User Research & Persona Development : from 1,000 Participants, 4 Personas That Shaped Product Strategy

The Challenge

The Division 2 had been live for 4 years. The team had opinions about who our users were. Strong opinions. Loud opinions.

The problem? No actual data. Just assumptions.

Design decisions came down to whoever argued loudest. Features got built for an "average user" that didn't actually exist. When user needs conflicted, we had no framework to prioritize.

We were designing blind. With 2 million active users and real revenue on the line, that wasn't going to cut it.

So, I proposed a foundational research initiative. Simple question: Who are our users, really? And what does that mean for what we build?

My Role

• Designed research hypotheses and methodology
• Created and deployed quantitative survey (1,000 responses)
• Selected and ran qualitative research (30 playtest participants, 8 in-depth interviews)
• Did the post-interview analysis and synthesis
• Developed persona framework and cards
• Mapped personas to product decisions
• Socialized findings across teams (the hard part)

Methodology

Phase 1: Quantitative (Survey)

Goal: Find broad patterns across the user base.

Survey covered:

• Why do you play? (Motivation)
• How do you play? (Behavior)
• What frustrates you? (Pain points)
• What keeps you coming back? (Retention drivers)

1,000 responses. Enough to see real patterns.

Phase 2: Qualitative (Interviews)

Goal: Understand the why behind the patterns.

Numbers tell you WHAT. Conversations tell you WHY.

Process:

• Selected 30 respondents for playtest observation
• Narrowed to 8 for in-depth interviews
• 45-60 minute sessions exploring motivations, behaviors, mental models

Selection criteria:

• Diversity across play styles
• Mix of veterans and newer players
• Geographic spread

Phase 3: Synthesis

Goal: Turn research into something the team can actually use.

This is where most research dies. You do the interviews, write a report, put it in a folder. Nobody reads it. Nothing changes.

I needed something sticky. Something people would actually reference.

So: persona cards. Visual, memorable, actionable.

The Personas

Four distinct personas emerged. Not demographic buckets — motivation-based archetypes.

1. The Master

"I want to understand every system, optimize every build, master every challenge."

Design implication: Needs depth, transparency, control. Don't hide information from this person.

2. The Pathfinder

"I want to explore everything — every corner of the map, every piece of story, every secret."

Design implication: Needs variety, discovery moments, clear completionist tracking. Don't make them miss things.

3. The Teamplayer

"I play to hang out with my friends. The game is the excuse."

Design implication: Needs collaboration tools, shared goals, group-friendly features. Don't punish them for playing together.

4. The Easygoer

"I just want to relax, shoot some bad guys, and feel powerful. Don't make me think too hard."

Design implication: Needs guidance, quick wins, optional depth. Don't require a spreadsheet to play the game.

How Personas Shaped Product Decisions

Here's the thing: personas are useless if they live in a slide deck. They need to show up in actual decisions.

Battle Pass Design

Power Systems (Tinkering on the Go)

Same interface, serves both. Progressive disclosure is the cheat code.

Tutorial Pacing

Store & Monetization

Results

The Real Win: Decision Velocity

Before personas:

"I think users want X."

"No, I think they want Y."

[45-minute debate, loudest person wins]

After personas:

"The Master needs X, but the Easygoer needs Y. Can we serve both with progressive disclosure?"

[5-minute alignment, move on]

Personas turned opinion battles into design problems. That's the ROI.

Team Adoption

The personas became shared vocabulary. I started hearing them in meetings I wasn't even in:

• "Is this a Master feature or an Easygoer feature?"
• "We're over-indexing on Pathfinders here."
• "The Teamplayer has no reason to engage with this."

When the whole team speaks the same language, alignment gets faster. That's the real metric.

What I Learned

1. Quantitative finds patterns. Qualitative explains them.

1,000 survey responses told us WHAT users do. 8 interviews told us WHY. You need both. Neither alone is enough.

2. Personas are tools, not posters.

A persona that lives in a slide deck is worthless. A persona that gets referenced in every design review is priceless. The goal is adoption, not artifacts.

3. Motivation beats demographics.

Age, location, gender — none of these predicted behavior. Motivation did. A 25-year-old and a 55-year-old can both be Masters. Design for motivation, not demographics.

4. Research is a living investment.

The 2021 research still guides 2025 decisions. That's 4+ years of ROI from one initiative. Good foundational research compounds.

How This Applies Beyond Gaming

The methodology transfers because in the end, friction will be friction and money will be money.

The methodology transfers:

1. Quantitative survey for patterns (n=500+)
2. Qualitative interviews for depth (n=6-10)
3. Motivation-based personas (not demographic)
4. Decision framework mapping (persona → feature)
5. Team socialization (vocabulary adoption)