Service
Research & Briefing
Turn the game, audience, current creative, and test objective into an approved production brief with clear boundaries.
Concept illustration · Service stage
The problem this stage solves
A request such as ‘make our game into a playable’ leaves the production team to guess which audience promise matters, what the player should do, and what the delivery must support. Research and briefing turns that open request into decisions a designer, developer, reviewer, and QA owner can all test against.
What you send
- A game build or representative capture, plus the store URL and current creative.
- The audience and creative question: for example, whether sorting pressure is clearer than a relaxed merge loop.
- Production-ready art, audio, copy, brand rules, rights constraints, and the person who can approve them.
- Target networks, language, orientation, CTA destination, deadline context, and known technical limits.
What we return
The brief names one master concept, its opening hook, player action, feedback, reward or fail state, CTA, supplied and missing assets, qualified variants, network exports, review points, and acceptance checks. It also separates facts from hypotheses. A video that performed well is evidence about that video; it is not proof that the same idea will work as an interaction.
Decision | Example of a usable answer | What remains open |
|---|---|---|
Test question | Does a timed three-object sort communicate the game faster than the current video? | Campaign outcome |
Core action | Drag each object into one of three visible destinations | Final tuning after first build |
Variant boundary | Change timer, reward framing, or opening copy | A different mechanic is a new master |
Acceptance | Loads, teaches the action, reaches outcome, opens the agreed CTA | Network acceptance and market performance |
Worked briefing example
A fictional puzzle studio supplies a portrait capture, layered source art, one strong video hook, and a question about whether players understand the sorting fantasy. The brief proposes a short drag-and-sort master, two opening instructions, two difficulty settings, and two reward treatments. Those are controlled changes around one mechanic. A merge-game version would be estimated separately because it changes the interaction rather than a setting.
Scope and evidence boundary
This stage can identify missing inputs, compare plausible interaction routes, and document the production decision. It does not forecast CPI, promise a winning concept, clear intellectual-property rights on the customer's behalf, or replace the customer's media plan. Unresolved dependencies stay visible in the brief instead of becoming assumptions in the build.
Use the ungated playable brief template to prepare the inputs, then submit the working brief when you want the scope reviewed.