As a software engineer, I often get friends and colleagues pitch me ideas for things that will supposedly make us rich if I just do all the work.
The ideas are always bad*, and with a lack of understanding of both the market and software development, so I just say I’m very busy.
This happened recently with a friend who is working on a browser-based chess-like game. But he’s pursuing it anyway – he’s trying to hire a development company to implement it for him (and I’ve agreed to listen to the presentation he’s prepared to show them), and is applying for a bank loan.
The game is terrible IMO. It’s simpler than chess and not enjoyable at all, as it encourages defensive behaviour and if both players play defensively, nothing happens.
How can I – and should I – gently tell him I think his idea right now is terrible. He’s not rich so being out of pocket tens of thousands of dollars will be a big deal. IMO he’s already wasted too much time on it.
* This is not to sound superior. There are a couple personal projects I’m working on that sound awful to anyone I tell about them, and probably are. But they are more hobbies than get rich quick schemes anyway, and I’m only investing my own time.
I think we all face this type of situation at one time or another. I always begin my answer with this: “Should I tell you what you want to hear, or should I tell you what I really think? I think a true friend should tell you the truth even if it’s a lot harder.”
In cases where they’ve really wanted the former, they get huffy and break off the conversation, which is fine by me. In cases where they’ve been ready for the latter, they give me the go-ahead.
Yes this already exists and is how I know it is so bad. A friend implemented an applet for him, with placeholder art.
I played him, and our game never concluded. I just played defensively and avoided engaging.
ETA: pretty comprehensively ninja’d. Sorry to be repetitive.
A few separate thoughts not forming an essay …
If it is a board game it can certainly be played on an improvised physical board using improvised physical pieces. Which would quickly demonstrate to any would-be user how fun or engaging the game is or isn’t. ETA: I can see how @Mijin’s decision to play purely defensively could be taken by the inventor as simple nay-saying, deliberately failing to prove a point. The rationalization being “real players wouldn’t play that way.” The cure being to let two other independent people play the game while the inventor watches silently.
If the game is meant to be played between two humans, that’s a very different business design from one where the game is meant to be played between a human and a bot.
It’s pretty well established that the days of one guy in his basement inventing a big hit are over. It takes large teams and serious money to build a real money spinner. Whether that’s a phone app or a website. And nowadays you totally need both. Which means even more expertise, sometimes spelled “more expense”.
What I didn’t say in the OP (because it was getting too long) was, it’s not just that the game is terrible, but even if the game was good, it doesn’t work as a business plan.
He wants to set up tournaments, where it’s pay to play and winner takes (almost) all.
So essentially competing with eSports. And even the best games cannot make money from a model that requires cash up front just to take part, with virtually everyone losing their stake.
<hand waving because it’s a weird world>Now if the game was fun to watch other people play, then your friend could open up a whole world of money via Twitch or Tic Toc. </hand waving because it’s a weird world>
Agreed, and thinking about it, this might be the best way to handle it.
I don’t need to say the game is bad. Just question the “pay to play” model and point out that very few eSports even attempt to make money that way.
After all, it’s the business plan that’s the real issue. If he just wanted to put a bad game on the internet, and make $0 from it, then there is no problem (though he would rightly balk at throwing thousands down the drain to pay a company to implement it)
When I ask people to read something I’ve written, I clearly indicate whether I
just want praise and encouragement.
really want criticism.
For the first option, they don’t even have to read it. This strategy is easier on all of us. The problem with friends is asking for feedback on their areas of expertise or even preferences throws then into a dilemma: “where does my primary duty lie?” And some people, even friends, have small latent jealousies and cruelties that can leak out, meaning the writer/inventor will not pay attention to any criticism and may dump the friend. It can be hard.
Yes, you could trivially test the concept on a physical board. I’ve put the rules below in case anyone is curious.
Rules
It’s kind of a representation of soccer.
The board is a 10 wide by 7 high grid.
There are two players, let’s call them red and blue, and they take turns to play.
Both players have control of 3 pieces: two outfielders and one goalkeeper.
There is a goal at either side edge; the outside edge of the middle 3 cells.
Red starts with the ball. They can move one piece to an adjacent square (like a king in chess) and optionally kick the ball. Then blue plays and they also can move one piece to an adjacent square and, if a player is in a square adjacent to the player with the ball, make a tackle, in which case possession is swapped to the other player.
I think there is some rule that the other player cannot immediately tackle back on his turn.
One outfield player can only kick the ball diagonally, and one can only kick the ball horizontally or vertically.
The goalkeeper can kick diagonally, horizontally or vertically but can only move within the 3x3 square of cells in front of his goal.
When you kick the ball, it must be to score a goal or make a valid pass. You can’t just kick the ball to open space.
I think it was first to 3 or something, and obviously possession is swapped after scoring. But we got nowhere close to that happening.
What happened when we played was, I began with the ball.
And he defended perfectly; there was no opening to score a goal. But it was also trivial to avoid ever being tackled. So I just dribbled and passed the ball around, forever.
He muttered something about probably needing to add a shot clock or something, but ISTM that the game is fundamentally broken.