how much to walk away from an idea?

[cliffski]

It seems to be conventional wisdom in indie game dev that an idea isnt worth anything, its the execution that counts. However, the more I work on different games, the more I believe that the idea is damn important.
I've started dozens of small games that I then shelved, because I came to realise that the idea wasn't good enough. I could write an asteroids style game with my eyes shut now (and even started doing one), but concluded that its just a waste of time, there is too much competition etc.
Recently a big (huge in fact) company asked me to do some work for them, for good money, which also would involve me handing them my best new idea. The money wasn't bad, but not mind blowing either, and I'd be giving away my idea, as well as a few months work.
I've thought about it for 48 hours now, and I'm probably going to turn it down, because I've come to think that a good idea I might have is actually probably worth a lot more than what I've been offered.
Would you do the same? or do you have enough game ideas that if publisher X came along and said "heres X thousand dollars for your best game idea", you would say "where do I sign?". Giving an idea away to a big publisher effectively means you lose your game entirely. I'm interested to know if I'd offered say, $15k for a rough prototype of Bettys Beer Bar or Lux, would you have sold it to me (including the IP) if it was still in development? or did you know even then that it would make way more than that, and you should develop it yourself?

[Jack Norton]

I think that the idea is very important. Even if you never know if will be actually a awesome hit, a good game, an average game or a failure!

edit: maybe I misunderstand your post, you meant just a prototype... then honestly I would never give it away if I thought the idea was great. Not surely for 15k$ !!! or you meant 15k pounds? that's already different :D

[Anthony Flack]

I've never beileved in that "ideas are a dime a dozen" mantra.

Sure, that's the going rate for half-baked, crappy ideas. But a really solid, simple, original and fun concept is a rare and valuable thing.

[Adrian Cummings]

If I was skint I'd take the money...

If I was minted I'd think on it for about a day and probably tell em thanks, but no thanks...

I am an neither of the above so good luck with your choice, tricky eh? :)

[sparkyboy]

At this moment in time, I'd take the money and run like the wind!!
I would use it then to develop other ideas by myself.

So basically, I agree with Adrian's view...(although I AM skint) ;)


All the best


Mark.

[Savant]

There's a great quote that I heard one time that I'm going to mangle for you now:

"Don't worry about other people stealing your idea. If the idea is truly innovative and original you'll have to ram it down their throats."

[Tertsi]

Well I'm an idea machine so I'd sell the idea if the price was reasonable and start creating another one. I haven't yet dismissed a single prototype.

[papillon]

A lot of *my* game making is making stuff I want to play - and then getting frustrated because by the time I'm done, I've sort of killed it for myself. :) So if I can convince someone to make it FOR me and do it well... and get paid for it... then hey! score!

I can always think of another idea. I have plenty.

'Will I make more money for it by keeping it' is not a question that really matters to me. What matters to me is what's best for the GAME. If selling my idea to them means they're going to strip all the cool bits out of it and replace my character with BARBIE and make me agree never to make anything similar to my original concept, then that would be bad.

[Nexic]

For $15k I would sell the rough prototype, but I wouldn't sell the finished game. Unless of course I thought my game was really really amazing, but I doubt I'd ever have an idea that great.

[luggage]

For $15,000 they could have the rough prototype. Then I'd set about making Barbara's Beer Bar and Lax.

[Rainer Deyke]

I would sell my best idea for $15000 in a second, because I know that I'll come up with a better idea soon enough. I already have enough good game ideas to keep me busy fo rthe next five years. $15000 can pay my living expenses for two years or pay for the artwork for three games, which means I can make more games. On the other hand, I'm not quite desperate enough to work for other people.

[Kai Backman]

Hmm. If you had been around asking in 2002 I probably wouldn't have sold you Space Station Manager. Now in retrospect I definitely shouldn't have. Not so much for the immediate economic reasons, but the fact that I've learned so much for seeing a game through. And I still don't know how far this type of game can be taken. Sure, there are hundreds of good game ideas around but it's also pretty easy to make $15k if you are determined about it. I find the learning experience of sticking with something and working with it very valuable. Your offer would have just delayed that.. :)

[Kestral]

If I was skint I'd take the money...

If I was minted I'd think on it for about a day and probably tell em thanks, but no thanks...

I am an neither of the above so good luck with your choice, tricky eh? :)
Quoted for emphasis. Where are you right now financially? Me, right now, I would take the sure $. Me two years ago, I would keep the idea for myself :-)

[cliffski]

Thanks for all the replies. I've decided to keep my ideas, and my time. Looks like that mega huge company will have to come up with its own ideas :D

[soniCron]

There's a great quote that I heard one time that I'm going to mangle for you now:

"Don't worry about other people stealing your idea. If the idea is truly innovative and original you'll have to ram it down their throats." Good quote.

@Cliffski: Right now, I wouldn't sell the idea. I need to get something done and out the door. Once I've had the experience pushing a full product, then I'd probably consider it, but the price better be worth the cost.

[Black Hydra]

I guess it all depends on how much work it is to come up with the idea.

Coming up with a great design is just like any other work, programming, making artwork, ect.

Quantify how much work it will take to arise at the idea and figure out how much your time is worth.

Great ideas are hard to make, but there is a near infinite amount of excellent ideas, so giving one away doesn't really reduce your chances for another idea.

[soniCron]

Great ideas are hard to make, but there is a near infinite amount of excellent ideas, so giving one away doesn't really reduce your chances for another idea. You've never had writer's block, I take it? :)

[Black Hydra]

We all can have writers block, but I don't think the amount of good ideas you can have are finite. Giving one away is simply a matter of the cost associated with making it, and the probability and ease of coming up with another one (usually the latter is more expensive). Basically put, there are lots of great ideas. They take effort to concieve, but there is no glorious perfect idea (at least it can't be recognized until the game starts to sell).

[svero]

I believe that ideas are a dime a dozen in the sense that they're not worth anything in the hands of someone who can't implement them. How much would you pay someone who's played a lot of games and wanted to sell you their nifty idea? I also believe they're not worth much in the sense that I have so many that I believe could potentially be hit products, there's nothing particularly special about one over another. I guess you might say I don't have the killer idea, like the next tetris, but in my view its quite hard to know that for sure without implementation. And even tetris implemented all bad is worth nothing.

What changes though is when you've taken an idea and run with it. Say you had an idea that was a good one and you've done half the implementation and then someone else releases the same game. They've hurt the value of what you're working on. That idea is worth something to you personally because you've invested time and effort into it. But at the beginning of a project... I don't much care for ideas, even ones I think are good because it's quite easy to switch from one idea to another without any real loss.

[brianhay]

Any commodity (tangible or concept/idea) is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. If you've got multiple interested buyers for your unique idea that should drive the price up.

But as others have said, it depends on your motives and temperament. If you're a thinker (ideas person) more than a doer, it makes sense to churn out and sell your concepts to those who can best implement them.

The ideal scenario is selling the license for a concept and retaining IP and a percentage of royalties. But how often does such a deal eventuate these days? Everything is skewed in favour of big business (who have the money, power and lawyers).

This topic reminds me of Tomb Raider, Lara Croft being the 'invention' of one artist (can't recall name) who didn't reap much of a benefit (other than continued employment) from his character that spawned a game and movie franchise.

Brian.

[Vectrex]

aeii! Great idea's AREN'T a dime a dozen. I think the problem is that people seem to have a massively low concept of what counts as a great idea. Sticking a breakout clone underwater isn't. A match 3 game where you match 4 isn't. A game that makes a million bucks doesn't mean it's a great idea. That's like saying the latest boyband makes great music just because they makes squillions off teenage girls. I very rarely see games that have what I would consider a great idea behind them.

[svero]

And yet had that same artist went to other major manufacturers with his idea of Laura Croft what chance is there they'd have paid a dime for it or even listened. None pretty much. Tomb raider the game is worth something. Tomb raider the idea is worthless unimplemented. There's probably a gazillion 14 yr olds that already thought of the concept and could do nothing with it.

[Adrian Cummings]

Thanks for all the replies. I've decided to keep my ideas, and my time. Looks like that mega huge company will have to come up with its own ideas :D

Good show and more power to the indies!!!.

[Chris Evans]

aeii! Great idea's AREN'T a dime a dozen. I think the problem is that people seem to have a massively low concept of what counts as a great idea. Sticking a breakout clone underwater isn't. A match 3 game where you match 4 isn't. A game that makes a million bucks doesn't mean it's a great idea. That's like saying the latest boyband makes great music just because they makes squillions off teenage girls. I very rarely see games that have what I would consider a great idea behind them.

I agree with this. There's been some good implementations and improvements to breakout clones and match 3 games, but I wouldn't put them in the "Great Game Ideas" category. They are conservative game designs with excellent execution.

I'd say only a few good/great ideas have actually come to fruition in the past year. Gish, Democracy, Hamsterball, Wik, Darwinia, Droid, and a few others are the only ones that I can think of that had good/great ideas behind them. I'm not saying the games were implemented perfectly, but they have game ideas that are worth protecting and holding on to. That fact that these games were vastly outnumbered by match 3 games and breakout clones means great ideas aren't a dime a dozen. If great ideas were so plentiful, then surely there would be no need for everyone to clone Real Arcade's top ten list.

Sure, anyone off the street can come up with a game idea such as "It's just like GTA, but with killer bunnies!!!". But I wouldn't call that a good/great idea. In fact, I wouldn't even call that a complete game idea. It's just idle daydreaming like my kung fu movie idea starring me and Jessica Alba. :)

A good/great idea is something that can be done within your resources and has mass or targeted niche appeal. These ideas aren't a dime a dozen. So if you truly have a good/great idea, it should be valued and not easily discarded.

With that said, you shouldn't get obsessed with shrouding your ideas in secrecy. Good/great ideas are wonderful, but it's the implementation that's going to determine your sales. I think some people are too obsessed with hiding their game instead of actually working on it.

[soniCron]

I'd say only a few good/great ideas have actually come to fruition in the past year. Gish, Democracy, Hamsterball, Wik, Darwinia, Droid, and a few others are the only ones that I can think of that had good/great ideas behind them. I'm not saying the games were implemented perfectly, but they have game ideas that are worth protecting and holding on to. Hamsterball is a remake of Marble Madness. And, if I'm not mistaken, there are other Democracy-like games out there. (I don't know who started it, but Cliffski's version is by far the best.)

[Chris Evans]

Hamsterball is a remake of Marble Madness. And, if I'm not mistaken, there are other Democracy-like games out there. (I don't know who started it, but Cliffski's version is by far the best.)

I wasn't necessarily talking about "Innovative" game ideas. Just ideas that are refreshing and aren't blindly following along current trends. All those games I mentioned were taking a certain level of risk because they were based on game ideas, which weren't populated in the Real Arcade Top Ten. It wasn't just "Zuma" with an under-water theme. Sure, they borrowed game design elements from previous games, but they stand out in today's market because the games are refreshing and fairly well executed. Game design-wise, I think it's much harder to remake a 10-15 year-old game from scratch than it is to "reskin" Zuma. Obviously, it's tough to make a good clone that stands out from other clones, but I think that's a different subject.

[svero]

than it is to "reskin" Zuma. Obviously, it's tough to make a good clone that stands out from other clones, but I think that's a different subject.

I think zuma is a perfect example of just how worthless ideas are. Zuma is the perfect casual game in many respects. The perfect idea. When I came out it was the killer app and probably a lot of people were saying.. gee why didn't I make that first. I can't think of a better "idea" for the genre at the time it came out.

And yet... Puzz Loop was out there forever before. And when puzz loop itself was released later it failed to make any kind of inroads sales wise. It was all in Zuma's implementation. If you had taken the idea and implemented it poorly.. like the home version of puzz loop they released, the market might have shrugged and said.. hmmppphh.. there's an idea people just dont care for. It could very well have killed off the notion of making any more puzz loop style games. How do we judge ideas? We judge them by how successful the implementation of those ideas is. Rarely if ever do I see someone come around and say.. hey you know that game shapemaster2000! that sold like 0 copies. Fantastic idea! I'm going to make my own version of that! For the most part, the idea is dismissed when the implementation fails.

[Michael Flad]

This topic reminds me of Tomb Raider, Lara Croft being the 'invention' of one artist (can't recall name) who didn't reap much of a benefit (other than continued employment) from his character that spawned a game and movie franchise.
Brian.

TombRaider was a success not because one artist had the idea of a female character jumping around in a setting they already supported since years (Cores Rick Dangerous was very much in 2d what TR is in 3D).

TRaider was a success back at the time because
- it of course had a great animated appealing heroine
- it had very well working and balanced game mechanics
- it had very good and interesting leveldesign and graphics/textures
- they had the best engine fast enough to play it in 640x480 on a P100 while showing *really big* levels for a great exploration experience
- they had all the marketingpower the game deserved

And in the end Toby Gard had more than continued employment. He had a really big chance with his own company Confounding Factor, making one of the most delayed games I know - Galleon - (~2 years became about 7 so almost only Duke can beat that) and even though it was a good game, it was a commercial failure - today I think he's back at Tomb Raider, this time at Crystal Dynamix.

It's a great example because it shows that if you're a major force behind some success you'll eventually get your chance *and* success is mostly based on a combination of a great idea, great implementation delivered at least roughly in time and great marketing.

[soniCron]

And yet... Puzz Loop was out there forever before. And when puzz loop itself was released later it failed to make any kind of inroads sales wise. It was all in Zuma's implementation. I agree that it was Zuma's implimentation, but not in the same way you imply. Puzz Loop was being sold to gamers, and it's just not a gamer's game. At the time, I don't think they knew about the "non-gamer," even though that's exactly who they should have been targetting the whole time. And that's what PopCap did with Zuma.

[Anthony Flack]

Rarely if ever do I see someone come around and say.. hey you know that game shapemaster2000! that sold like 0 copies. Fantastic idea! I'm going to make my own version of that! For the most part, the idea is dismissed when the implementation fails.

And what if that person then went on to make "Aqua Shapes" and sold a bazillion copies?

On the one hand, that would seem to support your assertion that it's all in the implementation. But then again, the clever thing here was that this person was able to see past the poor implementation and see a fantastic core idea behind it.

Once Aqua Shapes was a success, I'm sure lots of people would follow up with their own versions, and many of them would be successful too. So the implementaion can't be all that hard, once somebody has shown you the way.

I can polish the hell out of something, and I'm pretty good at the tweaking aspect too. Given a solid core idea, I reckon I could turn it into something good. But since I don't want to just take a proven successful core idea, I'm left to try to figure it out for myself, and that's no easy thing. No amount of polish and tweaking will save a game with a weak core idea.

So the real skill here is being able to create, or to recognise, a fantastic idea before it's been implemented. So maybe a great idea isn't worth anything. But if you have a great idea, and you know it's a great idea, and you know why it's a great idea, and you have the skills to make it happen, then you're in business.

[svero]

I think really there are no great ideas. Aqua shapes would have to be a great implementation. If you take a company that is great at implementing stuff and gave them some random idea picked from a hat you' d get a better game than you would the so called "perfect" idea with someone who's a terrible implementer.

[soniCron]

That's like saying a guy with paint would make a better painting than an Impressionist with no paints. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as a great Impressionist.

[Anthony Flack]

A terrible implementer will, by definition, make nothing that's good. But I'm not convinced that a weak idea, given to a great team, would produce anything better than mediocrity. Probably the idea would simply be abandoned at some point when it was clear it wasn't working.

If you want something good, you have to have both. Fortunately, implementation skills can be learned, and good ideas can be taken off somebody else.

[svero]

Depends what you call an "idea"? If the idea is so rigid that the team implementing it has little they can adjust or play with then yes there's a limit to what they can do. But in my experience most game ideas are pretty open ended leaving lots of room for implementation subtlety.

[Martoon]

There's a great quote that I heard one time that I'm going to mangle for you now:

"Don't worry about other people stealing your idea. If the idea is truly innovative and original you'll have to ram it down their throats."
That is one of my favorite quotes. It's by Howard Aiken, one of the early computer pioneers. The actual quote is "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." It was later paraphrased by Bob Taylor as in soniCron's sig.