I guess this is primarily a shout out to @Rob and @higekun, as Payload's bosses. Maybe the producers, @Jamie and @saiwun, if they also decide how dev time is to be scheduled. By "all of the game" I mean the whole campaign progression (preferably to max levels), including the major optional aspects of crafting and (limited) AI use. This notion stems from a (perhaps off-hand) remark from @Matt, during a console launch Stream on Mixer. When I asked how far through he'd got, I was a little shocked to hear that he'd only ever reached GeoCorp level 2 (barely the end of early game, by my book) and that his bosses would be the ones to ask about allotting him time to play through properly... So here we are (belatedly). This case seems like a no-brainer: the community manager needs to understand the game he's supporting when answering questions from it's players, particularly for when getting more directly involved in the details of forum threads (if working at that level). Time to play can also double up with live streaming - "noob dev plays campaign for the first time", or whatever. It would beat many of the launch streams, where the first hour of the game was played repeatedly. He just needs to make sure to backup his campaign save and snapshot directory after each session, ready to resume (if other things are happening on that machine, in between). Similarly, the last time I'd heard Jamie talk about playing the game (as community manager at the time), I think he was celebrating having had the opportunity to 'play right through'... for an hour or so. The first hour is not the game. The meta changes so much by end-game, let alone having time to get into crafting, etc. I think it's a little worrying, if there really is this lack of first hand familiarity for those producing the game. I mean, I felt that any crafting techs were always glossed over (or totally mangled) by the devs in Com Core streams, primarily due to their lack of familiarity with the system. And I wonder if a shallower perception of the game may be helping to foster a self fulfilling prophecy: that a negligible number of players will find these aspects compelling. By neglecting them (to the point they are almost unusable without a detailed bug guide) and avoiding promoting these aspects, it's failing to instil interest in the player base. Also failing to pique the interest of potential players who would be drawn in because of these aspects. Perhaps this is unfair: but I'd felt that the launch trailer (which looked very cool, @Zeena - I see a couple more details each watch), hadn't shown any 'real' crafting at all. Actually there was a Fabricator popping out a block (with the base itself mostly hidden off camera). But I only remembered the two, decorative, refining-selling bases shown just before that. I guess the thinking is to avoid showing intimidating complexity, targeting a younger/more casual audience. But explicitly complex games like Factorio (and Minecraft factory mods, etc) are very popular too... Final example: a little before 1.0 release, @zanzistar (excuse me for bringing this up again) realised that there was a substantial discrepancy between how he thought that game worked, and what it has actually been doing: ... And it had been (wrong) like this for the whole time I've been playing (so at least a year). Having time to play through properly might spot issues like this earlier, in future. Now, I don't know how this might look in implementation (1 hour/afternoon a week, 1 week per year, 'homework' where an option...?). And I expect that it's a laughable idea, really, given how super-busy everyone is; I don't think anybody here wants to stall the coding team for even an minute! But maybe they are over-worked and their productivity would benefit from the change of perspective...? Maybe they already have benefited, what to I know? Just a thought.