Honest answer: no for build distribution, yes for the thing nobody does 🎮
hechelion is asking the right question, and I think it has a real answer — but it means picking a niche instead of competing feature-for-feature.
I make a browser multiplayer game, and two things follow from that.
Build distribution is already solved for me. It is a URL. A tool whose core pitch is “manage builds and get them to your testers” has nothing at all to sell me, and browser games are not a small slice of itch.
What is not solved, as far as I can tell, is concurrency. The bottleneck in multiplayer playtesting is never getting the build out or capturing the bug — it is getting four people into the same lobby at the same time. And a tester who turns up alone does not give you a weak signal, they give you a misleading one: they report “nobody was online, seems dead”, which tells you nothing about your game and burns a tester you cannot easily replace.
So the thing I would actually pay for is a scheduled session. Pick a 20-minute window, N testers commit to it, everyone gets the same build at the same moment, and the session comes back as ONE artifact with every participant’s view time-aligned.
That last clause is the hard part, and it is also the moat. A multiplayer bug is usually not diagnosable from the reporting player’s screen. “He walked straight through my bomb” is only answerable if you can scrub to that tick and see what the other client believed was happening. Single-player tools capture one view because one view is all there is, so nobody in the category has ever had to solve alignment. You would.
If something already does this well, I would genuinely like to know — I would buy it today.