This is part of The Journal, a series highlighting the perspectives of high performers in CX, customer service, and technology. This entry captures insights from recent conversations with gaming industry CX leaders evaluating QA platforms—revealing what these organizations really care about.
Over the past few months, I've had deep conversations with QA leaders at some of the biggest names in gaming. They're running RFP processes to replace legacy QA platforms—tools like Medallia, NICE, and others—and what's stuck with me isn't the technical requirements or scorecards.
It's how consistent their challenges are. And how clear they are about what actually matters.
These leaders have been down this road before. They know what good implementation looks like. They know what bad customer success feels like. And they're not looking for vendors who can "check boxes"—they're looking for partners who understand the complexities of supporting global player bases in one of the most challenging customer service environments out there.
What follows are the key themes that have emerged across these conversations—the challenges gaming companies face, what they're looking for in a QA solution, and why partnership matters more than features.
The Aggressive Timeline: Why Speed Matters in Gaming
Across every conversation, the timeline is tight. Most gaming companies I've spoken with are targeting Q1 or Q2 implementations—group demos within weeks, vendor selection within a month, and full deployment in 60-90 days.
That's aggressive. But it's not arbitrary.
The gaming industry runs on launch cycles, seasonal events, and player engagement windows. Missing a quarter means missing critical opportunities to have new systems operational before major releases and peak support seasons. It also means another quarter of paying for tools they're unhappy with—and another quarter without the insights they need to improve player experience.
What this tells me: gaming companies don't have patience for drawn-out implementations. They need partners who can move fast, deliver on commitments, and understand that delays aren't just inconvenient—they're costly.
"We're running out of runway. If these things don't get decided, we lose the opportunity. That's why I'm pushing for an aggressive start."
Trust and Safety: The Challenge Nobody Talks About Enough
This theme has come up in nearly every gaming conversation I've had—and it's the part that really opened my eyes.
Gaming CX leaders deal with player behavior issues that go way beyond "was the agent polite?" We're talking about detecting harassment, identifying threats involving minors, flagging self-harm language, and catching toxic behavior before it escalates.
Right now, most companies use ticketing system tags (Zendesk, Salesforce, etc.) to trigger QA platform workflows. Tickets get tagged with terms like "pedo," "suicide," or "harassment"—in multiple languages—and routed for manual review. But legacy systems are slow. By the time flagged tickets get reviewed, weeks have passed. The harm is done. The player trust is broken.
Why Context Matters
Here's the really interesting complexity: in gaming, language that would be alarming in other contexts can be completely normal.
A player saying "I'm going to kill you" in a competitive match? That's trash talk. The same phrase directed at another player outside of gameplay? That's a threat. AI needs to understand the difference. It needs to analyze tone, context, and intent—not just keywords.
One leader put it perfectly: there are parallels to banking, where certain words trigger compliance reviews. But in gaming, the stakes are different. You're not just protecting transactions—you're protecting people, especially minors, in a space where anonymity can bring out the worst behavior.
Gaming CX isn't just about faster handle times or better CSAT. It's about creating safe player communities—and that requires AI that understands context, not just keywords.
What these organizations are looking for is simple but hard: systems that can detect these issues in near real-time, route them to the right teams immediately, and surface patterns so they can address systemic problems—not just individual tickets.
That's not a feature request. That's a fundamental requirement for responsible gaming companies.
They've Already Done the Work: Just Don't Break It
One of the most impressive patterns I've seen across these conversations is how much legwork gaming companies have already done.
I've seen detailed spreadsheets with 15-20 questions mapped to internal policies ("Agent Code," "Player First," "Support Standards"), complete with answer options, auto-fail criteria, examples, and discipline-specific guidance. Every question has clear scoring logic. Every scenario has documented examples. Agents know exactly what's expected. QA reviewers know exactly what to look for.
It's the kind of structure that implementation teams dream about.
The Real Question
These leaders aren't asking, "Can you help us build a scorecard?" They're asking, "Can you take what we've already built and make it better—without forcing us to start over?"
That's a critically important distinction.
A lot of vendors want to sell you their methodology, their framework, their best practices. But mature organizations don't need to be told how to run QA. They need platforms that respect the work they've done and amplify it with better technology.
"I did all the legwork so we can move forward. We have all this mapped out. We can absolutely provide it if we move forward with implementation."
What this has taught me: gaming companies—especially the big ones—have sophisticated CX operations. They're not looking for someone to teach them QA. They're looking for partners who can integrate seamlessly into what they've already built and unlock capabilities that weren't possible before.
Coaching and Feedback: The Hidden Value Unlock
Here's a theme that's emerged across multiple conversations—one that leaders don't always expect to care about:
"I think this platform has a really good use case we never even considered before starting this evaluation—coaching."
Right now, most gaming companies use their legacy platforms' coaching modules (Medallia, NICE, Verint, etc.). They're functional, but basic. What gets these leaders excited is realizing that modern QA platforms don't just measure performance—they create feedback loops that actually improve it.
The BPO Challenge
This is especially important for gaming companies because most use BPO partners to handle frontline support. You're not managing employees in a building you control—you're managing partners across different time zones, cultures, and operational structures.
How do you ensure consistency? How do you coach effectively when you can't walk the floor? How do you identify training gaps when you're only reviewing 1-2% of interactions?
The answer is a platform that gives you visibility, structure, and actionable insights—across 100% of interactions, not just a sample.
The value proposition isn't just "better QA." It's "do more with less resources, get better player experiences, and manage BPO partners more effectively." That resonates.
The Metrics That Actually Matter
Gaming CX leaders are crystal clear about what success looks like. Here are the most common KPIs they're tracking:
1. Player Satisfaction (CSAT/NPS/Custom Indices): Whether it's called SASI, Player Satisfaction Score, or something custom, this measures player satisfaction post-interaction. It's the North Star metric for CX quality.
2. Average Handle Time (AHT): Not because they want agents to rush, but because efficient resolutions correlate with better player experiences. Long handle times often signal confusion, policy friction, or knowledge gaps.
3. First Contact Resolution (FCR): Players don't want to submit multiple tickets. They want their issue solved the first time. FCR is a direct measure of effectiveness.
4. Contact Rate/Ticket Volume: Measuring how often players need to reach out for support—fewer contacts often means better self-service and fewer game bugs.
5. Quality Score/Compliance Adherence: Ensuring agents follow policies, escalate appropriately, and maintain brand standards across global BPO partners.
Why This Matters
These aren't vanity metrics. They're business outcomes. And these leaders have committed to them internally as the KPIs that QA improvements will drive.
What that means for vendors: we're not just selling a QA tool. We're signing up to help move those numbers. If we can't demonstrate impact on satisfaction, efficiency, and resolution quality, we haven't delivered value—even if the platform works perfectly.
Why They're Leaving Legacy Vendors: Customer Success Failures
This theme has come up repeatedly—and it's sobering.
Multiple leaders have shared variations of the same story: "My CSM experience has been terrible."
Here's the pattern. They're trying to implement coaching workflows, revamp scorecards, integrate new systems—complex projects that require strategic guidance. They reach out to their vendors' customer success teams for help. The responses?
"Do you want to buy professional service hours?"
"That feature is only available in the enterprise tier."
"We can schedule a workshop for Q3."
That's the breaking point.
It's not that legacy platforms (Medallia, NICE, Verint, etc.) are terrible. It's that these leaders feel like they're on their own. No partnership. No proactive support. Just vendors trying to upsell them instead of helping them succeed.
What Gaming Companies Need
Gaming CX leaders are building complex operations. They're working with BPOs, managing global teams, implementing AI, and trying to improve metrics that directly impact revenue and player retention.
They don't need a vendor. They need a partner—someone who understands their challenges, brings expertise to the table, and treats their success as a shared goal.
"To me, partnership and support experience matter. Getting 50% of what I want with terrible support is a non-starter. I will do everything in my power to make sure we don't have to go through that again."
What Most Vendors Miss About Gaming CX
After this conversation, a few things became really clear to me about what gaming companies need—and what most vendors don't understand.
1. Speed Matters
Gaming is a fast-moving industry. Launch delays cost millions. Seasonal events drive huge support spikes. If your implementation takes six months, you've already missed two critical windows.
2. Context Is Everything
AI that works great for banking or retail might completely fail in gaming. You need technology that understands gaming-specific language, player behavior, and the difference between competitive trash talk and actual harassment.
3. BPO Management Is a Core Challenge
Most gaming companies don't handle all support in-house. They need platforms that make it easy to manage external partners—visibility, consistency, and accountability across distributed teams.
4. Trust and Safety Isn't Optional
This isn't a nice-to-have feature. It's a legal, ethical, and brand imperative. Vendors who don't take this seriously won't win in gaming.
5. Partnership > Product
Features matter. But what matters more is whether your vendor will be there when things get complicated—when you're trying to implement something custom, when you hit a roadblock, when you need strategic guidance, not just a support ticket response.
Final Thoughts: Why These Conversations Matter
I've been in sales long enough to know the difference between a transactional deal and a real partnership opportunity.
These conversations have been the latter.
Gaming CX leaders aren't just buying QA platforms. They're looking for partners who can help them transform how they support millions of players globally—while managing BPOs, ensuring trust and safety, and driving measurable business outcomes.
What I've learned from these calls will shape how I approach every gaming conversation going forward:
Listen first. Gaming CX leaders have done the work. They know what they need. Your job isn't to sell them a methodology—it's to understand theirs and show how your platform amplifies it.
Respect the complexity. Gaming isn't just another vertical. The challenges are unique. The stakes are high. If you don't understand trust and safety, BPO management, and player behavior nuances, you're not ready for this space.
Be a partner, not a vendor. The reason these leaders are leaving legacy platforms isn't features—it's customer success. If you can't deliver genuine partnership, you won't win—and you shouldn't.