Professional Gamer

$10–14/hrrate as listed

micro1 recruits competitive and high-hour gamers to evaluate AI-generated game strategy, commentary, and in-game reasoning against how play actually works at rank. Observed pay for this listing sits at $10–14/hr, with work assigned in batches rather than fixed shifts.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You review AI outputs about games and judge whether they hold up against real competitive play. Tasks vary by batch, but commonly include rating two model responses to a strategy question (draft priority, build order, aim routine, macro decision-making) and writing a short rationale for the winner; flagging outputs that sound fluent but describe patches, metas, or mechanics that no longer exist; correcting terminology and rank-appropriate advice; and occasionally writing prompts or reference answers that a model should be able to match. Some batches involve annotating gameplay clips or transcripts — labeling decision points, mistakes, and what an expert would have done instead.

The hard part is not knowing the game. It is explaining why a line is correct in two or three sentences that a non-player reviewer can audit. Vague praise or "this one feels better" gets returned.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable competitive history — peak and current rank, account handles, team or tournament results, VOD or stream archive, or a documented high-hour record in a specific title.
Depth in one or two games, not shallow coverage of ten. Screens typically pick your strongest title and press on patch specifics, matchup theory, and edge cases.
Currency. Whether you still play the current patch matters more than a rank you held three years ago.
Written clarity in English, since your reasoning is the deliverable.
Honest calibration — saying "that depends on rank" or "I don't know that matchup" scores better than confident invention.

Logistics

Fully remote and asynchronous. Work is project-based: you are onboarded to a pool, then notified when batches in your titles open. Volume is genuinely uneven — some weeks bring 20+ hours, others none. Most contributors treat this as supplementary rather than primary income. Expect a screening interview conducted largely by micro1's AI interviewer, followed by a paid or unpaid calibration task before live batches. Pay band is as observed on this listing and can differ by project, title scarcity, and task type.

What they look for

Gaming
QA
Annotation

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

What is your peak rank or MMR in your strongest competitive game, and in which patch or season did you achieve it?
Ranked peak in primary title · required
Are you actively playing your primary title in the current patch, or have you played it within the last 30 days?
Current play in that title · required
Do you have a public VOD, stream archive, documented tournament result, or account handle on a public leaderboard that shows your competitive ranking?
Verifiable proof of competitive history · required
Are you able to write clear explanations of game strategy decisions in English, and is English your primary working language?
Written English fluency · preferred
Can you name at least one game in which you have sustained competitive play (ranked ladder or tournament history) spanning multiple patches, not just casual familiarity?
Depth in one or two games · required

0 of 5 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether the candidate has sustained, recent credibility in at least one game rather than a resume of old achievements or shallow breadth across many titles.
A strong answer: Name a specific rank achieved in a named patch or season, state whether you still actively play that title, and if rank has changed, explain why (patch shift, role change, time away) with current engagement level.
Where people lose it: Listing peak rank from two or more years ago without establishing current play or patch knowledge. Saying 'I was Diamond' without patch timing or acknowledging you've dropped—or claiming to still be there without evidence—signals you don't understand why currency matters for this work.