I have great ideas all the time, but no way to implement many of them.

[DaVinci]

For example, I have about a dozen video game ideas that could be made into iPhone/android games, but I have no skills with programming, I don't anyone who knows how to code, and I don't have the money to pay anyone to code, and absolutely no one will work for free in the now for future rewards. 

 

It's not that I've never been part of a collaborative project, but every one I've ever been in ends the same way. People don't show up. Someone tries to "seize power". Someone becomes incredibly difficult to work with. Some people actively sabotage progress. People say they are onboard and then randomly quit. etc. 

 

I actually look at crowd funded projects and wonder "How did they get all those people to collaborate?" I've never been in a successful collaboration. Not once. 

 

The alternative seems to be clear. Do everything myself. In one sense, I'm cool with that, but that also seems to be a big risk as I can't be great at everything I want to do. Not that I have to do everything I want to do, but everything I could potentially do is going untapped. So even if I pour everything into something I can achieve by myself, and even if I succeed at that one thing, it seems like I'll never reach anything close to my full potential, and that is incredibly frustrating to me. 

 

Has anyone else experienced something similar? If so, what did you do about it? 

[Wuzzums]

Dan Pena (businessman) talked about a severance penalty, meaning a sum of money you will lose if you back up from a deal. For instance you could get a group of people for a project and each has to pay X amount of money in a pot separate to any other production costs. If someone leaves they forfeit that sum of money and the more people leave the more money the people that will see the project through will get.

 

This is a psychological phenomenon called loss aversion. I know in Italy they changed the way they penalized traffic violations, instead of giving points to the driver each driver had a default set of points from which to subtract. A significant reduction in traffic violations was observed.

[CaliforniaCoaster]

I forgot where I heard it, but someone said that if your car breaks down in the middle of an intersection and you're stranded, you don't wait for help (even if you're in over your head,) you get out and start trying to push. 

Once people see you trying to push more than your own weight, they are more likely to get out and try to help. 

If you feel like you have an amazing idea that just must be made, it's hard to convey that to others when you're not even trying to learn the code to make it. Even if the game seems WAY too advanced for one man to make, at least start learning so that you could be a better project manager should you get the resources to make your dream a reality. 

[twinklingwinter]

What I'm about to say is about game projects, but I think these principles can be applied in pretty much any other type of project.

 

I am working and have worked in game projects with other people in the past. It was always with only one other person. So far, every one of those projects has failed. People start to lose interest and stop showing up, and I end up working alone, and then I abandon the project before finishing it. Despite that, I am pretty sure that the main cause of failure was the design, and the planning. It is extremely important to make it clear what you are going to make before even starting development. Spend hours and hours in front of a notepad, brainstorming for ideas: game mechanics, story, theme, the intended experience. It is essential that you can picture your game being played in your head before starting development. You also have to take into account the time it's going to take. The game design has to be realistic, meaning that it has to be achievable in a certain amount of time by the people working on the game. This means that if your team never finished a game before, you have to start with a simple game. The simpler, the better. You also have to keep in mind that game design is an iterative process. You don't know if your idea is going to work. That's why you have to build quick, basic prototypes to test your ideas, polish them after you play it, then build another prototype. If you want your team to be engaged, then you need to make them see that you have a clear vision of the game, and what needs to be done, and that your goal is achievable.

 

And yeah, having a game portfolio will help tremendously when it comes to attracting people to work with. It will be really hard for you as a game developer if you don't know how to code, or produce art, so you might as well learn some of that along the way. Your games don't have to be polished. Whether they're good or not, they will help you grow as a game designer, not only as a programmer/artist.

 

These FB groups are a good place to look for people: here, here, here and here

[aviet]

Yes, collaborations, partnerships etc. can be very shaky. I've been involved in a couple which ended due to either lies or laziness and instead took the DIY route as a result. I imagine that if these are online collaborations that they will be even more prone to collapse.

I advise picking out one idea and pursuing it and do it now, rather than spending years cogitating and worrying and doubting. Avoid getting bogged down in all of the other ideas you have. I have ideas for new projects all the time, but I don't have time for them. I don't even have time to do everything I have on my main project of nearly five years. You need to focus.

Since it doesn't seem you have any skills that will lend to video game creation, I would look elsewhere, even if it's something that doesn't inspire you. You can spot gaps in the market everywhere and create new markets. In particular there are gaps in unorthodox areas where people have little knowledge and thus there will be little barrier to entry. For example I heard of a guy who was exceedingly rich who made burger pattee machines. I worked with a guy who brokered skips or dumpsters as they are called in the US; he made about $13m profit a year. The niche that I work in requires such a broad set of skills and knowledge that I happen to posses that could only likely be re-created with a team/freelancers, which would probably not be financially viable.

In particular look for economic multipliers - things that will allow other people to do something with whatever you produce. These tend to be safer as they are closer to the core of the economy. Video games are an economic dead-end. The main things they produce is depression and thirty year olds looking around wondering, "What have I done for the last fifteen years?" If people were wondering, "What can I do economically that would allow someone else to do something economically." and not "How can we have more people on state subsidy each year." we would be in better shape.

There's also far too many young people who want to go into economic dead-ends: video games, music, acting, academia... It's not sustainable.

[DaVinci]

Thanks for all the replies!

 

@Wuzzums, i had never heard of loss aversion before. i'll keep that in mind

 

@claiforniacoaster, same thing, I'll keep that in mind. That makes sense. 

 

@twinklingwinter I have done what you described before. Made a small game myself, then brought people in to play/develop it further. They bailed on me. I'm beginning to think what wuzzums said makes a lot of sense. Get a financial commitment up front so when people bail you at least get some sort of compensation. I'm tired of wasting precious time in collaborative projects with nothing to show for it.

 

@aviet There are skills I have and things I can do, but I'm not sure how fruitful they will be right now. Maybe my skills will lead me to fortune. Maybe I'll be stuck in the same place. I think this is what is pushing me to do more than just one thing. I don't mind taking risks and going in full force on something, but I also know from past mistakes that I often have no safety net, or fall back plan. I'm usually betting it all on black. So far I've lost almost every bet I've made. Most of that is my mistake, as I've either headed projects with unreliable people, or involved myself in the projects of unreliable people. In either case, it's not like I have something monetarily going on in the background while feeling out those projects and if they fail I'm still good. A loss for me is huge. 

 

@scribbles I always try not to let my projects interfere too much with my relationships. If anything I see them as tools to make my relationships better. 

 

@cilantro I'm certainly not giving up and I am working towards a goal at the moment, but as I described above I'm frustrated that wrapping myself up entirely in a project, whether it is the head of that project, or as one team member, or possible even by myself, doesn't ever have a positive outcome. It's always this all or nothing scenario with no parachute, no net, and no safe landing. This will either work, or you will have wasted a ton of time and money and go back to zero. Granted that gives me a bit more drive to pick up and go again, but as I get older time is becoming more precious.

[Mykaelous]

Thanks for all the replies!

 

@Wuzzums, i had never heard of loss aversion before. i'll keep that in mind

 

@claiforniacoaster, same thing, I'll keep that in mind. That makes sense. 

 

@twinklingwinter I have done what you described before. Made a small game myself, then brought people in to play/develop it further. They bailed on me. I'm beginning to think what wuzzums said makes a lot of sense. Get a financial commitment up front so when people bail you at least get some sort of compensation. I'm tired of wasting precious time in collaborative projects with nothing to show for it.

 

@aviet There are skills I have and things I can do, but I'm not sure how fruitful they will be right now. Maybe my skills will lead me to fortune. Maybe I'll be stuck in the same place. I think this is what is pushing me to do more than just one thing. I don't mind taking risks and going in full force on something, but I also know from past mistakes that I often have no safety net, or fall back plan. I'm usually betting it all on black. So far I've lost almost every bet I've made. Most of that is my mistake, as I've either headed projects with unreliable people, or involved myself in the projects of unreliable people. In either case, it's not like I have something monetarily going on in the background while feeling out those projects and if they fail I'm still good. A loss for me is huge. 

 

@scribbles I always try not to let my projects interfere too much with my relationships. If anything I see them as tools to make my relationships better. 

 

@cilantro I'm certainly not giving up and I am working towards a goal at the moment, but as I described above I'm frustrated that wrapping myself up entirely in a project, whether it is the head of that project, or as one team member, or possible even by myself, doesn't ever have a positive outcome. It's always this all or nothing scenario with no parachute, no net, and no safe landing. This will either work, or you will have wasted a ton of time and money and go back to zero. Granted that gives me a bit more drive to pick up and go again, but as I get older time is becoming more precious.

Idea's are cheap, execution is everything.

 

Stefan said as much on a recent call in. Everyone has an idea, but being able to execute on that idea is what matters because that's where things fall apart. Stefan has often said that he is always looking for help on the podcast and that if you want to, the best thing to do is start doing it, build a prototype and demonstrate potential, then you have leverage to ask for the resources to make your idea finalized. Look at kickstarters or shark tank. The ones that work are the ones that have a functional prototype.

[Caley McKibbin]

It's not that I've never been part of a collaborative project, but every one I've ever been in ends the same way. People don't show up. Someone tries to "seize power". Someone becomes incredibly difficult to work with. Some people actively sabotage progress. People say they are onboard and then randomly quit. etc.

That is what happened to me, except the guy that had the original idea quit on me.  Someone that I met in the Libertarian Party came to me with the idea of writing a screenplay.  I came up with an idea for a TV show that takes place in an anarcho-capitalist society rising out of the ashes of a civil war.  Everyone else bugged out before we really got started writing it, then he disappeared without a word when the pilot was part done.  That left me in a crappy situation because it is legally complicated finishing it alone after someone else put something into it.  So although I loved how it was turning out it's simpler now to abandon it and work on the game versions.

 

Crowdfunding is useless for this.  Everyone must trust that some random goof will come through with his promises.  To garner confidence from investors you need a prototype and a reputation.  By the time you have either it is too late.  Getting to that point is where the investment needed.  Crowdfunding is useful only as an alternative to singular angel investors or banks.  Kickstarter in particular is trash because you can't offer financial rewards.  Worst of all, after you disclose your idea publicly anyone else can immediately copy it.  I've seen solo developers get ripped off by companies.

[Rventurelli]

For example, I have about a dozen video game ideas that could be made into iPhone/android games, but I have no skills with programming, I don't anyone who knows how to code, and I don't have the money to pay anyone to code, and absolutely no one will work for free in the now for future rewards. 

 

It's not that I've never been part of a collaborative project, but every one I've ever been in ends the same way. People don't show up. Someone tries to "seize power". Someone becomes incredibly difficult to work with. Some people actively sabotage progress. People say they are onboard and then randomly quit. etc. 

 

I actually look at crowd funded projects and wonder "How did they get all those people to collaborate?" I've never been in a successful collaboration. Not once. 

 

The alternative seems to be clear. Do everything myself. In one sense, I'm cool with that, but that also seems to be a big risk as I can't be great at everything I want to do. Not that I have to do everything I want to do, but everything I could potentially do is going untapped. So even if I pour everything into something I can achieve by myself, and even if I succeed at that one thing, it seems like I'll never reach anything close to my full potential, and that is incredibly frustrating to me. 

 

Has anyone else experienced something similar? If so, what did you do about it? 

While this might not actually help you with making a project like the next Angry Birds for Smart Phones... Have you ever tried to use programs to create levels for existing games (like DooM Builder to create DooM levels) or programs to create specific types of games, like RPG Maker?

 

You first need to learn how to walk before running or dancing. Not only can you have a creative outlet and have fun by messing around with those two, if you get good at those (making levels for existing games and making games with user friendly type specific games) you can build a lot of confidence by getting positive feedback on those. Better yet, you can do all by yourself at the beginning and then experiment doing small projects with one or two friends.

Yes, collaborations, partnerships etc. can be very shaky. I've been involved in a couple which ended due to either lies or laziness and instead took the DIY route as a result. I imagine that if these are online collaborations that they will be even more prone to collapse.

 

I advise picking out one idea and pursuing it and do it now, rather than spending years cogitating and worrying and doubting. Avoid getting bogged down in all of the other ideas you have. I have ideas for new projects all the time, but I don't have time for them. I don't even have time to do everything I have on my main project of nearly five years. You need to focus.

 

Since it doesn't seem you have any skills that will lend to video game creation, I would look elsewhere, even if it's something that doesn't inspire you. You can spot gaps in the market everywhere and create new markets. In particular there are gaps in unorthodox areas where people have little knowledge and thus there will be little barrier to entry. For example I heard of a guy who was exceedingly rich who made burger pattee machines. I worked with a guy who brokered skips or dumpsters as they are called in the US; he made about $13m profit a year. The niche that I work in requires such a broad set of skills and knowledge that I happen to posses that could only likely be re-created with a team/freelancers, which would probably not be financially viable.

 

In particular look for economic multipliers - things that will allow other people to do something with whatever you produce. These tend to be safer as they are closer to the core of the economy. Video games are an economic dead-end. The main things they produce is depression and thirty year olds looking around wondering, "What have I done for the last fifteen years?" If people were wondering, "What can I do economically that would allow someone else to do something economically." and not "How can we have more people on state subsidy each year." we would be in better shape.

 

There's also far too many young people who want to go into economic dead-ends: video games, music, acting, academia... It's not sustainable.

I am sorry, but will have to disagree here.

 

Playing video games was what made me learn English, never had a single day of an English course and it was good enough for me. If it was not for video games (and the Beatles to a certain extent), I would have never been able to live in the United States with just a minimum accent as I have been doing for years now.

 

Other important factor was that video games shielded me from television, one of the main sources of degeneracy and manipulation.

[RichardY]

 

I have great ideas all the time, but no way to implement many of them.

Wouldn't that make many of your thoughts, dreams or fantasies, and not great ideas.

 

Playing video games was what made me learn English, never had a single day of an English course and it was good enough for me. If it was not for video games (and the Beatles to a certain extent), I would have never been able to live in the United States with just a minimum accent as I have been doing for years now.

Other important factor was that video games shielded me from television, one of the main sources of degeneracy and manipulation.

 

Glad to know that various art-forms were of benefit to you, I play video games as well. Generally will play an action/adventure game once. Strategy though, addicted, something about the synergy of it. Bought Postal II off steam once for £0.69 I wonder if they chose the price subconsciously... Video games are in part a reflection of the person. "I regret nothing".

 

------------------

 

"Know a guy, has a chicken play tic-tac-toe, never loses." John Milton, The Devil's Advocate. 

 

As soon as you understand the "game"(Principles) "it"(you/freewill) ceases to be a "game" and becomes an art-form.

[Rventurelli]

Wouldn't that make many of your thoughts, dreams or fantasies, and not great ideas.

 

 

 

Glad to know that various art-forms were of benefit to you, I play video games as well. Generally will play an action/adventure game once. Strategy though, addicted, something about the synergy of it. Bought Postal II off steam once for £0.69 I wonder if they chose the price subconsciously... Video games are in part a reflection of the person. "I regret nothing".

 

------------------

 

"Know a guy, has a chicken play tic-tac-toe, never loses." John Milton, The Devil's Advocate. 

 

As soon as you understand the "game"(Principles) "it"(you/freewill) ceases to be a "game" and becomes an art-form.

Strategy as in real time strategy (StarCraft, Age of Empires) or Grand Strategy (Hearts of Iron, Victoria)?

[DaVinci]

Wouldn't that make many of your thoughts, dreams or fantasies, and not great ideas.

 

In the sense that I have no means to make them, then yes. For example, let's say I have the idea to bake a cake but I have no kitchen, no oven, no pans, etc. Baking a cake would be a dream, or a "fantasy" in that scenario. 

[RichardY]

Strategy as in real time strategy (StarCraft, Age of Empires) or Grand Strategy (Hearts of Iron, Victoria)?

Both and all of the above as well as TBS titles, Abstract etc..... I like Crusader Kings II, in the Grand Strategy RPG arena,  time compression could be better though, but I finds it runs smoothest of all the paradox Grand Strategy Titles I've played. I found the depth of the mechanics lacking in Victoria II which would have otherwise probably have been my favourite title. Hearts of Iron II is good as well, though it doesn't let you play like a genocidal maniac and the ideology labels are wrong. For example if you play as "Far Right" Authoritarian, it lists the Government as National Socialist. But it doesn't allow the military officers to openly Assassinate one another for command and move up or down their hierarchy.

 

I like the economic strategy games as well, but they go into even less detail and the newer ones often seem to have worse and worse mechanics and AI's. Still the games often seem to have one big evolutionary tree of code, but the quality of the end product imo is often devolving while adding superfluous crap. Perhaps there is a way to mirror preferences of people onto an AI through the Internet.

 

Though I think when it comes down to it, simple games to learn different concepts, build from there. Lot of people seem to like(slot machine addicts?) the swirling bright  colours of smartphone games(Walk into the light....) I guess that's where the money is, Angry Birds, Bejewelled clones, clickbait games, Farmville. Though I need that hardcore fix, probably have to design my own game, organisation, but not art form, not addictive enough. Or I could accept reality as is, pursue an art-form(aesthetics) beauty, truth, health, love, justice, Integrity, honour.

In the sense that I have no means to make them, then yes. For example, let's say I have the idea to bake a cake but I have no kitchen, no oven, no pans, etc. Baking a cake would be a dream, or a "fantasy" in that scenario. 

Well I guess artists in the drawing pictures sense are possibly a dime a dozen, maybe a simple flickbook game with pretty pictures being displayed on an Ipad. "You come to a castle do you enter the dungeon?" or some crap, like old ibm or apple mac computers. Wouldn't require much coding would be interactive and educational.

[Rventurelli]

Both and all of the above as well as TBS titles, Abstract etc..... I like Crusader Kings II, in the Grand Strategy RPG arena,  time compression could be better though, but I finds it runs smoothest of all the paradox Grand Strategy Titles I've played. I found the depth of the mechanics lacking in Victoria II which would have otherwise probably have been my favourite title. Hearts of Iron II is good as well, though it doesn't let you play like a genocidal maniac and the ideology labels are wrong. For example if you play as "Far Right" Authoritarian, it lists the Government as National Socialist. But it doesn't allow the military officers to openly Assassinate one another for command and move up or down their hierarchy.

 

I like the economic strategy games as well, but they go into even less detail and the newer ones often seem to have worse and worse mechanics and AI's. Still the games often seem to have one big evolutionary tree of code, but the quality of the end product imo is often devolving while adding superfluous crap. Perhaps there is a way to mirror preferences of people onto an AI through the Internet.

 

Though I think when it comes down to it, simple games to learn different concepts, build from there. Lot of people seem to like(slot machine addicts?) the swirling bright  colours of smartphone games(Walk into the light....) I guess that's where the money is, Angry Birds, Bejewelled clones, clickbait games, Farmville. Though I need that hardcore fix, probably have to design my own game, organisation, but not art form, not addictive enough. Or I could accept reality as is, pursue an art-form(aesthetics) beauty, truth, health, love, justice, Integrity, honour.

Well I guess artists in the drawing pictures sense are possibly a dime a dozen, maybe a simple flickbook game with pretty pictures being displayed on an Ipad. "You come to a castle do you enter the dungeon?" or some crap, like old ibm or apple mac computers. Wouldn't require much coding would be interactive and educational.

Want to be my new best friend?

 

Jokes aside, have you played Hearts of Iron III? If yes, what do you think about it. Victoria II is probably my favourite Grand Strategy Game of all time, I just put some Stefan Molyneux or Millennial Woes video in the background and play it. 590 hours so far, almost 25 days straight, Steam says.

[meetjoeblack]

For example, I have about a dozen video game ideas that could be made into iPhone/android games, but I have no skills with programming, I don't anyone who knows how to code, and I don't have the money to pay anyone to code, and absolutely no one will work for free in the now for future rewards. 

 

It's not that I've never been part of a collaborative project, but every one I've ever been in ends the same way. People don't show up. Someone tries to "seize power". Someone becomes incredibly difficult to work with. Some people actively sabotage progress. People say they are onboard and then randomly quit. etc. 

 

I actually look at crowd funded projects and wonder "How did they get all those people to collaborate?" I've never been in a successful collaboration. Not once. 

 

The alternative seems to be clear. Do everything myself. In one sense, I'm cool with that, but that also seems to be a big risk as I can't be great at everything I want to do. Not that I have to do everything I want to do, but everything I could potentially do is going untapped. So even if I pour everything into something I can achieve by myself, and even if I succeed at that one thing, it seems like I'll never reach anything close to my full potential, and that is incredibly frustrating to me. 

 

Has anyone else experienced something similar? If so, what did you do about it? 

 

I am in a similar place but, with different ideas, experiences, and perspective. I am exposing myself to different people, experiences, and learning. I want to explore mastermind groups and seeking out mentors. Like, you, I think the first step is exploring self knowledge and self awareness. Find different business models, read books, try new things, and field test it until you discover the correct recipe. I believe Edison is one of my favorite mentors and role models. The man failed 10,000x. Sounds sort of like my experience with everything in life from women, money, business, entrepreneurship, school, technology, and a number of other things. Nothing in life has ever come easy and it is very frustrating but, I am like the little engine that could. I keep chanting positive oms and idioms to get me through.

 

Find mastermind groups in your area. Maybe look at reading books that will help you execute. Execution is just about everything. One mentor for me is Elliot Hulse. He talks about being the strongest version of yourself. I am looking to be stronger and healthier. I don't know how so, I seek out role models, and mentors. I offer to assist them in whatever it is they do, and I learn. Its not easy. Einstein failed math at one point in high school I believe it was. Everyone great who ever is or was has failed. I am reminded by that. I heard someone tell Arnold that he is self made upon meeting him. He told the man that he was not self made but stood on the shoulders of titans. He had a ton of help, role models, mentors, teachers, and more that helped him. Do the same. Good luck my friend.

[DaVinci]

 

Well I guess artists in the drawing pictures sense are possibly a dime a dozen, maybe a simple flickbook game with pretty pictures being displayed on an Ipad. "You come to a castle do you enter the dungeon?" or some crap, like old ibm or apple mac computers. Wouldn't require much coding would be interactive and educational.

I actually like those old apple computer games like King's Quest, so yeah, it might be worth going for it. 

[RichardY]

Want to be my new best friend?

 

Jokes aside, have you played Hearts of Iron III? If yes, what do you think about it. Victoria II is probably my favourite Grand Strategy Game of all time, I just put some Stefan Molyneux or Millennial Woes video in the background and play it. 590 hours so far, almost 25 days straight, Steam says.

Haven't played HOI3, reviews I've read said there are too many superfluous provinces, much more activity and mods for HOI2, looked to me that there is a tighter game in HOI2. Don't really want to add stuff that would impair my attention span even more.

 

Not played Victoria 2 for a while and just played the vanilla version. Thought the game was lacking in waging economic warfare couldn't embargo goods, soldier stacks were all messed up where you would need like 3000 men to form a unit, but would have multiple different nationalities of like 50 men each, would usually oppressively tax to make everyone go into the army. Battles and encirclements were annoying have to chase things around. I'm sure the game had a memory leak issue somewhere as well so would slow down in time. A lot of the information about changes in the game were hidden. Maybe the issues were fixed in the expansions.

 

----------------------------------------------------

Hellraiser (1987) 

 

Creepy East Asian.        "What's your pleasure Mr Cotton." 

Mr Cotton                       "The Box."

East Asian                      "Take it, it's yours." 

East Asian                      "..it always was...."

 

Hmm maybe he borrowed or stole it, I wonder what games he got on it, probably not Crash Bandicoot.

[Rventurelli]

Haven't played HOI3, reviews I've read said there are too many superfluous provinces, much more activity and mods for HOI2, looked to me that there is a tighter game in HOI2. Don't really want to add stuff that would impair my attention span even more.

 

Not played Victoria 2 for a while and just played the vanilla version. Thought the game was lacking in waging economic warfare couldn't embargo goods, soldier stacks were all messed up where you would need like 3000 men to form a unit, but would have multiple different nationalities of like 50 men each, would usually oppressively tax to make everyone go into the army. Battles and encirclements were annoying have to chase things around. I'm sure the game had a memory leak issue somewhere as well so would slow down in time. A lot of the information about changes in the game were hidden. Maybe the issues were fixed in the expansions.

 

----------------------------------------------------

Hellraiser (1987) 

 

Creepy East Asian.        "What's your pleasure Mr Cotton." 

Mr Cotton                       "The Box."

East Asian                      "Take it, it's yours." 

East Asian                      "..it always was...."

 

Hmm maybe he borrowed or stole it, I wonder what games he got on it, probably not Crash Bandicoot.

I beg your pardon, I meant Hearts of Iron IV.

 

The expansions greatly improve the game.