Key Differences in User Behavior Analysis in VR User Testing

Unlike traditional platforms where analytics are limited to clicks, screen time, or simple navigation paths, VR provides a rich, multidimensional dataset that requires a unique approach to analysis.

‍

When conducting user testing for VR, it’s important to recognize how unique this medium is compared to traditional platforms like web and mobile. The immersive nature of VR introduces entirely new factors that must be considered to gather meaningful insights. Let’s explore the key differences in VR user testing and why they matter.

‍

• Spatial Data: Observing how players explore the environment and whether they engage with key elements. Understanding this engagement is critical during VR user testing.
  
  
• Immersion Metrics: Measuring how users feel within the VR space helps improve experiences when testing VR games and apps.
  
  
• Real-time Feedback: Understanding immediate user reactions to virtual stimuli is invaluable for VR playtesting.

VR sessions have more layers of interaction compared to traditional apps. To understand the “why” behind player behavior, we need to deconstruct this complexity, providing insights into behavior, interaction patterns, and navigation paths that traditional clickstream data cannot capture.

User behavior analysis in VR differs significantly from traditional platforms like web or mobile due to the immersive and interactive nature of VR. Here are the key differences:

‍

1. Spatial Interaction

• VR: Users interact in a 3D space with their whole body, including natural gestures, head tracking, and motion controllers. Spatial data like proximity, reachability, and orientation are key to capture during VR game testing.

Analyzing spatial data allows developers to fine-tune the design of their environments, ensuring they align with user expectations and goals during VR playtesting. For example:

• Are users interacting with the objects that are crucial to the experience or skipping over them?
• Do they follow the intended navigation path, or do they get lost?
  
  

• Web/Mobile: Interaction is limited to 2D taps, clicks, and scrolling, with no spatial element.
  
  
• Console/PC Games: Users interact through controllers, keyboards, or mice in 3D virtual spaces but without physical embodiment or direct spatial actions. Movements are translated through input devices.
  
  
• Mobile Games: Touch or motion-based inputs are dominant, often with simplified or abstracted spatial mechanics (e.g., swiping for aiming or tilting the phone).

‍

2. Embodiment and Presence

Measuring User Presence and Emotional Engagement

Immersion is a hallmark of VR experiences, and understanding how users feel within a VR space is vital. Immersion metrics focus on:

By measuring immersion during VR app testing, developers can identify what elements contribute to a compelling experience and where users might disconnect.

‍

• VR: The user feels "inside" the virtual world, experiencing a strong sense of embodiment. How users perceive and interact as avatars influences behavior profoundly Embodiment and presence are unique to VR metrics that can be evaluated during VR user testing.
  
  
• Web/Mobile: No sense of embodiment; users are viewers of content on a screen.
  
  
• Console/PC Games: Presence is achieved through graphical immersion, but users are external agents controlling an avatar rather than being embodied.
  
  
• Mobile Games: Limited immersion, with gameplay, often focused on casual or abstract mechanics rather than creating a sense of "being there."

‍

3. Multisensory Engagement

• VR: Combines visual, auditory, and haptic feedback to create a multisensory experience. Additional layers like environmental sounds or haptics can enhance immersion but add complexity to the whole VR app testing process.
  
  
• Web/Mobile: Primarily visual and auditory; limited to static or dynamic elements on a flat screen.
  
  
• Console/PC Games: Strong visual and auditory design; some haptic feedback through controllers (vibration) but lacks physical immersion.
  
  
• Mobile Games: Visual and auditory elements are key, with limited use of haptics via vibrations or accelerometer-based mechanics.

‍

4. Behavioral Complexity

• VR: Users perform natural, real-world actions (e.g., walking, grabbing, throwing). Tracking these behaviors during VR game testing requires understanding physicality and ergonomics.
  
  
• Web/Mobile: Behavior is limited to button clicks, scrolling, and input fields—linear and straightforward.
  
  
• Console/PC Games: Behavior is driven by button presses or mouse/keyboard input; mechanics are often skill-based and rely on timing or precision.
  
  
• Mobile Games: Simpler behaviors with touch gestures or casual interactions, often optimized for short play sessions.

‍

5. Emotional and Psychological Impact

• VR: High immersion elicits intense emotions, such as fear, excitement, awe, etc.. Emotional data (e.g., stress, empathy) plays a larger role in behavior analysis. Tracking psychological impact when testing VR applications and games will help uncover existing problems and lay path to discovering what to build next.
  
  
• Web/Mobile: Emotional impact is often passive and less intense, relying on storytelling or static design elements.
  
  
• Console/PC Games: Emotional engagement comes from immersive storytelling, graphics, and skill-based challenges, though less intense than VR due to the lack of physical presence.
  
  
• Mobile Games: Emotional responses are often lighthearted or tied to instant gratification (e.g., achieving a high score).

‍

6. Time Perception

• VR: Users may lose track of real-world time due to immersion, leading to unique challenges like session length optimization, comfort, and time tracking. When testing with VR users, it’s essential to include neurodivergent people as playtest participants for any VR game or app to cover as many potential scenarios as possible.
  
  
• Web/Mobile: Sessions are shorter and more deliberate, often used as a secondary activity.
  
  
• Console/PC Games: Sessions can vary but are typically longer and more focused, with users aware of real-world time.
  
  
• Mobile Games: Designed for shorter bursts, with time management being an integral part of gameplay.

‍

7. Physical Comfort and Ergonomics

• VR: Comfort is a critical factor that should be evaluated during VR user testing, with potential blockers like headset weight, motion sickness, and physical fatigue directly influencing behavior.
  
  
• Web/Mobile: Physical comfort is rarely an issue unless related to extended screen use.
  
  
• Console/PC Games: Ergonomics of controllers, seating, and screen setup can influence user experience but are less physically demanding.
  
  
• Mobile Games: Minimal physical strain; designed for handheld use, but prolonged use can cause hand fatigue.

‍

8. Social Interactions

• VR: Interactions are spatially aware, involving body language, proximity, and gestures. Users can communicate through voice and positional context, similar to real-world dynamics. When developers test VR games and apps, they unlock the potential to create highly engaging and intuitive experiences that stand apart from traditional platforms.
  
  
• Web/Mobile: Social interactions are asynchronous (e.g., text chats, likes) or limited to video calls.
  
  
• Console/PC Games: Real-time social interactions happen in multiplayer settings, often through voice or text, but lack the spatial dynamics of VR.
  
  
• Mobile Games: Social elements are typically asynchronous, like leaderboard sharing or gifting.

‍

9. Data Collection Complexity

In traditional platforms, feedback often comes after the experience, either through surveys or metrics like bounce rates. VR, however, allows for the capture of real-time feedback by analyzing immediate user reactions to virtual stimuli during VR playtesting. This includes:

‍

Real-time feedback enables developers to iterate quickly, addressing issues as they arise and enhancing the overall experience during VR user testing.

‍

• VR: Data includes spatial behavior such as movements, gaze, hand gestures, and physiological and psychological responses, making it highly complex to process and analyze during VR app testing.
  
  
• Web/Mobile: Simpler metrics like clicks, session durations, and navigation paths are captured.
  
  
• Console/PC Games: Input events, timing, and game-state data are key but don’t involve physical data.
  
  
• Mobile Games: Focus on taps, swipes, session durations, and progression data.

‍

10. Cognitive Load and Attention

• VR: Higher cognitive load and potential mental fatigue due to 3D navigation, multitasking, and sensory engagement. This requires analysis of attention spans, task complexity, and decision-making during VR user testing.
  
  
• Web/Mobile: Lower cognitive load with linear, task-focused interactions.
  
  
• Console/PC Games: Cognitive load varies by game genre, often requiring multitasking, quick reflexes, and strategic thinking.
  
  
• Mobile Games: Generally designed for low cognitive load and quick engagement, with casual games requiring minimal attention.

‍

VR/MR User Testing

• Immersive Interaction: VR sessions involve more complex layers of interaction compared to traditional apps. Evaluating spatial navigation, hand and body tracking experience, gaze-based interactions, immersion level, and comfort, physical and emotional, is crucial for building a successful VR application. Ensure intuitive interactions that align with user expectations.
  
  
• Comfort and Accessibility: Monitor for motion sickness and physical strain. Test different accessibility settings with the right target audience.
  
  
• Hardware Variability: Test on a range of VR headsets to ensure compatibility. Test the VR experience on different headsets to ensure consistent performance.

‍

Contextual Insights: Bridging Data and Design

VR user testing doesn’t just focus on metrics—it bridges the gap between data and design. Developers must consider:

‍

• How the virtual environment’s layout influences user behavior.
• Whether tutorials or onboarding sequences adequately prepare users for interaction.
• How changes to the environment impact user engagement over time.

‍

By contextualizing data, developers can create more intuitive, engaging, and accessible VR apps. This is especially critical when testing VR games or apps to ensure a seamless user experience.

‍

This comparison highlights the distinct challenges and opportunities of analyzing user behavior across VR, web/mobile, console, PC, and mobile games. User behavior analysis in VR requires a shift from traditional methods to a more nuanced approach that accounts for spatial interactions, immersion, real-time feedback, and layered interactions. By leveraging these unique insights during VR playtesting, developers can design VR experiences that are not only immersive but also intuitive and user-centric. 

‍

Testing virtual reality games and apps can be tough but finding the right solutions makes it easier. Contact us to learn more about how we can support your VR projects, and improve your VR testing experience.

‍