Getting publishers to request a prototype ...

You might want to check out Fundex games (the maker of Phase 10). Their website is:

http://www.fundexgames.com/

They are a smaller company located in Indianapolis IN. They have a form you can download on the website to submit ideas.

Keep trying and good luck!

Lar

Most games won't ever be published. The more games you've designed and are attempting to sell, the better the chances that one of them will be picked up.

I believe that the majority of those that are published go through multiple publishers before landing with the one that chooses to publish the game. The ability to hear "no" and keep going better your chances of eventually hearing "yes".

I am sure this is quite sound advice. It seems, though, that in GW's case, the issue isn't even with his game so much as that companies won't even look at his game in the first place because they're not accepting submissions at all. I would think that would be an even more frustrating outcome than "we looked at your game, and it stinks", because there's no finality; you're in a kind of limbo state.

That said, my advice, coming from a designer who hasn't published, or even submitted yet, is to try something else. Broaden your search a bit; look at other companies. It's no surprise that you found dead ends with Rio Grande, Uberplay, and Days of Wonder; I would think that everyone wants to publish with those companies, because their products are so good. There must be other publishers out there who might be less of a designer-magnet, and perhaps they're accepting. Look around a bit! And incidentally, the wisdom I've heard seems to be to try to target your product to a company into whose line your game would be a good fit.

You might also try to submit the game in the Hippodice competition; that company is judged by industry pros, and doing well could give you an inside track to publication.

Bill's concern, though, seems to me to raise an interesting issue; the supply of game designs seems to have far exceeded the demand for them from companies. That would suggest that starting a new company could be a good thing, since one would have no shortage of designs to choose from. BUT, the viability of a company hangs on its ability to sell the games to the public. So it seems like an interesting time for designers. My hope is that demand for games from the public will ramp up fast enough that good games by "undiscovered" designers can still get into the market, and that it doesn't become a situation where companies will only publish a game if your name ends with Moon, Knizia, Faidutti, or Kramer.

-Jeff

Well, you are and you aren't. A rejection's a rejection's a rejection; they just come in different stages, and potentially allow more room for later re-submission. Even publishers who aren't accepting submission are probably scanning for something that blows them away...

With some publishers, I've always been asked to see a prototype when I've sent in the rules and/or an overview. With others, I haven't - Out Of The Box only found one game (of three) close enough to be worth considering, and I'm 0/2 with Amigo.

The advice remains the same - keep plugging away. One of the earliest games I designed is Cola Wars. It took until late last year before any publisher agreed to give it a look. Of course, no one's decided to publish it and it's not with any publisher right now, so there's no "happy ending" - but there rarely is anyway.

Joe

Which company did you write this time?

- Seth

Not true. They could publish the game. That would be better. The game could become a sensation. That would be better.

Still, congratulations! You've jumped over one big hurdle. Whether they take the game or not, it validates what you're doing. It means you're on the right track. Keep after it. And keep us posted on the progress.

Steve

In the same kind of idea, sligthly different topic.

Do anybody know if the Board Game designer forum is being visited (even silently) by producers ?

The Games Designer Workshop seems to be a good place to scout new good designer.

I guess they're too busy.

Just a tought

I know of at least one person from a major US game company who visits here, and at least two other from smaller companies. I don't think it's so much a problem of getting us on the radar as it companies are already overrun with with an excess of game ideas. I.E. They don't have the time to go hunting for possible new games; they've got a line leading from their door and around the block! Since it's a publisher's market right now, they don't need to go scouring for any ideas. I've said it before and I'll say it again, until designer games go mainstream in the US, we will be fighting against each other tooth/nail for those precious publication slots.

-Darke

Can you tell us who they are so we know who we're talking to? :) I think I know at least one of them...

Which is why more games need to at least try to catch the attention of the mainstream market... Frankly I'm suprised (and maybe disappointed) that Knizia's LotR's game didn't put a bigger dent in that market. It's too bad that game didn't license artwork from the movie, I think it might have done better that way in the mainstream.

Maybe what we need to see is more 'stepping stone' games, simple strategy games with uncomplicated mechanics and completely saturated with theme. Something that would appeal to the average joe at first glance, but offers more choices than "Sorry!" and "LIFE" and more time/effort economy than "Monopoly" and "Axis and Allies".

What do you think? Who here has worked on (or IS working on) such a game?

Scurra- do you think All For One is too complicated to fill this void? It probably is, even though the theme might be a good one to actually interest mainstream buyers.

I'm working on a very simple play mechanic with a lot of theme. To be honest I like to play the game I design, but I was never flabergasted by it. That's why I sending it to the GDW, trying to find ideas to spice it up.

I voluntarly simplify my rules so it can appel to the largest possible crown. I also design thinking about production cost. Unfortunatly, I had to compromised a bit to make the game more sellable.

I haven't contacted anybody yet. I more planning on trying a couple of board game competition later on this year. I think I will have a better reception from the producer if I win such competition.

I'm working on a detection game that combines some of the simplicity of Clue with mechanics that provide some interesting choices. I've got it themed more completely and more interestingly than Clue is themed. I specifically set out to bridge the gap between mass market game buyers and "gamers." So far I haven't bridged that gap successfully. The game, in its current form, stinks. I still think I can turn it around, though.

Of course, creating that game and getting a company to bite on it and getting the mass market to embrace it are three distinct phases.

Plodding along.

Steve

I mostly agree with this statement, but I think more can be done. As I said above I'm working on a Clue-like game that is better than Clue. At various turns I've found myself toning down my instincts for what I would want in the game in order to try to create for my intended audience. The first topic in TiGD was Roll and Move. My perception is that it was generally thought to be a lower-level mechanic and that good games sought to eliminate it or radically improve it. I would contend with a game like Clue or Monopoly or Trivial Pursuit and on to infinity that Roll and Move is in peoples' comfort zone. People understand it. It's the way games are made. So in making my game, I have specifically left Roll and Move in. It makes it easier for people to decide my game isn't intimidating. Could I create a better detection game by eliminating the dice and finding another way to get around and ask questions? Sure, but I contend doing so would separate me a little more from my intended audience. What I want to do is have people make a positive connection: "Oh, it's like Clue." Then I hope they'll be willing to buy it and try it.

There are times to be true to a vision, and there are times to be a whore. Just look at Coppola or Altman or Sayles. Right now I'm in my Peggy Sue Got Married phase. Later I hope to be able to shift into my Godfather phase.

Steve

I'm not sure being "more successful" is what's at stake here. What I was talking about is more along the lines of getting people to try better games which they may well like but wouldn't think to try otherwise. In that respect, Knizia's LotR with pictures of Vigo Mortensen and Elija Wood could easily do a much better job of "hooking" a mainstream player-of-games. I'm differentiating from "buyer-of-games" here on purpose. Of course in the end people would have to buy a game before they can play it, so in a way it's the same thing. I guess my point is that if I were in charge of the artowrk for the LotR game, I would have used the movie pics- not because I wanted to make more money, but because I wanted more of the mainstream market to try a Knizia game (something differnt from the normal mainstream).

Because the game would be exactly the same, I don't feel at all like it's "selling out" to use pictures from the movie. I do agree that original artwork is nicer and classier, but can you reasonably expect people (remember we're talking about the mainstream here) to identify with original artwork in a game that's released coincident with the biggest cinematic undertaking ever? The game may as well not be about LotR at all- by specifically not tieing into a movie of that magnitude it's about the same as having a different theme alltogether.

I totally agree, which is why I ask the question... is there anything we can do about that?

LotR was a great opportunity- everyone and their mother (literally) went to see these movies. Many hadn't read the books and some hadn't even heard of the Fantasy genre before that. Knizia's game probably isn't too complex or "difficult" for a mainstream audience either. It was a good candidate to get mainstream, potential gamers to try something a little more German. I think the main reason it didn't was because it didn't jump on the chance - in the mainstream LotR = Vigo, Elija, and Orlando.

Another good opportunity right now might be Harry Potter. I'm certain there are Harry Potter games on the market already, but I haven't heard much about them. I'm also pretty sure their not the kinds of games people like us would want to play. It might be a little late to capitalize on the Potter movies, but maybe with one of the next releases (there's going to be about 4 more, aren't there?) a German strategy game could hit the mainstream shelves disguised in a Harry Potter cloak. But I think that would only work if it embraced the movie- the stimulus of interest in the game in the first place- and license pictures of those actors.

In general and in principle I agree with you... all things being equal, original artwork is better than pictures of actors. But when reaching out to the mainstream and trying to capture their attention, all things are not equal. When the 3 biggest blockbusters ever are in theaters, all things are not equal. When "the mainstream" (a unit I'm referring to sort of abstractly and in third person) is interested in something as a whole, all things are not equal.

- Seth

I'm just will state some of my personal observation of the last few years.

For the last four years I subscribed to Game Developper magasine. This mag was oriented toward the computer game industry. (I know it's a board game forum but hear me anyway). The industry trend that you can see develop is quite simple. It's all about money. The gaming studio would prefer to develop sequel (Thief 3, Grand Thief Auto: Vice City, Diablo II, all sports game updated every year, just to mentioned few of them) or develop derived product. (Chicken run computer game, Harry Potter Quiddish game, Lord of the Rings). It's all about risk taking.

The same is true for the board game industry. Why invest 20k on designing a new product from a newcomer like people on this forum, when I can redraw the monopoly game (Vegas, Nasa, Harley Davidson style) and make tons of money.

Look at the Toy'R Us. What do you see on the shelves. I see only Hasbro games. It's brain washing. Why some mother would be interested to buy European game for his son. When all the people know is the same Monopoly game. Toy'R Us won't offer game if the sit on the shelves. What's the most likely to be sold. Monopoly (35$) or my game Homini Terra (55$ planned) ? It's a question of risk and money.

Why can't you find old Parker Brother game like Inventors with this nice dice roller with a bell? Where are all the nice game from Avalon Hill. It's simple reduce the offer of marginal product and this will increase your mainstream product.

It's not about how good a product is. It's about how much it can bring in your bank account. It's about providing a service to the public. It's about how much can I get from them.

It's a sad and dark view, but at least it's out of me.

Thanks for reading.
Take care.