Idea for a new Game - General Questions
One thing that comes up a lot in hobby tabletop game design is that newbie designers are afraid of sharing their working ideas lest they be stolen. Veterans advise them not to worry about it: your idea has been had before anyway, you can't patent a general idea so there's no use being paranoid, no one is really interested in stealing your great idea, and so on. Is that true for casino game design as well?
In board games, the rule is test test test, times a million. Friends and family at first, then strangers, boardgame nights, conventions. THEN submit to a publisher when you have a proven product. Is that true for casino games as well? I can't see how it wouldn't be, but when you get into blind playtests and so on, then see above question about your 'great idea' being stolen...
All of this is to say, I have what I think is the kernel of a good idea for a new casino table game. What do I do with it next?
Quote: AndyGB
All of this is to say, I have what I think is the kernel of a good idea for a new casino table game. What do I do with it next?
Andy, you're correct in that the chances of success are very slim.
If you have not applied for a patent then you cannot post your idea on a public forum in order to share ideas etc. The first step is to approach a patent attorney and see if your idea is patentable and, if so, go ahead and file a provisional patent.
You can share your ideas then with friends, colleagues etc and possibly on a broader scale at an exhibition.
Patent, mathematical analysis, exhibitions etc will be limited depending on how much you wish to invest in your concept in the early stages.
A cheaper way is to approach a games distributor (ahem :-) ) and see if they are willing to shoulder the costs in return for giving up a % of your idea. The further your game has developed then the higher % you can keep. A Non-Disclosure-Agreement will allow you to show the game without a patent provided the games distributor is willing to sign it.
New games are now entering a crowded market IMO and unless your concept brings something fresh and appealing to the table, while maintaining simplicity, you will have a long hill to climb.
You have almost zero chance.
Your idea probably is not unique.
Your idea may not be patentable.
You have little fear in discussing it with friends.
That said, the first step to the patent process is exceedingly simple and cheap. For about $110, you file for a provisional patent. The forms are simple and require a plain English description of the idea. Once filed, nobody can steal it. You then have a year to file for a full patent.
In other words, for a hundred bucks, you can buy a year's worth of protection. After that time you either pony up the big bucks for a patent lawyer, or abandon the idea.
But during that year, you can talk to anyone you like and test it etc.
Good luck.
Contemporary Casino Table Game Design
And this is a good YouTube Video by the Forum's very own PaiGowDan:
Dan Lubin Interview
These should get you started. And Switch is right....it is a long hard road with a very slim chance of success.
Quote: AndyGB
All of this is to say, I have what I think is the kernel of a good idea for a new casino table game. What do I do with it next?
I'd say the first thing is to ask yourself why someone would play your game. You have a few hurdles that don't involve patents.
1. In my experience new players don't like to learn new games. New games should be easy to learn. This board is made of thinkers who like learning games, that is NOT representative of the population. When I teach BJ about 20% if the people will take some time to learn more than "get to 21 without going over" (which we know is in itself incorrect.) In craps many walk away after 10 minutes because they find it too complicated and boring.
2. Most "new" games are a variation of poker. Ask yourself if there is really room for another poker-based carnival game (PBCG.) My opinion is the last thing we need is another PBCG. Ultimate Texas Hold'em, 3CP, Let-it-Die. It is a bit like in the 80s and you had the Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Cutlass Supreme, and Regal. All the same car underneath, did we need them all?
3. Old question but still valid--why would a casino manager rip out a BJ table he doesn't need to pay a royalty on to put in an untested game he does have to? And all the required training.
If you get past all that, chase a dream! I tell my buddy if I look at 1,000 ideas and do 1% it is better than a guy who does 100% but looks at only 2.
But my best advice is less is more. If you cannot explain the basic idea in 3 sentences and 10 seconds it will never make it to the floor. Think how you would explain it to a player who walked up if you were a dealer. For example:
"You have to beat my hand without going over 21"
You can explain more of the details as they play, but if you can't give the basic idea that fast fugheddabaddit.
Consider dice and not cards. We could use an easy dice game that lets players "graduate" to craps.
Great points, thank you very much. These are very much the types of hurdles in boardgame design: Simple play (especially if it is simple on its face with great strategy/depth of play lurking below), non-overrepresented in the market (another zombie game is the poker-clone equivalent), and should be more compelling than chess/checkers/scrabble. I'd love to work out a "craps light" that could be played on existing craps infrastructure and serve as a break-in for players (and maybe for dealers too). Anyway, thanks for the thoughts, good stuff here.Quote: AZDuffmanI'd say the first thing is to ask yourself why someone would play your game. You have a few hurdles that don't involve patents.
1. In my experience new players don't like to learn new games. New games should be easy to learn. This board is made of thinkers who like learning games, that is NOT representative of the population. When I teach BJ about 20% if the people will take some time to learn more than "get to 21 without going over" (which we know is in itself incorrect.) In craps many walk away after 10 minutes because they find it too complicated and boring.
2. Most "new" games are a variation of poker. Ask yourself if there is really room for another poker-based carnival game (PBCG.) My opinion is the last thing we need is another PBCG. Ultimate Texas Hold'em, 3CP, Let-it-Die. It is a bit like in the 80s and you had the Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Cutlass Supreme, and Regal. All the same car underneath, did we need them all?
3. Old question but still valid--why would a casino manager rip out a BJ table he doesn't need to pay a royalty on to put in an untested game he does have to? And all the required training.
If you get past all that, chase a dream! I tell my buddy if I look at 1,000 ideas and do 1% it is better than a guy who does 100% but looks at only 2.
But my best advice is less is more. If you cannot explain the basic idea in 3 sentences and 10 seconds it will never make it to the floor. Think how you would explain it to a player who walked up if you were a dealer. For example:
"You have to beat my hand without going over 21"
You can explain more of the details as they play, but if you can't give the basic idea that fast fugheddabaddit.
Consider dice and not cards. We could use an easy dice game that lets players "graduate" to craps.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/scossa/
Thx
Spinner
While more dice would be a nice break from a PBCG the issue I see is if you make it more simple you limit the patentabiliy of it. And consider who you attract. Big-Six already looks like a peopleofwalmart convention. Does a casino want that in a dice pit?
Not saying try it of not, just more thought.
Quote: Spinner"Craps light" or other "easy dice games" have little shot... maybe take a look at Scossa and you'll see what has already been tried:
...
I looked at Scossa, it looks great, physically in the pictore on WOO, and seems like an okay game to me, though just roulette with dice. Maybe what you need is a dice game to attract the skill folks more, like landing certain values of dice in certain spots on the layout. Something that seems attainable, paves the way for craps, but isn't as 'mindless' to avoid the note that AZDuffman points out above. Food for thought for sure. Multiple dealers would be a major problem with a large format dice game, but you probably need lots of people to be able to play to account for the real estate you're taking up on the floor. Interesting problems here.Quote: AZDuffmanThe thing about dice is you viirtully require more than one dealer. One to watch where the dice come from and one to watch where they go. For "craps light" you may be able to combine a stick and vase but trust me as a person who works bush-league crape tables one when I say you need more than one for casino conditions.
While more dice would be a nice break from a PBCG the issue I see is if you make it more simple you limit the patentabiliy of it. And consider who you attract. Big-Six already looks like a peopleofwalmart convention. Does a casino want that in a dice pit?
Not saying try it of not, just more thought.
IMHO, any totally new dice game cannot be in a format for the players to "throw" or touch the dice, but rather be the dealer shaking dice in a pai gow dice cup on a game that is spread on a regular BJ sized table. This formal eliminates the multiple dealer requirement and the excess real estate requirement.
Without players throwing the dice, you need some sort of strategic decision so the players feel like they have some affect on the outcome of their wagers. Sic Bo type dice games or Scossa type games without a strategic decision don't seem to engage table game players enough to have them come back time and time again to play as compared to card game offerings in the pit.
Quote: ParadigmAndy, I always recommend Teliot's book for getting some good background for developer's. You can buy it here:
Contemporary Casino Table Game Design
I got (and read) this book, thanks for the advice Paradigm. It was great, and drove home the point that I don't have the bankroll (or the time) (or the other intangible resources) to develop a game right now. Perhaps my retirement project 25 years from now. Alternately, I have a great game idea for sale *cheap,* if anyone's interested...
But it is also very hard to get a game distributor to select anyone's game, as we get many submissions, and competition is fierce. However, always remember that nothing ventured is nothing gained - you never know. Always submit it when it is ready, and we look at everything. High Card flush is a game inventor's first hit, and he did discover a fine new poker mechanism that's great to play, and he is pleased he followed through on his project. You never know until you try.
What helps is :
1. The game is "easy" - a straightforward catch or mechanism to it.
2. Fun, especially if it lends itself to money action. (On some occasions I said we can't take a particular game - BUT you may have a hit home game. Hasbro, Parker brothers, etc.)
3. The game uses a commonly known basis: Blackjack, Poker, etc., that people can jump onto.
4. Has clear, uninfringing, and valid patent/IP protection.
5. Worked out dealing procedures (you can actually play the game easily and smoothly without issues, or error scenario situations or rule conflicts occuring during play. Play has to be trouble-free, sensible, consistent, and smooth-flowing.)
6. A good math report describing viable house edge ranges.
7. A good "AP" report (now a requirement) Is it countable? would seeing a hole card give a huge or insignificant advantage?
8. Has it entered a new game competition like Raving table games?
9. Accept that it may take years to see the game hit the casino floor, if ever, and it is focusing on the process that'll get you to the destination of having a real game installed.
Having an extensive gaming, gambling or industry background helps, obviously. High Card flush's inventor is a dealer. I was a dealer.
I would recommend giving it all a go if it your interest to do so. It makes for one hell of an exciting and challenging long term project in a person's life. Do it seriously for the interest and the challenge, and not with expectations. Do everything possible to get there, but let getting there surprise you.
Quote: Paigowdanyes I do work there. We see a number of new games each month.
But it is also very hard to get a game distributor to select anyone's game, as we get many submissions, and competition is fierce. However, always remember that nothing ventured is nothing gained - you never know. Always submit it when it is ready, and we look at everything. High Card flush is a game inventor's first hit, and he did discover a fine new poker mechanism that's great to play, and he is pleased he followed through on his project. You never know until you try.
What helps is :
1. The game is "easy" - a straightforward catch or mechanism to it.
2. Fun, especially if it lends itself to money action. (On some occasions I said we can't take a particular game - BUT you may have a hit home game. Hasbro, Parker brothers, etc.)
3. The game uses a commonly known basis: Blackjack, Poker, etc., that people can jump onto.
4. Has clear, uninfringing, and valid patent/IP protection.
5. Worked out dealing procedures (you can actually play the game easily and smoothly without issues, or error scenario situations or rule conflicts occuring during play. Play has to be trouble-free, sensible, consistent, and smooth-flowing.)
6. A good math report describing viable house edge ranges.
7. A good "AP" report (now a requirement) Is it countable? would seeing a hole card give a huge or insignificant advantage?
8. Has it entered a new game competition like Raving table games?
9. Accept that it may take years to see the game hit the casino floor, if ever, and it is focusing on the process that'll get you to the destination of having a real game installed.
Having an extensive gaming, gambling or industry background helps, obviously. High Card flush's inventor is a dealer. I was a dealer.
I would recommend giving it all a go if it your interest to do so. It makes for one hell of an exciting and challenging long term project in a person's life. Do it seriously for the interest and the challenge, and not with expectations. Do everything possible to get there, but let getting there surprise you.
Dan- I think it might help people to understand what, at a minimum, a distributor requires. It has been well documented the challenges of a new idea ever going anywhere, which is why you kindly recommend doing it for the "interest and challenge". However, a couple of the steps above require significant investments.
Roger Snow mentioned in an article that some of his ideas he knew the math was close, and then worked the numbers to find the right game. I feel that if you have an idea like that, it is best to talk to with a distributor who has the expertise in determining any tweaks that will make the game feel right. Running out and getting a full patent and/or math report is probably not a good idea, since distributors may see immediate flaws with the game- correct?
However, I think your points above are that if an idea that isn't well thought out, don't expect the distributors to do all the leg work.
Now, obviously it is easier for a distributor to sign up a game that has actually been installed, or I suppose one that has a solid math/AP report. But would you agree that path is for those that are able to take on greater risk/reward?
Have distributors put any games on the floor that were simply a protected idea?
Quote: 21RevolutionRoger Snow mentioned in an article that some of his ideas he knew the math was close, and then worked the numbers to find the right game. I feel that if you have an idea like that, it is best to talk to with a distributor who has the expertise in determining any tweaks that will make the game feel right. Running out and getting a full patent and/or math report is probably not a good idea, since distributors may see immediate flaws with the game- correct?
Most of the outside games we end up distributing were introduced to us as incomplete ideas. It's a common misconception that SHFL entertainment only wants fully-developed games, complete with math and rules and patents. We are happy to work with any inventor that has an idea, regardless of its stage of development. In fact, in some cases we prefer to be part of the creative and protection process to better ensure they are done properly from the get-go.
Quote: PacmanMost of the outside games we end up distributing were introduced to us as incomplete ideas. It's a common misconception that SHFL entertainment only wants fully-developed games, complete with math and rules and patents. We are happy to work with any inventor that has an idea, regardless of its stage of development. In fact, in some cases we prefer to be part of the creative and protection process to better ensure they are done properly from the get-go.
I am considering using a larger distributor for my product/s, particularly for the North American and Asian market. In my case the product is fully developed and ready to go, would you guys be interested, we are based in the UK?
Quote: PacmanMost of the outside games we end up distributing were introduced to us as incomplete ideas. It's a common misconception that SHFL entertainment only wants fully-developed games, complete with math and rules and patents. We are happy to work with any inventor that has an idea, regardless of its stage of development. In fact, in some cases we prefer to be part of the creative and protection process to better ensure they are done properly from the get-go.
Roger has a good point here - a submitted game does not have to be 100% complete or "all of the way there," - however, a game should be relatively well fleshed out and described, and have some IP protection before it is shown around commercially. I will say that we at Galaxy wouldn't consider something that is pretty much just a sketch on a Starbuck's Napkin, or a blurb on a sheet or paper, where we have to bring a 1% idea 99% of the way, as that would pretty much constitute "in-house" development. But 40%+ we will work closely with an inventor. Basically, we're talking game play description and perhaps dealing procedures, basic math (approximate house edge), and a provisional patent.
In other words, a game design that is shown to a distributor should at least be in "its third trimester - instead of an ovum," - so to speak.
The majority of games that we do take on we bring further along, and we generally do have to bring them further along on such items as:
1. fixing/updating poor or limited side bet paytables;
2. Artwork/production values;
3. Game protection and dealing procedure issues, etc., often requiring additional AP reports;
4. Minor math mistakes, for example, a dealer's qualifier that provides the house edge mechanism might be a touch out of range, to one side.
The two table games that DEQ distributes (EZ Baccarat and EZ Pai Gow) were 100% fully developed and distributed basically "as they were presented" to DEQ by Lubin-Jones (us) and by the Talisman group (EZ Baccarat), as their suppliers, with DEQ adding their own artwork and electronics.
But this isn't always the case. Most games do have to be brought further along, and we generally do expect a game concept to be reasonably well developed and documented when shown to us.
Quote: McDemonI am considering using a larger distributor for my product/s, particularly for the North American and Asian market. In my case the product is fully developed and ready to go, would you guys be interested, we are based in the UK?
Yes, of course. I assure you both SHFL and Galaxy would give you an audience if serious.
Edit: Let me add, the further along a game is, especially if it has some self-installs, the more it can command of a distributor. I will certainly say 30% of Gross Revenue beats 5% of Gross Revenue.
Yes. You can reach me at rsnow@shfl.com.Quote: McDemonI am considering using a larger distributor for my product/s, particularly for the North American and Asian market. In my case the product is fully developed and ready to go, would you guys be interested, we are based in the UK?
Quote: PaigowdanThey may be the big boys, - but they aren't the only game in town. DLubin@galaxygaming.com
I have been away lately. When is Galaxy's focus group scheduled for ?
Quote: BuzzardI have been away lately. When is Galaxy's focus group scheduled for ?
(I was out in the field from 11:30AM through 3PM today servicing real casino clients in the Las Vegas area, and not just posts on this forum over the Internet.)
Galaxy's focus group is always one-on-one, and is available to be scheduled during normal business hours, at DLubin@galaxygaming.com.
Quote: BuzzardI guess no answer is an answer. And I thought number 2 was supposed to try harder ? ? ?
After the abuse that was rained down on SHFL/Pacman after hosting Focus Groups I & II, why would either SHFL or Galaxy reach out to the Forum to schedule future Focus Group type events?
I fear that bridge has been successfully burned.
Quote: ParadigmAfter the abuse that was rained down on SHFL/Pacman after hosting Focus Groups I & II, why would either SHFL or Galaxy reach out to the Forum to schedule future Focus Group type events?
I fear that bridge has been successfully burned.
This is a business. No matter what abuse SHFL/Pacman may have recieved, if a single bonafide hit came out of these focus group, there would have been a focus group III. Why would SHFL or Galaxy reach out to the Forum. Answer $$$$.
SHFL spent a lot of money, resources , and time and they did not get anything that stood out more than their in-house product. Pacman is a professional, and he can handle abuse from this forum, what he cannot handle is not getting any new table game that is a hit. Hence if focus group III is like the previous two, why bother.
Quote: AceCrAAckersThis is a business. No matter what abuse SHFL/Pacman may have recieved, if a single bonafide hit came out of these focus group, there would have been a focus group III. Why would SHFL or Galaxy reach out to the Forum. Answer $$$$.
SHFL spent a lot of money, resources , and time and they did not get anything that stood out more than their in-house product. Pacman is a professional, and he can handle abuse from this forum, what he cannot handle is not getting any new table game that is a hit. Hence if focus group III is like the previous two, why bother.
Pacman (Roger Snow) as well as Paigowdan (Dan Lubin) sign up the vast majority of these games (on behalf of distributors and manufacturers) from
- direct contacts from patent attorneys at the request of their clients, (two fine games this way, BTW),
- Internet inquiries,
- direct solicitation phone calls,
- industry executives,
- gaming conferences, and;
- emails.
Some do indeed come from Internet forums such as this, and it is to the betterment of all game developers involved, to contact important game distributors, through media such as this, - along with all others contact methods.
While I cannot say that focus groups as been a "particularly standout and fruitful resource" for game manufacturers and distributors,
- they have been a part of this overall process. Not meaning to damn with faint praise.
You're goddamn right.Quote: AceCrAAckersThis is a business. No matter what abuse SHFL/Pacman may have recieved, if a single bonafide hit came out of these focus group, there would have been a focus group III. Why would SHFL or Galaxy reach out to the Forum. Answer $$$$.
SHFL spent a lot of money, resources , and time and they did not get anything that stood out more than their in-house product. Pacman is a professional, and he can handle abuse from this forum, what he cannot handle is not getting any new table game that is a hit. Hence if focus group III is like the previous two, why bother.
Quote: BuzzardI guess no answer is an answer. And I thought number 2 was supposed to try harder ? ? ?
Really? Waiting three hours for a response? Come on, Buzz, you know better than that!
Quote: Paigowdan
While I cannot say that focus groups as been a "particularly standout and fruitful resource" for game manufacturers and distributors,
The reality is there is that the vast majority of new games are poor, there is no escaping it!.
Quote: PacmanYou're goddamn right.
Whoa. Hold on a sec...
Isn't Mulligan Poker showing signs of success? Wasn't that a result of Focus Group I?
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhoa. Hold on a sec...
Isn't Mulligan Poker showing signs of success?
An extension on to an existing game does not qualify as a "new " Game
One table only and for how long now? Yet to know the sign.Quote: DJTeddyBearIsn't Mulligan Poker showing signs of success? Wasn't that a result of Focus Group I?
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhoa. Hold on a sec...
Isn't Mulligan Poker showing signs of success? Wasn't that a result of Focus Group I?
The intent of my comment was to echo the point that I would fade any sort of annoyance to get my hands on a hit game. We may in the future conduct another event for new-game developers. Sorry for the confusion.
This is the reason why a "good game" is worth millions.Quote: McDemonThe reality is there is that the vast majority of new games are poor, there is no escaping it!.
I would think it takes at least 6 months to know if a game can survive in the market: 3 month for "free" trial (cost nothing to a casino) and then another 3 months with paid lease.Quote: UCivanOne table only and for how long now? Yet to know the sign.
Quote: UCivanThis is the reason why a "good game" is worth millions.
Yes of course.. but the problem is, the gaming market is different in every jurisdiction, it would appear to me it is more about gauging the game to the right market, most of the "new" games are shockingly poor because it would appear makers create games they think the casino would like, when they need to make games that the players would like. The UK table market (where I am) is in a very poor way, low attendance during the week, with only the weekends when it is busy. As a developer they is no money in having a weekend game. However, overseas, I am anticipating the market will be different. My priority therefore is to have an accurate gauge of the relevant market and make games for that particular market, rather than make a game that is a one size fits all, because the market can not sustain such a game.
Understood.Quote: PacmanThe intent of my comment was to echo the point that I would fade any sort of annoyance to get my hands on a hit game. We may in the future conduct another event for new-game developers. Sorry for the confusion.
And continued best wishes to you and Mike for success with Mulligan Poker.
Quote: AceCrAAckersThis is a business. No matter what abuse SHFL/Pacman may have recieved, if a single bonafide hit came out of these focus group, there would have been a focus group III. Why would SHFL or Galaxy reach out to the Forum. Answer $$$$.
SHFL spent a lot of money, resources , and time and they did not get anything that stood out more than their in-house product. Pacman is a professional, and he can handle abuse from this forum, what he cannot handle is not getting any new table game that is a hit. Hence if focus group III is like the previous two, why bother.
Quote: PacmanYou're goddamn right.
Understood....Ace you are obviously spot on!
Quote: PaigowdanPacman (Roger Snow) as well as Paigowdan (Dan Lubin) sign up the vast majority of these games (on behalf of distributors and manufacturers) from
- direct contacts from patent attorneys at the request of their clients, (two fine games this way, BTW),
- Internet inquiries,
- direct solicitation phone calls,
- industry executives,
- gaming conferences, and;
- emails.
Some do indeed come from Internet forums such as this, and it is to the betterment of all game developers involved, to contact important game distributors, through media such as this, - along with all others contact methods.
While I cannot say that focus groups as been a "particularly standout and fruitful resource" for game manufacturers and distributors,
- they have been a part of this overall process. Not meaning to damn with faint praise.
Still being new to all this, I don't see how a focus group benefits the distributor. I would think that if an inventor wants to work with a distributor, they would have presented the idea to them. From there if a distributor wants a wider opinion on games, they can probably conduct the focus group in a fashion they deem best. The only benefit I see is if having a focus group prompts an inventor to share their idea that they were thinking of pushing themselves (ie it creates awareness of why people might want to work with a distributor). I have to say though, I don't see how any inventor that is serious about getting a game off the ground wouldn't find their way to the resources out here and eventually come to learn how to get in touch. I got hooked in here just with a simple search wondering if a method for betting structure of Texas Hold 'em was patentable.
One note that I got out of reading about the focus groups was the idea of how some games have an instant wow factor while others may slowly grow on you (believe it was Switch/Geoff who I had a chance to talk to). It made me think of how Pepsi always does great in taste tests, but Coke fairs better if you have to drink a whole case. I think that's gotta be the toughest part of all this. Imagine if casinos only had poker based games and then one day along comes a Blackjack idea. First glance would probably say not too exciting. How do you figure out that, oh, people do find it enjoyable? I guess that's the field trial. But if I were a distributor with nothing but time and money (just a joke there) then I would test games by having people play for a couple hours on a few separate days. I bet the feedback is best when they at least came close to winning :)
I'm starting to get to know more folks out here- For Roger's sake, I'll mention I'm Dave Harvey - who had the games with a Dealer First concept. For anyone following the thread, I will say that both Dan and Roger do take a serious look at your game ideas. I think the responses clear it up that there are several paths you can take on what you can do with an idea. In the end, the distributors are looking for a game that can produce.
