
A small qualitative study on the gap between what players say about a live-service game and how often they still play it
I have just completed a personal UX research project on player retention in Helldivers 2, a live-service co-op shooter where the paid layer doesn't just sell cosmetics, it gates access to weapons, equipment, and abilities players use to play the game. That structure has created a long running tension between what the game sells and what players actually want to engage with. The recommendations all ended up built around one line: gameplay items should be earned through play, cosmetic items should be the paid layer. The friction the research surfaced isn't that there's a paid layer at all, it's what's currently in it.
Some context on where I'm coming from: my degree is in anthropology, so the qualitative side of this is familiar ground, but I have no formal UX or game design training. Everything here is built on free courses, my own reading, and trial and error. I'm working toward a transition into games UX research, and posting here partly because outside eyes catch things the person who wrote it can't. If anything in the project stands out as a glaring weakness or an obvious oversight, I'd want to hear it.
The work underneath the principle is a thematic analysis of 1,143 Reddit comments, six semi-structured interviews, and three observations of high-skill gameplay via livestreams.
Slides, raw data, interview and observation notes, and full write-ups are all here: Helldivers 2 Complete UX Project