Product Research & Design – take the gamble out of game purchasing

A. In the first part of this case study, I discuss a business- and user problem in the boardgame retail space, and its significance.

B. Second, based on my foundational research I identify various user segments and how they solve for this problem. I will also discuss solutions developed for adjacent categories (books, movies), and see how those solutions can be used as blueprints for boardgames.

C. Third, I will share my design process about the board game recommender interface.


The Problem: Game purchases are a risky investment

Purchasing games without adequate research is risky for the consumer – making it unlikely for them to buy games in the store without advance research . This is a significant issue because tabletop games (boardgames) are increasingly high-revenue generating business.

The US makes more revenue from board games than any other country ($2.48 billion), followed by China ($1.10 billion) and Japan ($0.46 billion).1

Research: validates the problem and maps user expectations

Methods:

  1. Preliminary survey of 52 respondents recruited through board game fan pages on Facebook to validate the problem the app is designed to solve
  2. In-depth interviews and concept testing of wireframes
  3. Competitive analysis

Insights and Personas

Shoppers need to invest time and effort into researching games before entering the store:

    My study found that a common- and sometimes surprisingly challenging – issue for gamers was finding the right game to play. Many users have come up with several workarounds, however, all of these are performed as a preparation, and not in the store. These include:

    • posting questions in Facebook groups
    • visiting Reddit pages
    • doing in-depth research on BoardGameGeek, the ultimate database for boardgames
    • watching YouTube videos
    • asking around among friends

    95% of game shoppers consult at least 2 information sources to guide their purchasing decision, and close to 75% visit at least 3 sources!

    Datasource: survey conducted in April 2025, participants recruited through board game community pages on Facebook.

    The survey results show that the information on the game packaging and mainstream retail websites e.g., Amazon.com, are perceived as inadequate. Not a single respondent would make a shopping decision just based on those.

    Game price determines the amount of research shoppers do

    The extent of research consumers undertake is directly related to the game’s price – the more expensive the game, the more thorough their investigation before purchasing, supporting the problem statement that game purchasing is seen as an investment. Therefore, when designing detailed product information pages, it’s important to prioritize high-prized games.

    Distinct shopper personas: BGG-users are more sophisticated in their information need than non-BGG users

    There are systematic differences between BGG (boardgamegeek)-users vs. non-users.

    Channel Preference
    BGG users prefer specialty stores (online and physical game retailers), whereas non-BGG users tend to shop at big box stores. This fits with the persona of BGG users, who are more game-savvy and look for more in-depth, strategic games that are not normally carried in non-speciality stores.
    Satisfaction with retail websites

    Both BGG and non-BGG shoppers are moderately satisfied with the information they find on the retail website (3.58 +/- 0.62 vs. 3.21+/- 1.18 on a 1-5 scale) but as the SE values (0.62 vs. 1.18) show, BGG shoppers are more in agreement with each other, whereas some non-BGG shoppers are highly satisfied, and other non-BGG shoppers are not at all.

    TYPES OF information RELEVANT FOR DECISION MAKING

    Evidently, some pieces of information are a lot more important when making a purchasing decision than others. What is more surprising is that certain crucial characteristics (such as how easy a game is to learn, or how much replay value it has) are rarely included in game product pages.

    Most importantly, non-BGG users have a significantly higher information need in almost all categories, except for game studio, which only even for sophisticate gamers

    This graph highlights the most relevant differences between BGG and Non-BGG users. Time to Play – BGG users are significantly MORE likely to find this crucial (51.6% vs 18.8%) Photos – BGG users are LESS likely to find this crucial (38.7% vs 68.8%); Age Requirements – BGG users are LESS likely to find this crucial (9.7% vs 37.5%); Instructions – BGG users are LESS likely to find this crucial (19.4% vs 43.8%)

    Starting with Minimal Viable Product

    I originally planned to create a game recommender that would come up with ideas based on previous game purchases, however, I decided to start with an MVP

    Here are a few examples:

    Overall, player count, game photos, play time and game type are the most relevant search criteria. More granular details such as game expansions, the name of the game studio, and what other games the studio designed are seen as less important.

    WIREFRAMES AND HIIGH FIDELITY DESIGNS WILL BE DISPLAYED HERE IN A FEW DAYS

    https://www.technavio.com/report/tabletop-games-market-industry-analysis

    https://www.businessresearchinsights.com/market-reports/board-game-market-117710

    Case study – Redesigning a US State Veterans Affairs website

    Context / Background of the engagement

    Organization:

    US Digital Response is a nonpartisan volunteer organization dedicated to helping government agencies better serve their constituents.

    As a volunteer member since 2021, I had the privilege of working with three other seasoned volunteer UX professionals (a project manager, a fellow Sr. UX researcher, and a UX writer) in the summer and fall of 2024 to improve the Maryland Department of Veterans and Military Families website.

    Brief: Client with a problem

    The state Department of Veterans and Military Families receives a high number of phone calls from veterans and their family members everyday, who struggle to find the information they look for on the department’s website. The organization commissioned US Digital Response to conduct discovery research and design for an updated website that reflects the needs of staff, veterans and their families looking for resources and services.

    We uncovered several systemwide problems, or service problems, not originally discussed with the client organization, but the scope of this project was limited to the website.

    The work I did

    Phase l

    I only joined the team for the second phase. I am providing this information as a background:

    Based on interviews, comparative analysis of Veteran websites by other states, and phonology analysis, the main issues veterans had problems with are as follows:

    Analysis of phone logs showed that 50% of the calls were either about benefits and claims or burial services.

    20.8% of calls were about burial services, with 28.84% about Benefits and claims. The rest (about 50%) were other

    Interviews with veterans revealed that this happens because

    • important content is missing (e.g., when and how certain benefits can be accessed)
    • the individual pages are difficult to scan as they mainly consist of solid blocks of text, or a listing of large number of links, with limited information scent
    • the site’s information architecture makes it challenging to locate the relevant pages

    Phase 1 of the project focused on determining the scope of the project, and the specific pages to be redesigned. They were:

    • Home page
    • About
    • Employment
    • Benefits
      • Burial services
      • Housing
      • Education
      • Employment

    Phase ll

    My role

    • As a designer, I created clickable prototype pages (I created 5 of them in Figma), using the department’s new page template.
    • As a content professional, I wrote content in plain English for easy comprehension.
    • As a researcher, I conducted all the concept and usability testing sessions in this phase.

    I learned from some veterans we talked to during Phase 2 that they regularly set up tables in VA clinics and assist others in navigating the system.

    Problems

    • Have limited computer access
    • Lack basic computer skills
    • Get lost in the byzantine system of organizations (federal and state levels, non-profit and volunteer organizations, plus volunteer groups on social media)

    Our solution: the website need to (be)

    • easy to navigate
    • scannable
    • easy to read
    • focus on the job to be done, and not on the system component addressing the job.

    Design work

    Before starting the design work, I conducted 10 in-depth interviews both with departmental employees and veterans in order to validate the jobs veterans expect to be able to accomplish on the website. With the jobs in mind, I collaborated with another UX designer and created interactive prototypes for the most important pages. We divided up the pages and provided each other with critiques on the work-in-progress.

    First Iteration

    For each page, we identified what job(s) veterans want to accomplish by visiting the website for. The evaluation of the effectiveness of was also based on the JTBD framework. Here are the thumbnails for some of the first iteration of designs, designed with the templates developed by the department.

    You can see a higher resolution png by double clicking on these thumbnails.

    Concept Testing

    As I was not able to travel to the veteran event held in another state, I developed a test script that was used by departmental employees. The usability tests revealed a few areas for further improvement:

    1. The suicide hotline message on the top of each page made the primary navigation hard to notice, and were often missed. For the second iteration, I changed the background colors of both the hotline and the main navigation in a way that establishes clear hierarchy and easy navigation.
    2. While the readability difficulty level decreased from college level to 10-12 grade level, when compared with the initial text, the Gunning fog index still found it “very difficult to read”. I have re-written the text in plain English for easier comprehension.
    3. Veterans were still overwhelmed by the need to deal with two systems (federal and state) and the corresponding two websites. The second iteration partially combined the pages of the state and federal websites so that site visitors would have all the relevant information in one place. The limited scope of the project did not allow for a more in-depth content audit and re-design at this stage.

    Second Iteration

    There is no gallery selected or the gallery was deleted.

    User testing (again, conducted by a departmental employee) after the second iteration showed that the change to use Plain English, with bulleted points increased the ease of comprehension. The UI change of the navigation bar (along with the hotline information) significantly improved way finding.

    Reflection

    Reflecting on our deliverables (the Figma files), I have mixed feelings. We produced designs that were superior to the original version.

    We found that it was significantly easier to navigate and comprehend, and users found it more aesthetically pleasing. However, a lot of the deeper work remained unfinished. Why?

    • our volunteer team had only 1 part-time UX designer and 1 UX researchers beside me
    • extremely limited access to relevant user participants
    • infrequent communication and collaboration within the team