A course of action, a nebula of uncertainty: My current approach, progress, concerns, and questions

Hello BGI. I am an aspiring game designer currently making steps towards optimizing my prototypes for demonstration and pitching. My primary focus is on a project I'll be calling "Proj-F" for the sake of this post. This is not the intended title, but my plans in terms of trademarking are pending. Essentially, I don't want to jump the gun when I know the thematics might be up to negotiation: money is tight on my end, so legal fees are a factor.

I started on Proj-F for very sentimental reasons, and within a week I had a testable version of it ready. It played amazingly, and completely changed the way I approach game design in general. I had considered trying to self-publish it within a half-year of designing it, but changed my mind and have instead spent almost a year refining, expanding, and adjusting the concept. I think this was the right move, but as I'm approaching the 1-year development mark I'm feeling a need to really nail down how I'd best go about getting it out there. On a personal level, this particular project is very important to me, moreso than my other projects, which is why I want to be very careful about it without letting it rot.

Originally I conceived Proj-F as a free-to-print game with a few different forms of monetization attached. This would include monthly and one-time donations, official boards and miniatures (which would be sold through third-party 3d printing markets), and pay-to-enter official tournaments at conventions/stores. All of this would tie into the online community framework. However, this would require me to self-publish and self-market, which seems like a huge gamble as I worry I lack the name and industrial clout to make this a viable approach.

So now I'm finishing up the sixth iteration of the alpha, and exploring whether it'd be better to approach the game as a store-shelf product or a free-to-print. Here's a few notes I have in terms of the pros and cons:

• On-shelf: As a product, the on-shelf exposure could be helpful in building a playerbase. Not everyone sees much games marketing, but if someone sees the box on the games shelf in the store, that's another way to reach consumers.
• On-shelf: There are benefits to the brand being attached to a major publisher, such as promotionals, marketing, clout, etc.
• On-shelf: Store-bought cards would have a more consistent distribution with things like miniatures and arenas. Most people can't cheaply "print" quality solid material on the go, and it complicates the making of a broader monetary model to expect both things.
• On-shelf: I don't really have much framework for things like incentives for subscribers if going with the free-to-print model.
• Neutral: The dividing matter of what's more accessible to the consumer: printers or game stores.
• F-t-P: Monetized cards are immutable, free-to-print makes it more justifiable to "update" existing cards. I think this would be beneficial to the nature of the game.
• F-t-P: Printed cards better justify personalization (like custom card-art and aesthetic styles). Can also be done with sleeved cards anyway, but once you open that door why would anyone BUY those physical cards anyway?
• F-t-P: I prefer players not have an edge just because they were able to put more money in. Even avoiding randomized packs (which I'd express a hard nope towards) future expansions to the game would still require an extra purchase.
• F-t-P: Free-to-print means players would only need to have the cards they'll actually use, not have any bloat floating around.
• F-t-P: Free-to-print also makes the matter of virtual tabletop versions less financially awkward.

It's probably fairly obvious that I, in terms of design, prefer the free-to-print model. But I'm not sure that it's actually the right way to further my product or my pursuits as a designer. Additionally, Proj-F is my main focus, but not my only project, so I have toyed with the idea of putting a different foot forward when it comes to talking to publishers. However, since those require longer development cycles than Proj-F, and I feel that Proj-F is a stronger game than either of the others, I question that approach as well. That's not to disparage the other projects, however, as I have full faith in their potential market value. My main focus as a designer is in "evolving the medium", and I feel that all three of my current projects (as well as others on my back-burner) bring new yet intuitive ideas to the table.

I mostly envisioned having one complete prototype to show to publishers, while also demonstrating a clear grasp on the other projects I'm working on without revealing too much about them right away. I figured this would make me as a designer come off as more valuable than any given project alone, and thus potentially protect whatever project I am presenting at the time.

What are your thoughts, BGI? Do you have any advice on how to best move forward with these things in consideration? Am I putting the wrong foot through the door? Am I approaching the door from a totally wrong angle in the first place? Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Submitted August 14, 2019 at 11:21PM by Augenstein https://ift.tt/2YPmpr6