Slashdot Mirror
How To Sell a Video Game Idea?
fobsta writes "Do any Slashdotters have experience of selling video game ideas? I'm an artist who has programmed a rough-as-nails demo and animated a trailer to explain my concept. Obviously I think it's fun, it shows promise, and my friends think it's cool. Who should I pitch the idea to? Existing video games companies, venture capitalists, or what about those dentists who financed the Amiga? Are they still around? I've had a previous idea hijacked, and received no reward for it whatsoever; how can I prevent this happening again?"
Exactly. The group that made Portal started out with a little project called Narbacular Drop. It was a rough looking project (I think for school) but it nicely demonstrated the concept of portals. Valve apparently hired the team on the spot when they saw the demo, and that has worked out very well for the team. If you can, code a demo, or find someone to code for you while you provide art and direction.
Four ways to turn your concept into a video game:
4. Create a polished game and approach (or be approached by) an established studio. Also known as the Portal approach. Also the flOw approach. "Sony Computer Entertainment approached some future members of thatgamecompany after seeing Cloud and asked them to form a company and signed them on to make three downloadable games for the PlayStation 3. Cloud ended up being a game that wouldn't be possible for a company as small as thatgamecompany to make, so they made flOw instead. thatgamecompany was created on May 15th, 2006."
3. Work your way up in one or more established studios towards the role of game designer. The American McGee approach. "McGee began his career at id Software. He worked on such games as DOOM, Doom II, Quake, and Quake II in the areas of level design, music production, sound effects development, and program coding. In 1998, he moved to Electronic Arts, where he worked as a consultant on many projects and also created his own game, American McGee's Alice." Mind you, that can be the long route, assuming you're even successful.
2. Work with an independent group of hobbyists and promise to split the profits once you make money. This is difficult to pull off, because contributors lose interest when things become difficult. This is enough of a problem that I'd rather have one paid contractor with modest abilities than a dozen unpaid contributors with spectacular abilities. Blech.
1. Establish your own company and finance development as a third party. Many small developers bootstrap with smaller projects in niche or new markets, eventually working their way up towards larger ones. The iPhone is potentially an awesome way to get your title out there. Start by developing a finished game that's small in scope, and demonstrates the very core concepts of your idea. Rinse. Repeat.
My favorite is, of course, to take #1 and run with it. Tighten your belt, and pay a contractor with good references to help you bring your idea to light on the platform where the competition is still pretty weak, and the barrier to entry is low. That was the Palm Pilot during late '90s, and is probably something like WiiWare or the iPhone now.
Good luck!
We're indie. We're working on our 14th game.
It was back in the 80's. And I was pitching a "mat," that you use to "Jump" to "conclusions." Nintendo blew me off. A few months later, they released the power pad, and I still haven't seen a dime.
Really? http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2008/03/ideas-vs-judgment-and-execution_9197.html
The Portal group were students at DigiPen, where you make a game as a project every semester. There's a big difference between being a college student and seeing your final thesis become a commercial product [as happens in many different industries and fields] and trying to support yourself while coding and creating assets for a garage game.
No, the GP is correct, most VC won't sign a non-disclosure. Angels might be more willing, but I doubt it. Ideas are (as has been repeated many times) a dime a dozen.
The fund manager I know says they won't sign because they may also be looking at the very same idea coming from someone else (who may be more fundable), and they don't want to create potential conflicts.
Yes, really. The blog post you linked doesn't claim that good ideas are worth money, just that great execution can't fix a terrible idea. But that's really just common sense.
Execution is IMHO worth more than a good idea, but only because fewer people can pull off great execution than people who can come up with great ideas. We've all had that "OMG GENIUS!" idea hit us at some point. Some of us get more of them than others, but in the end anyone who's reasonably observant and has good judgment can come up with good ideas.
Being able to pull it off is another story altogether. People who can do it are few and far between. Goes doubly if the idea requires a team. Good *team leaders* who can pull together the right people and execute the idea are truly one in ten thousand.
Game ideas are ten a penny. When I worked at a game company we got three of four "ideas" sent to us every day of the week. We threw all of them in the bin, fancy artwork and all.
If you want to design games you need to start applying for jobs as a game tester. If your feedback/ideas are good you'll work your way up.
Beware though ... if there's one thing which outnumbers game ideas it's people who want to be game testers. There's millions of people who think getting paid for playing video games would be the coolest job ever, though the reality is that testing games is nothing like playing them.
No sig today...
I wouldn't go with the Poor Man's copyright idea. It doesn't have any case law AFAIK, and is easily fakeable.
The "sending a letter to yourself" idea is demonstrably ridiculous.
However, Wikipedia briefly mentions the correct "Poor Man's Copyright", which is a notary public. One of the notary public's duties is to certify documents as being the same as the original. Simply find one and have them execute a certificate of authenticity on your documents. It will cost very little and, while IANAL, should be pretty solid in court, at least in terms of proof that you definitely had the document on the given date.
That having been said, IANAL, but I am a game programmer, and it's pretty unlikely that a game development company will take an idea from an unknown and run with it. They have their own game designers.
(And on that same note, the game designers are going to be the ones who sign off on your idea... and it's unlikely that they're going to admit that it's a good idea since it would be an admission that the company is wasting its money on them.)
If you really want to make your game, like others have said, you have to have a playable demo. If it's good enough, it will get noticed and will get published. I mean, Elf Bowling is now a Nintendo DS game. It's simply a matter of developing a popular game.
(And I might take a moment here to suggest that everyone thinks their game ideas are good and nearly everyone is wrong.)
Agreed, Idea's are really dime a dozen, I infact use the same phrase to my students ( I work at The Academy of Interactive Entertainment ) fobsta has an uphill battle, pitching to developers is almost pointless as very few have the cash to make anything themselves and if they do its going to be someone at that companies baby. Developers are just guns for hire. So pitching to a publisher is the way to go, fobsta has stated he was a working demo/prototype (they are always rough) and a trailer. My question is, by trailer do you mean Visualisation of segment of gameplay or Selling the story. Having a smooth, polished concept video of how the final game make play, look and feel helps and it will smooth off the rough edges of the prototype. As the parent said NDA's are the way to go, I am a little less cynical on what they are worth. NDA's seem to be well respected and honoured within the industry so find a template NDA and adjust it for your needs.
That said it is a large uphill battle, Publishers are the ones with the money but I would not know where to start to get a publishers interest, and getting yourself heard through the sea wannabe teenager game designers is going to be virtually impossible. You could try venture capitalists but I expect they would not fund someone who has very little/no professional game development experience. Remember only about 1/3rd of games actually make money, it is very high risk.
There is no quick fix for your problem. From what I can see there are 2 ways to go are, strip your game to its very core fun, as simple as can be but is still your game, no feature creep at all. Make a demo, submit it to the Indepedant Games Festival, if it is really good it will be picked up (Look at Narbacular Drop/Portal and The Blob). If the game is small enough, maybe try and produce something for the Nokia Games Innovation Challenge or keep an eye out for other similar competitions. You could try and go solo, like Introversion with Uplink, Darwinia & Defcon again if the idea is small enough, but you might have to find yourself a couple of good friends who are willing to starve.
Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
You do NOT need to work your way up from game tester to game designer. Forget the "game industry" and the folklore about career paths in that mythology.
If you think you have a good idea, find a programmer to be an early partner, and develop a prototype.
Ideally, don't deal with any established companies, and try to publish the game yourself. People buy games online now, and the concept of a publisher is laughable. Marketing and advance money are the only possible benefits of dealing with a publisher, but if you believe in your game idea, and you are confident that you can implement the game well, then do it yourself.
If you enter the game industry, you're likely to become a mere employee, and you won't get any financial benefit from your innovative ideas. Moreover, your ideas are likely to be modified or distorted by many different pressures within the management of your employer's company or by pressures imposed by the publishers.
Now maybe the advice that some people are giving here applies to most people, because most people might start with more ambition than talent, and most people might not have a good enough view of the overall picture to realize all of the elements that go in to making a successful game. But I think that people with talent should reject the "paying dues" concept. If a game company won't hire you as an entry game designer, and you think you are already a game designer, then say "no" to the "game industry", and figure out some other path to getting your game created.
If you can't find a programmer who likes your game idea enough to join you, as a partner with equity in the project, then your idea isn't any good. You need to develop a prototype, and determine if it is as fun as you both think it will be.
Bottom line: Do whatever you can to avoid the "game industry". The "game industry" is largely a cult of managers, where imagination dies and talent is unrewarded. Really all you want is money to finance development and marketing -- and I think you should probably just work at a non-gaming job to pay your bills while you continue developing your game. It's an unconventional path, but what you create will be your property and under your full creative control, and you will benefit fully from the success of the game. If you fail, you failed while doing exactly what you wanted, and you can learn from the experience. If you can't tolerate the uncertainty or the possibility of failure, then, yeah, maybe the "paying your dues" idea is the safe path...
I worked on a few commercial video games, and I learned a lot about all aspects of developing video games. It can be a fun profession. However, if you divide your salary by the number of hours worked each week, you might determine that you're making money at the same hourly rate as someone working a normal work week at 60% of the salary! That's a big premium for the "privilege" of working in the "video game industry". Also, a video game of any scale is subjected to the creative input of lots of managers -- who think only of maximizing profit. Managers will set parameters on the game according to what *they believe* will maximize profit, but, in fact, their imposed parameters and constraints will, more likely than not, *reduce* the perceived value of the game in the market. I'm sure, as a consumer of video games, you will agree that most video games are the products of the risk-averse instinct to copy the success of others. How many games in the store aren't based on franchises (movies, cartoon characters, professional sporting leagues, television shows, popular books, popular music, etc)? Any innovative game that becomes successful becomes a franchise of its own, like "Tomb Raider", "Duke Nukem", "Half-Life", "Quake", "Doom", "GTA", "*Craft", "Sims", "Civilization", etc. Some of those game franchises have turned out well -- not lazily exploiting customer loyalty to continue making money on each successive release, but actually offering new value. But, the fact is, most franchise games make gam