Quick answer: Opt-in crash reporting only captures crashes from players who consent; automatic crash reporting captures from everyone by default. Automatic gives far more coverage, but opt-in respects explicit consent.

Crash reporting can be opt-in (only with the player's explicit consent) or automatic (on by default for everyone), and the choice trades coverage against explicit consent. Here's the comparison and how to balance them.

What Opt-In Crash Reporting Means

Opt-in crash reporting only captures crashes from players who have explicitly agreed to it, they actively choose to send crash data. Its strength is explicit consent: players have clearly agreed, which is the most privacy-respecting stance and may be required in some contexts.

The major weakness is coverage: most players never opt in (they ignore or decline the prompt), so opt-in crash reporting captures only a small fraction of crashes, leaving you largely blind. The crashes you most need to see may come from players who never opted in. Opt-in maximizes consent but minimizes the data you get.

What Automatic Crash Reporting Means

Automatic crash reporting captures crashes from everyone by default, no per-player opt-in required. Its strength is coverage: you see crashes across your whole player base, which is the whole point of crash reporting, you can't fix what you can't see, and automatic capture is what gives you that visibility.

Bugnet captures crashes automatically, giving broad coverage. Automatic reporting is standard practice because the coverage is essential, but it should be paired with privacy-conscious practices: clear disclosure (a privacy policy), capturing technical context rather than unnecessary personal data, and respecting applicable regulations. Automatic maximizes coverage, handled responsibly.

How to Balance Them

The tension is coverage versus explicit consent. Pure opt-in gives you too little data to be useful; pure automatic maximizes coverage but should be done responsibly. Most teams balance this with automatic capture that's privacy-conscious: clear disclosure of what's collected, capturing technical context (device, stack trace) rather than unnecessary personal data, and honoring applicable privacy regulations.

Bugnet captures the technical context needed to fix crashes, with the coverage automatic reporting provides. So the practical answer is usually privacy-conscious automatic crash reporting, broad coverage with clear disclosure and minimal personal data, rather than opt-in that leaves you blind, balancing the coverage you need with respect for players' privacy.

Opt-in crash reporting needs explicit consent but most players never opt in (leaving you blind); automatic captures from everyone for broad coverage. Most balance this with privacy-conscious automatic capture, clear disclosure, minimal personal data.