Slashdot Mirror


Best Way To Sell a Game Concept?

dunng808 writes "If a couple of young, game-crazy guys wanted to get started designing a game with the intention of selling the concept, how should they proceed? In the music industry they would make a demo MP3. In the film industry they would write a script (and I would recommend lyx with the hollywood document class). Should they develop some sample game play with a well-known engine? Is the one in Blender good enough? This somewhat dated list suggests it is. Or should they focus on textual descriptions and static scenes made with Blender and the GIMP? Is there even a market, let alone a convention, for selling game concepts?"

43 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. No way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too many ideas too few developers

    1. Re:No way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Getting ideas is the easy part.

    2. Re:No way by pegasustonans · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too many ideas too few developers

      Absolutely. If they find a developer willing to get on-board with the project, then they might be on to something.

      Then they should work on the concept and developing material to demo with an artist and the developer.

      A lot also depends on what kind of a game they want to develop and who they're targeting.

      Basically, they need to ask themselves some tough questions about their game and what they're developing. Then move on to the next step.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    3. Re:No way by Soilworker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly, and the real challenge is to find an idea that can be developed with minimal cost and developers.

      I've been 1 year in game development at the university i'm still studying in and on the 5 projects presented to be developed the next year, only 2 was possible to be done in the 1 year accorded for it and with a team of 5 (mostly bad) developers.

      One had enough ideas to do a complete new World of Warcraft (nothing really original tho...) but he failed to realize how ideas are useless if you can't implement them.

    4. Re:No way by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, but the gaming industry is one of the hardest gigs in Computer Science. People really do it for the love of it, not the love of millions, or they are very seriously misguided.

      Think about it. Most business software costs a magnitude of millions to produce, test etc. But seriously look at the level of functionality that business software has compared to games.

      Games have such wondrous things such as fully fledged physics engines, statistics systems, and a whole plethora of other goodies as standard,that business software stakeholders can only drool over, and definitely never want to/have to pay for. Finally, the most important thing for a successful game is a truly slick UI/UX. If it's not a pleasure to use, it kind of defeats the purpose for a game. In most business software the main driver is making money for the company, not enjoying use.

      So what does that mean for everyone involved in producing? You're building a $500m project for a $100m budget, (if you're even getting that), so you have to product 5x as much value as your friend who's building a business system, whereas you will never get the return from it like in a business application of the same calibur.

      So what do you think your boss will say to you in a games company when you want to be paid as much as your friend who produces the same value? Either ramp up your production to 5x your friends, or be happy to be paid 1/5 of his wage. If he gives it to you, he doesn't understand the business, and you're all probably going to be looking for work shortly.

      It's grim, but reality. You really have to have games in your blood to survive in the industry, and do it for the love of it rather than making money.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    5. Re:No way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Harsh, but true - every gamedev forum I'm aware of is constantly flooded with "I've got this great idea, and need developers to help" posts.

      Your best bet, IMHO, is to go indie. Develop the game as fully as you can, then sell it as shareware. You probably won't get rich, but you *certainly* won't get caught up in EA or Activision's shenanigans.

    6. Re:No way by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, but in the case of an artist his 10% may have been absolutely vital to the game's success. Certainly development takes up a huge amount of time and effort, but developers in general tend to be really crappy artists. The two skillsets (and mindsets) are very different from each other, and both are critical to a successful game. The art is what people see first, and if the game looks amateurish or poorly rendered, many people will simply not buy it or put it down almost immediately and tell all their friends what a piece of crap it is. On the other hand, if no one can play your game for more than 10 minutes without encountering a serious issue with the code, the game will be sunk just as bad.

      Artists are important for modern games. So are developers. "Idea guys", not so much.

    7. Re:No way by TaggartAleslayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your entire thesis is flawed. Business software is complex. Business UIs have to be precise. Game developers do not make 1/5 the amount of business software developers.

      I have worked in both areas. Pay is pretty standard for qualifications. None of it is glamorous. It's a job.

      If you want money and recognition you put in the extra hours, do a better job than the guy to your left, have actual intelligent insight, and have a plan for your career which includes your own personal motivation to achieve.

    8. Re:No way by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. I'm in the industry, and everyone I've ever spoken to has agreed completely that we have all the ideas we will ever need, and that is not at all a thing the games industry is needing or wanting to spend money on. I'm sorry, but your geek dreams aren't worth gold. We get thousands of ridiculous fan emails a day with game ideas that are mostly laughable, but even the good ones, who cares? The "idea" boils down to a story/setting, and some gameplay. If the gameplay can be done, it probably already is, and otherwise if it can't be done, then the idea is worthless. And if you think you have the best story around, who cares? Write a book. The challenge in making good games is not finding good stories, its organizing development teams and trying to produce "fun" which is unquantifiable and subjective.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    9. Re:No way by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. I'm in the industry, and everyone I've ever spoken to has agreed completely that we have all the ideas we will ever need

      Yet all we get are generic first person shooters. COD, Halo, Gears of War, Killzone. All the same. None of these ideas seem to be getting anywhere.

      I can honestly say the most original game I've played YTD is Tropico 3 and that's only because it's the first game I've played with a Latin jazz soundtrack. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Pripryat is up there but kind of samey being the third S.T.A.L.K.E.R. in as many years, but it was nice to see GSC get out one incredibly polished S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game.

      If the ideas are there then the implementation is horribly, horribly flawed. I'm not really looking forward to Halo:Reach and the inevitable successor Halo:Around or the next COD/Modern Warfare game. Can I at least have an original story with some decent in-depth game play mechanic, like Deus Ex or System Shock 2. Those games forced me to make choices I could do differently each time I replayed, now days COD leads me through a linear corridor, gives me all the weapons and ammo I could want and then tells me which one to use. Worse yet I always seem to be fighting Nazi's or Terrorists, can you invent some enemy that is not so stereotypical. Maybe even go as far to make the hero/villain lines blurred enough that I question what I am doing and why?

      I'm going to go off on a bit of a rant, the really important bit was above but...

      Why do games, especially FPS's and most RPG's need to fit into the standard character moulds so religiously. In every game, even ones where I can be evil like Fallout 3 I always seem to be the hero. If not the hero then the anti-hero. There's no ambiguous moral choices, it's too black and white. Then again with the enemies, they always have to be nameless, faceless certain evil like Nazi's, Zombie's and Terrorists. Why cant I encounter say, a personal letter from one of the guards I've dispatched back to his wife and kids. Especially with the Vietnam games, designers had a great opportunity to use the infamous VietCong/North Vietnamese propaganda and do some really abstract war games al a Apocolypse Now rather then the tired old red meat eating, flag waving, built like a brick shitter, Rambo style all American war hero. Even the British ones in COD are so bloody American that I can't stomach them (so I'm kind of glad we Australians have not really been depicted, they'd never get the Aussie at war right) I'm sorry but you cant put a cockney accent on a yank and call it a pom.

      System Shock 2 was good, it made me both hate and associate with Shodan, be seduced by the aims of the Many, absolutely brilliant storytelling. Deus Ex made you question everything, right and wrong, good and evil, is it possible to be neutral, what would most people give to play that game again for the first time. I know not every game can be an impressive work of art like Deus Ex and System Shock 2 but I've been waiting 10 years since the last one. In that time we've had massive sequel factories produced and overhyped (Halo, Battlefield, COD).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:No way by vell0cet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly, in this industry it is more important to get things done than for them to be good.

      The people who get to be the "idea people" have toiled years (if not decades) among the various disciplines in the industry. You need to prove that you can get something completed. And then you have to prove that you can get something good completed. And then... maybe... someone will buy into some idea that you have.

      But really, most of the creative types in the industry are working their asses off so that one day they can make their "one great game idea." I don't see them giving that up to others who are trying to take a short cut and/or don't know anything about development.

    11. Re:No way by mqduck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can honestly say the most original game I've played YTD is Tropico 3 and that's only because it's the first game I've played with a Latin jazz soundtrack.

      I take it you've never played Tropico 1. It's the exact same game, Latin Jazz and everything. If one was asked "what are the *least* original games ever made?", one would be logically mandated to include Tropico 3. (BTW, I'm not complaining. An updated Tropico 1 is something I'd been longing for for years.)

      --
      Property is theft.
    12. Re:No way by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Funny

      In every game, even ones where I can be evil like Fallout 3 I always seem to be the hero

      That's probably because it would be pretty tedious being, say, the unfit, alcoholic sidekick who gets his head scythed off after five minutes. You wouldn't get much gameplay.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:No way by Creepy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So have I, I worked for a small studio, but one that was hired by a major publisher, and the studio head, designer, and lead programmer made quite a bit of money (but worked their tails off, as well). As a person pulled in at the tail end of the project to write GLIDE hardware acceleration (yes, it was that long ago, 1996ish) , I was also the first to go when the project ended (I was a contractor anyway), but that studio is still in business, mainly focusing on iPhone stuff these days. It paid OK - actually more than my business job, but without benefits (which is huge).

      The real issue is volume, price, and shelf life. A game that stays in stores 90 days and sells 100k copies may be a minor hit, but business software can sit on that same shelf for 2 years to sell its 100k, and charge 5x the price. Since that business software made 5x the money, they can afford to pay their employees twice as much (and the extra 3x goes in the CEO's pocket... actually it's more like 1000x... or more - I've seen 2000x myself, and I'm sure some people are 6000x or more).

      Interestingly enough, despite the privacy issues, I think content systems like Steam are good in that they can extend the shelf life of games, which ultimately benefit the studios creating them. Whereas a store will stop selling when a title only sells 1-2 copies a month, Steam can keep selling those 1-2 copies until buyer interest dries up entirely, and may be able to respark interest with discounts (like UT3, which sold dismally in stores and quite well when discounted on Steam). Profit margins are also much higher with digital distribution and even the business world is moving to digital distribution for that very reason.

  2. No. by dcollins · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Is there even a market, let alone a convention, for selling game concepts?"

    Having worked at two game companies in the past: No. I've never heard of such a thing happening. All the hundreds of people working at a game company are likely bursting with their own game ideas. Ideas are not in short supply.

    At best, your analogy for a "demo mp3" is a playable "demo game".

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're not contradicting his experience, you're validating it.

      "At best, your analogy for a "demo mp3" is a playable "demo game"."

      Which is exactly what Narbacular drop is. Read more better, k.

  3. A demo tape isn't a song concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A demo tape provides a real example of your talent and ability. To be equivalent, this need to be a real example of the game.

    Look at the Portal developers. They developed a Portal like predecssor game called "Narbacular Drop". It got Valve's attention, and them a job, and finally the finished product Portal.

    1. Re:A demo tape isn't a song concept by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. This is like somebody who has no idea how to compose music going "hey, i've got this idea for a really fast metal song with lots of guitars, and there would be a part that went like this, hey, do you think I can call up a band and sell them my idea for money? How do I go about doing that?" Sorry, but no band is ever going to care about your song concept. And similarly, no serious video game developer has the time to care about your video game concepts. And unfortunately, a single person (especially without the technical skills) cannot develop a modern videogame, even a demo. (note: there are exceptions but they're mostly 2d and it took the developer years and they were highly skilled, like Rollercoaster tycoon or braid)

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  4. It doesn't work like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In 15 years in the game business, I have never heard of any company being so hard up for ideas that they shell out money to buy one from the outside. Quite the opposite is true--there is always a glut of pet concepts developed internally by members of the full time staff, and very few of those will ever see the light of day. And ultimately, the "concept" itself has no value, only the implementation does.

  5. Don't even try... by Jerrith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like the AC first post says, Too many ideas, too few developers. In my experience, this is very true. If you truly want to create your game, I suggest working in the industry, and developing contacts, such that at some point down the road, you can bring together the funding and people you need to actually create it.

    That's not to say there aren't also smaller scale projects that are successful as well - there are. However, most of them tend to either be of lower quality than many professional games, and/or have a number of people who have worked professionally in the industry.

  6. Ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ideas are a dime a dozen, they rarely pay for ideas, they pay for prototypes and people who can make the ideas reality. It sounds like you're at least taking this into account in that you want to create a demo. The demo needs to be bang-up. It doesn't need to have every feature or quality graphics, but it needs to show the gameplay mechanic or idea that you want to sell - and it needs to sell it -HARD-. See Nabacular Drop...it became Portal. The idea for portal was there, but it wasn't until a solid implementation came along a game company got interested. So model it on that idea - You need to have something coherent.

    Blender game engine probably is a no-no. Use something a bit more high-quality/powerful and customize it to do what you want.

    And if you don't have a compelling gameplay mechanic or idea, then don't bother. You're just another nerd with a fantasy, no offense.

    1. Re:Ideas by loufoque · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blender game engine probably is a no-no.

      Bullshit.
      Blender game engine is one of the most advanced engines in open-source software.

  7. Dime a dozen by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to break this to you but the ideas are the easiest part of game development. My group has dozens of ideas on our wiki and we add great ideas all the time. But we've been working on our current project for YEARS now.

    Taking a great idea and making a great game is hard and expensive. Taking a great game and making a mediocre game is also hard and expensive.

    In this case, make a prototype. If it's good enough and your marketing skills are up to snuff, you might be able to get a publishing deal or self publish on the internet. Retail is still the most important part but some of the indie devs out there have proven you can at least survive if your games are decent.

    You won't be able to sell an idea, but a working example of the game might.... even if it's only one level.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  8. Vertical slice by Kelbear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's called the "vertical slice".

    You get 1 piece of the game prepared. Get all the core things working just for this single scenario, and show them what the final product looks like in this one scenario.

    It's up to you how detailed you want it to be, but the idea is to get it as close as you can to the final product. It's hard to get everything in a working status so pick your scenario carefully to avoid complex problems in implementation (Don't generate tough pathing, excessively detailed environments, game-breaking dilemmas).

    Get that working and the investor can imagine what the actual game might be like. The less he has to imagine, the easier it is to invest. Also, and /most importantly/ it shows that you are organized and disciplined enough to produce a working product top to bottom. One of the biggest risks for new games is developers who don't know how to finish something. They get caught up in the big fun ideas and forget about critical details like making it work and meeting a deadline.

    1. Re:Vertical slice by Kelbear · · Score: 4, Informative

      FYI, this is exactly how Dead Space came to exist. They made 1 level, pitched it, and they came back and told them to make the rest of the game.

      Force Unleashed developers did something similar, they animated conceptual scenes for Lucas to look at that demonstrated how the resulting game should feel. It wasn't interactive, but the idea is the same, try to get them to see what the final game will look like by using one complete picture.

    2. Re:Vertical slice by cybereal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is probably good advice... for someone. I don't think it's what the OP is wondering about. I don't think they want to make the game, they just want to write it, so to speak.

      There is no market for this because there is no market for well-vetted game ideas. There's no need. People will be whatever garbage rolls off the truck that day as long as it vaguely resembles something familiar. There are maybe 10 visionaries in terms of overall game design in the industry at any one time and that's enough to consume all available major investments that are based on an idea, rather than an iteration.

      That said, if someone really wants to make their game idea come to fruition, a solid business plan and the intention that you will make it yourself, or at least, hire people and produce the game, is probably the best bet. This is especially true if your idea can target the booming iPad audience as multiple VC firms have capital just waiting to be spent specifically on iPad development. Any similar market situation would do as well.

      What you won't see is a company like Valve or EA taking nothing more than a mockup and making a game. Even in the case of Portal, the game existed, playably, before Valve got involved.

      --
      I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
  9. Make it yourself, or don't bother by SaXisT4LiF · · Score: 4, Informative

    Is there even a market, let alone a convention, for selling game concepts?

    Nope. Quite frankly, the only way its going to get made is if you do it yourself. I'd suggest using an established engine to cut development time/cost to a minimum and going with a digital distribution service like Steam to bring the product to market.

    --
    Fight or flight its all the same
    Live to die another day

    --Ryan
  10. Just Self Publish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's $100 for a dev license for the iPhone.

    If you want to make money at it, develop the game and sell it yourself. If you can't recoup $100, you'll at least learn a lot in the process.

    -Dan

    1. Re:Just Self Publish by Kitkoan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's $100 for a dev license for the iPhone.

      If you want to make money at it, develop the game and sell it yourself. If you can't recoup $100, you'll at least learn a lot in the process.

      -Dan

      Your assuming they also have a Mac since one is needed to program for the iPhone. A better option would be to use Steam since it's free (if I remember right they charge a percentage of the sales, but no other fee's) and can be for both WIndows or Mac.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    2. Re:Just Self Publish by zaffir · · Score: 2, Informative

      Steam is NOT an open platform. In fact, it is more closed than Apple's app store. You need to be approved by the powers that be to be placed on Steam, and getting their attention alone is not as easy as submitting your app to Apple's app store. Plus, unlike the app store, there's also a pretty high bar for quality.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    3. Re:Just Self Publish by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simple reason is because people who have iPhones/iPads/iWhatevers actually buy apps. Apple owns something like 95% of the portable app market right now, so yes, they are in fact the BIGGEST market for mobile games.

  11. ob Why Your Game Idea Sucks link by amaupin · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Escapist: Why Your Game Idea Sucks

    Every game developer has thousands of ideas of their own. They could not care less about yours.

    Unless your game concept is a one in a million idea that only comes around once a decade (to change the face of the gaming industry and inspire a thousand and one clones), there is no market for it.

  12. Sorry there isn't a market for conepts by LetterRip · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hi 2.49b the game engine of Blender is fairly reasonable. Definitely good enough to prove whether the idea works and to develop the core logic and game play.

    You might want to look at Blender after 2.6 which due to the generosity of googles summer of code, will have advanced path finding tools by default and other useful AI related libraries which will make your life a lot easier.

    Blender has a good path to some external engines particularly Unity which is now ported to all of the major platforms.

    These days no one is interested in a concept though. They want a game basically developed to the point it appears ready to sell - at least one fully polished level that shows all of the things that a publishing house wants to see in a game. They also want a team ready to develop it a complete game.

    Depending on the game type you might want to consider just doing smaller versions of it for a cheap to develop platform such as the iphone.

  13. Re:SOL by Paul_Hindt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody is going to give you money though unless you have a tangible business plan or documented examples of your ideas. i.e. concept art, playable demo or mod of an existing engine, extensive design documents. Plenty of people can come up with good game ideas, the trick is to mold that into an actual workable idea and that that all down on paper or in a playable state. Having something that people can actually play, even just a simple demo, can go a long way in convincing people you can make a FUN game.

  14. Game Dev Advice by ProfM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.sloperama.com/advice.html

    From the site:

    Welcome to the GAME BIZ ADVICE zone of Sloperama.com.

    My intent here is to help game biz aspirants learn what it takes to get in and move up in the game business. I write occasional articles to answer Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQs") about designing and making games - computer games, video games, even board games.

  15. Fundamentally different. by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you send a demo tape to a record label, you're not selling a song - you're selling your talent as a musician. Wouldn't make much sense for the label to sign you and only release a single.

    Similarly, when you send around a screenplay, you're selling an idea. It will be reworked, changed around, modified - not too seriously, hopefully - but the studio, director, actors, and physical constraints will all modify the script. You're trying to sell a compelling plot and set of characters, not an implementation.

    But who ever heard of a videogame selling based on individual talent? Or character development? A truly great video game will have a good plot, but that's not the central point of the game.

    A videogame is 'worth' something because it's fun to play. Everything else is secondary. Who cared about the plot of Super Mario Brothers? Who complained about the artwork in Tetris? Why does Asteroids need a catchy score?

    The upshot of all of this is that nobody cares about your videogame unless you have something you can play. And it really needs to be quite close to the intended final product, since otherwise a lot of work remains to be done on the gameplay - the core idea - and you have nothing to sell.

    Now, let's say you do a lot of work finishing one level of a videogame, with character sketches and plot for the rest of it. You may be able to sell that, but by that point you've done most of the work of putting together the game. If you needed to write a new engine for your awesome and new gameplay, you're done with that. If you were reusing another engine, you've already got it set up the way you want it and can basically start plugging in models, textures, and maps.

    So if you've done the work required to get to a marketable object, why not just self-publish? Stick it on Steam, they're very friendly to indie guys and pay quite nicely (ask 2D Boy). If it's any good, it'll do quite well.

    Good luck, whatever you end up doing.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  16. Design, Demo, Team by Runesabre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The key ingredients that get a game design funded and developed are:

    1. A succinct, energizing demonstration of the core concept that can be comprehended within 30 seconds by a group of non-gamers (typically Investors, Directors and Executives). This can be a storyboard, a working demo or a mock demo with cobbled pieces from other games for illustration.

    2. Assembling a team that is ready and capable of executing the concept.

    Ultimately, what investors and companies invest in are teams of people that can develop a killer concept into reality.

    --
    Runesabre
    Enspira Online
  17. Short answer, no. Long answer, self-finance. by cgenman · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a game designer in this industry... There isn't a market for game concepts. Every member of every creative team out there will have 1-5 designs they really, really want to get off the ground. At any given company, that means the founders alone are kicking around 5 - 50 "must do" projects, of which they can do one every 4 years or so.

    Publishers, on the other hand, are interested in funding game companies with concepts. If you can build a great concept, and a great demo, and prove that you have the chops to build a company around it, they might finance you. But as I said, that involves proving your ability to build a game and a company.

    Good luck!

  18. Baby Steps by sanman2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd say tackle it the way you'd tackle anything that's difficult and complex - do it in baby steps.

    Don't try to do that grand game on the first try. Do the smaller things first. Try to do a level, or a character, or a model, etc. Don't go for a 3D game first, try doing a 2D one, and mastering 2D physics first, etc.

    Apprentice with people who are better than you are.

  19. Re:Clueless by Cryptimus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, I think you're clueless on this particular issue.

        Screenplays are absolutely required to follow a strict set of conventions in order to even get a hope in hell of being glanced at, let alone read. If you spend so much time learning and implementing those conventions manually in Word or another naive editor instead of spending your time honing your craft then you're an idiot. Automatic assistance to format your intent into following these conventions is invaluable. Which is why custom software which assists you in doing this is a damn good idea.

  20. If it's that good, here's what you do... by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Shelve it. Come up with another idea. A simple one where the development costs are tiny. Set up a company. Hire developers (You'll need at least a couple of programmers and artists). Develop a vertical slice. A single working level. Pitch that to publishers. If one of them likes it, they'll fund much of the rest of the development.

    Once you've sold this, finish development on the game, get it published. You'll probably have made a net loss at this point but that's not a huge problem. You have institutional knowledge, and a friendly publisher. Get working on your game concept. Pitch that to publishers. If you last game was a success, the previous publishers are going to be interested. You can potentially make money from this one.

  21. From experience ... by Fingerbob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been making games professionally for close to 19 years. Much of the advice in previous posts is very important, so I'll summarize all the bad points first.

    1. Your game concept is worthless to anyone but you. I've personally got 30 ideas for games that will most likely never see the light of day; some of which I honestly believe are better than the very best games out there right now. Without turning that idea into a playable demonstration, no-one will give you money for it.

    2. You might think your idea is brilliant (and you could be right) but chances are once you turn it into an actual playable version, you'll more likely than not find flaws and issues with the design. I've never worked on a single game that plopped fully formed from design to execution, it just doesn't happen. Expect 90% of the effort of designing your game to happen after the first implementation is complete.

    3. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of other people want to do exactly what you're suggesting (sell their idea for money). The people with the money to give you are publishers, and the vast majority of those explicitly will not even talk about your game design, just in case it comes close to a product in development. The last thing they want is to open themselves up to being sued because your idea was remotely similar to a game they intend to ship next year.

    now the good stuff:

    You can make games yourself, right now. Trust me - making (and playing) your own games is infinitely more satisfying than just talking about it or writing down half-baked ideas on a piece of paper. Do what the Narbacular Drop guys did, *make it*. If you don't know how - learn. Everything you need to learn is out there right now.

    There's some really good frameworks for making games out there. look for Unreal Development Kit, Blender you already mentioned, and my personal suggestion for your best starting place would be Xbox 360 development using XNA. The benefits of making your game on a platform where it's easy for everyone else to look at the end results in the cold light of day are huge - plus for a small investment you get to play your game on a proper console gaming environment (big telly, etc). There's also mobile platforms - basically, if you care enough to try and are willing to invest your time and maybe a couple of hundred dollars, you can get started on making a product that will be good enough to get attention from people with serious money.

  22. Re:Prototype it. by drsquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's nothing to do with being 'boring', it's that after several decades of game development, they've settled on a set of genres that most people enjoy playing. People still eat bread after thousands of years, is that unoriginal and boring? Four-wheeled cars enjoy popularity over more innovative exciting designs etc.

    Most of these new original gaming ideas aren't actually fun to play, so players and developers will fall back on proven formulae such as the FPS, sports games, MMOs etc.

    Just because something's new, it doesn't mean it's better.