Hey devs 👋

I've been working on an idea and I'd really like some honest feedback from other developers.

After spending quite a while developing games, I've noticed that playtesting still feels more complicated and fragmented than it should be. Managing different builds, sending them to testers, collecting feedback, figuring out what actually happened when a bug occurs… it can get messy pretty quickly.

So I came up with Glitch Bug.

The idea is to make playtesting much simpler.

For the developer:

→ Upload your build

→ Manage different build versions

→ Generate a playable link for your testers

For the tester:

→ Open the link

→ Play the game

→ If something goes wrong, simply click “Report Bug”

When a tester reports a bug, Glitch Bug would automatically collect as much useful context as possible: FPS, console errors, system/browser information, a screenshot of the moment the bug was reported, and the previous few seconds of gameplay.

The goal is to make bug reports much more useful without forcing the developer to manually reproduce every issue or piece together information from different tools.

I'd also like the first version to include some basic playtesting analytics, such as playtime, number of sessions, and optional tester ratings.

If the project works out, I'd eventually like to take the analytics further with an SDK that could track things like where players die most often, which paths they take, where they drop off, etc., to help developers understand and improve the player experience.

But that's the long-term vision. Right now, I'm mainly trying to find out whether the core idea is actually useful.

Would you pay around $9/month for a tool like this?

If not, what would make you say no?

And if you would use it, what would you change or improve?

I'm genuinely looking for honest feedback, including criticism. I'd rather find out now if the idea isn't worth building than spend months building something nobody needs. 😅

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.