QA just plays the game?

I would love to get paid to just play the game. That would be absolutely wonderful. But sadly, it's not maybe quite as appealing as that. There's the video that goes around in the games circles where there's the girl who comes in and says, "Hey guys, are you done testing that game? I need another one designed." And they go, "Yeah, just tighten up the graphics on level three. Man, I can't believe they pay us to play games." I guess that is kind of the opinion that a lot of people get because of that. But yes, when it comes to actual QA, I think it's more to do with being kind of like an information broker for a developer, and just making sure we know exactly everything about the game, keeping a pulse on it as it goes from the beginning. For example, Jack starts off with the most broken, kind of new, interesting stuff on the core team. Those guys deal with all of that kind of thing. And then as it goes on to the more finalized products, George would see that through to the released product, basically. So as well as getting to play the game, which we do repetitively, but we do get to play the game, we are making sure we're providing good detail to the developers on how to reproduce bugs, debug information for anything that comes up, prioritizing certain checks. For example, if new features are coming in, we need to make sure that we are rinsing those and maybe deprioritizing some of the older stuff. So yeah, that's a little bit more about the QA role.