Are ideas worthless?

I think there are always exceptions... I'm only saying this now because I thought of a few exceptions to what I'm about to say [lol]

I think large scale ideas are worthless. I think anyone can come up with the general concept of their game no problem. I think the gold is in the small scale ideas. For example I have friends that constantly comes to me for advice on how to implement certain ideas in their games. Questions like: "I have no clue how to include element X in my game, any ideas?" They have the general concept of what they'd like but they're not sure how to approach it.

Sometimes the small ideas can ground the bigger ones.

I don't feel ideas are worthless per say, but the value of the idea is based upon the person presenting it.

I'm a selfish person, and being so, my motivations are as such. If a person has proved their worth with previous work, or is contributing to the actual project, I'm more likely to listen to that person and help them out over a random person who says "Hey, I have the next great idea! Make it for me while I do absolutely nothing!" Some even offer to pay AFTER the game is made (such as a share in the profits, etc), but then again, my selfish motivations come into play. If Bill Gates or John Carmack stated that they'd be willing to pay after, I'd probably accept the job, because once again, they've proved their worth and from their previous behavior, I know they can be trusted (plus, I'd have a contract that could hold them responsible). If a random new GameDev'er stated that they'd pay me, I wouldn't trust them as much (my rate is pretty steep, and I doubt they'd have nearly the amount of capital).

Presenting ideas for others is like presenting an idea to investors to start your own business. If it's not thought out well or you don't have previous references (sorry, your parents don't count), you're not going to be funded.

Think of an idea as C, and the Presenter's value as V. If C * V < 1.0, no one will listen. The problem is, C can range from 0 to .5, and most people who present the idea with little work behind them severly overestimate their value.

You haven't mentioned any case where ideas have value, what you have mentioned is that sometimes ideas are implemented and those implementations are interesting. Without the implementation, the idea is worthless. For example, if "Danc" has a game idea and doesn't do anything with it, nobody is going to care. However, when he takes that idea and implements it into a game design document, the document starts to hold some interest. Then, when he takes the idea and implements it into artwork, it become even more interesting. Finally, when other people take the design document and artwork and combine those into a game, people actually care to some degree.

Once work starts being done with an idea, the result of the work is valuable to one degree or another, but the idea by itself is not valuable.

There is value in discussing ideas, because making more people aware of an idea increases the chances that the idea will actually be used somehow.

Ideas on themselves aren't worthless, they're cheap.

Ideas can be a multiplier of actual implementation though. A good idea that is implemented makes that implementation a lot more valuable that a bad idea that is implemented for the same cost.

Quote:

Original post by JohnBSmall So, what do you think? Are game ideas really worthless?

Every nice idea often seems worthless some time after it suddently came in mind after a big creative work.You begin to think: "So,and where this idea was in my mind before?It's simply evident!Oh my God,I was so stupid".
It's one of human reason properties[grin]
I.e "creativity is hard" and "ideas worthless" are simply two sides of one coin.See "Dialecticы" in wiki...

Interesting.

Gazillion: I'm inclined to agree. Might have to think about this one some more.

Nytegard: I think you're largely talking about selling ideas. Not everything of worth can be sold (directly). Very valid points in that context though.

Extrarius: I suppose I was drawing the boundary in a different place (at the writing-down stage rather than the idea-in-the-head stage). Certainly an idea that just stays in one person's head can't have much value (beyond perhaps some emotional value for the person). I would take slight issue with saying that the idea isn't valuable because you need to at least talk about it to have any value -- that's like saying a book isn't valuable unless you read it. Sure, it's true, but I think it's just playing with semantics. The part of the story I'm thinking about is between expressing it publically it down (for others to consume, or for discussion) and implementing it (as a prototype, say).

alexmoura: Yes, I suppose so.

Some background:
This came up because someone read a post I made giving a game idea (for discussion) and asked me "Why did you bother? Ideas are worthless." (paraphrased).

So, was he right? Was there any value in posting a game idea, even without a definite intention to implement that idea?

John B

Krokhin: I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean... could you expand on that?

John B

[Edited by - JohnBSmall on February 3, 2009 2:05:11 PM]

Quote:

Original post by JohnBSmall So, was he right? Was there any value in posting a game idea, even without a definite intention to implement that idea?

Like many things, that would depend on context.

Ideas are made valuable by implementation.

SiCrane: Alright. In what context(s) would it be valuable, and in what context(s) would it not? Does it depend on the quality of the idea? The quality of its expression? The audience? The quality of any discussion that results? All/none of the above?

John B

Quote:

Original post by JohnBSmall ... Some background: This came up because someone read a post I made giving a game idea (for discussion) and asked me "Why did you bother? Ideas are worthless." (paraphrased). So, was he right? Was there any value in posting a game idea, even without a definite intention to implement that idea?

Yes, I am talking about selling an idea. But when you post an idea, what do you think you're doing? You're trying to sell the idea to others. Value is not always represented by money. There are other forms of value, such as the respect you have amongst your peers.

Now, I don't agree completely with Extrarius that without an implementation, an idea is worthless, but it's pretty close to worthless at best.

Nytegard: Alright, what if you write about a really bad idea? Is that always worthless? Or is there some value to discussing bad ideas (for example, to work out why they're bad so you can avoid falling into the same traps)? If you have an idea and you think it's bad (but post it anyway, because you want the discussion), are you still trying to sell the idea?

John B

Quote:

Original post by JohnBSmall Nytegard: Alright, what if you write about a really bad idea? Is that always worthless? Or is there some value to discussing bad ideas (for example, to work out why they're bad so you can avoid falling into the same traps)? If you have an idea and you think it's bad (but post it anyway, because you want the discussion), are you still trying to sell the idea? John B

What are you trying to do with the idea though? Are you trying to sell the idea to get it implemented, or are you trying to sell yourself to get help?

If I have an idea that I'm not implementing because of a problem, and I ask for help about how to make it better, the idea at that point has no value, because it's not the idea your trying to present, rather, it's yourself that your trying to present to others, to have them take their time to answer you.

It falls under a different context.

Quote:

Original post by JohnBSmall what if you write about a really bad idea? Is that always worthless? Or is there some value to discussing bad ideas (for example, to work out why they're bad so you can avoid falling into the same traps)? If you have an idea and you think it's bad (but post it anyway, because you want the discussion), are you still trying to sell the idea?

John B, you keep saying worthless, whereas others are saying they have very little value.

There is a tiny amount of worth to ideas, yes. But the value is so tiny that it doesn't really matter.

As far as "bad" are concerned, they are just as valuable as "good" ideas, both are a natural part of brainstorming. It sounds like you need more experience in the real world to understand this.

We throw out a boatload of ideas every day. Every morning in our planning meeting, the idle banter about the game could serve as a foundation for another full project.

Further, we have a long slate of ideas that are all very good, but we are forced to turn down because we cannot develop those ideas in a cost effective way.

In one hour a small group of us can brainstorm a list of good game ideas. The value of those ideas is just the cost of the meeting. So: normal idea == pennies. Good idea == a few bucks.

The cost to convert one of those ideas into a final product is many thousand work-hours, plus manufacturing, distributing, advertising, and so on. So: Cost of completed product == millions of bucks.



The value is not in the ideas. The value is in the ability to turn the ideas into a salable and profitable product.

If game ideas (in the general sense) had any value all, there would be a market for them.

To me, something has value if I'm willing to give something else up to have it. Lostgarden's ideas and content probably have more value to me than the time it takes to download them, but less value than $1.

I'd never pay $1 for a game idea, since there's no way for me to know if it's any good before paying the dollar. However, the right to develop a particular idea into a product definitely does have value. Franchises and intellectual property are extremely valuable for this reason. The "ideas" surrounding StarCraft, for example, are very valuable if you have the right to develop them into products.

Quote:

Original post by JohnBSmall See lostgarden's game prototype challenges. Danc posts a game design and some artwork, and other people make the game. Now, you could argue that they're only valuable because of the inclusion of artwork; you could argue that the ideas themselves are still worthless. I disagree. For one thing, artwork is typically only valuable in a very restricted context -- if danc posted some artwork without any game design, I think a lot of people would download it (danc is a good artist), but I honestly doubt that many would end up using it. Without the idea, the artwork loses a lot of its value: The idea is valuable too.

Interesting, so your argument is that the artwork would not have been born without the idea. Probably the best example I've seen here for idea worth.

Conversely, I'd say that no artwork could be born without an idea of some form- so separating the work from it's 'idea' is an impossible position to begin with. While it's normally called an 'inspiration', in the end the artwork was the creation of something from the mind or by direction of someone else.

To echo, I think an idea is 'worthless' without implementation.

Quote:

Original post by JohnBSmall Ideas range from large to small. Often people come up with large or at least medium-sized ideas. They can usually be broken down into many elements, and looked at from many different angles. It's also usually possible to take these elements and combine them with other elements from completely different ideas. Maybe if you share a game idea no one will make that game, but perhaps someone will find some aspect of the design useful, either in itself, or as a seed for some other idea.

I'm going to step back and qualify 'worthless'. I would say that I (and many here) don't mean to say that an idea is of absolute zero value when alone, just insignificant in almost every instance without implementation.

"Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration" - Edison

Quote:

Original post by JohnBSmall "Creativity is hard". I think this is also a fairly common belief (actually, I think there's a strong bi-modal distribution -- there are people who think creativity is really easy and people who think it's really hard, but I think the number of people who think it's really hard is definitely significant, and probably the majority). Indeed, there are often posts lamenting the lack of creativity in modern game design (although that's a large and complex discussion in itself, so it certainly can't be pinned down as being just because "creativity is hard"). But surely "creativity is hard" and "ideas are worthless" are contradictory statements -- if creativity is hard, then being creative must have worth.

Good point about the contradiction, but I disagree about "if creativity is hard, then being creative must have worth".

Being unable to express the creativity is required, in my opinion, to give it value. This means (at least) being able to mock up art / sounds / or create execution models-- depending on the type of creativity. At this stage, however, the idea is realized in some manner // it's gained a form of implementation. Even if it has to do with just 'words' and is in the form of a story, it has to be realized(written) in part before it can even be conveyed as creativity.

In short words: Without the ability to fully communicate the idea through implementation, it has no value. And the clarity of that communication is shown through completeness of implementation.

Quote:

Original post by JohnBSmall So, what do you think? Are game ideas really worthless?

To answer directly with my opinion:
- By themselves, game ideas are worth nothing
- Apart of a completed game, the idea has value

[I'd wager nearly] All game developers have ideas for a game, but they all bring different production skills (art / music / programming / other). And the idea itself contains the most 'control' of the project, while having the least amount of brute-work. So here's how it breaks down:
- Every member of the team has at least 1 idea
- Only 1 idea is really 'needed' [ignoring composition/conditioning]
- The game idea requires no real implementation 'work', yet controls the production
- People are driven into the field of work by their ideas

It's easy to see given this why an idea has so little value to others.

Quote:

Original post by frob There is a tiny amount of worth to ideas, yes. But the value is so tiny that it doesn't really matter.

Then why are people happy to spend hours reading blogs (even badly written ones, if they're interesting)? Why would people do that if not because they enjoy being exposed to new ideas?

Quote:

It sounds like you need more experience in the real world to understand this.

Please do not assume what experience I have. I find it insulting (I'm sure it wasn't intended as such, but I do anyway), and the basis of your judgement is tenuous at best.

I have never claimed that game companies should pay money for ideas, or that the belief that 'everyone has lots of ideas' is not true (at least when taken in context). I simply don't agree with the jump from 'everyone has lots of ideas' directly to 'ideas without implementation are worthless', and I think the frequent repetition of 'ideas are worthless' can make people lose sight of the context in which it makes sense, and being discouraged from even discussing their ideas, even though such discussion may well have a lot of value.

John B

Suppose we postulate that ideas are worthless. We also recognize that people want ideas. People only want things that have value, as the act of wanting something necessarily assigns value to that thing. Therefore, if an idea is valueless, it cannot be something that could be desired by a person. The logical paradox proves that ideas are not worthless.

However, they have very, very little value. It is the implementation of ideas that is valuable. This value is proportional to the resources spent in developing it. So, whereas saying "I wanna make a game about pacman" took all of 5 seconds of time resources to create, actually making the game would require perhaps 600 times that much, and is therefore more valuable than the idea itself.

This is why we assign copyright protection to implementations of ideas. Implementations are scarce, and the ownership of that scarce resource must be protected.

Quote:

Original post by JohnBSmall

Ideas, generally speaking, are not worthless.
However, someone who's entirely clueless on topic, and worse yet entirely unaware of it, typically does not have any worthy ideas what so ever.


Secondly, suppose I want to make a game. I have various resources and assets which I could use, my specific experience, etc.
I want idea what kind of game to make, right? Not exactly. I want to know which game is best to make in my specific situation. Some mister X's game ideas are worth something to me only if all of the following is true:
1.) X is smart and knowledgeable on topic of making games, including implementation.
2.) X knows my specific situation.
3.) X is actually thinking along the lines of "what's best to make in this specific situation with those assets", rather than just fantasising.
4.) Making up ideas on spot would be less efficient than reading the list and filtering the bad ideas.

None of the following is true for typical 'game ideas' when someone with near zero experience and knowledge is just making up some fantasy, coming up with feature list that costs more than half life 2 to implement, yet has gaping holes. That list is to proper feature list as monkeys on typewriters with spellchecking are to Shakespeare.

[Edited by - Dmytry on February 3, 2009 3:18:28 PM]