channels, structure it so it's actionable, let players upvote so demand is visible, and capture what you can automatically. Good collection lowers effort and organizes input.