We do not want to sell a single game.  We designed a system for intensely interactive multiplayer territorial games.  We would like to sell/license the system to a large game publisher who could use it to produce an entirely new class of games, perhaps partly by porting their existing properties into the new interactive style (without cannibalizing their current market).  [Sorry, I know this paragraph is hard to understand without knowing more about the system - further details on its nature provided below.]

This system is unlike anything else in the market, allowing  a new category of multiplayer games. Examples of companies which might leverage this technology include SuperCell (currently successful with player owned territories that engage in battle with each other but do not have hundreds on the same game map), and Firaxis (many strategic/tactical game ideas which might benefit from a new highly interactive system {i.e. hundreds or thousands of simultaneous players, entering and leaving at will}

We are happy to present this system in detail to prospective buyers without concern for endangering our intellectual property.

*** Our question - what is the best means of doing this without scaring these companies who may wish to avoid a potential intellectual property scam (i.e. fearing that we are presenting an idea to them only to sue them later because of similarity with a product they release.)?

In addition to specific solutions to our problem, we are also quite interested in suggestions for experienced consultants who can help with this challenge.

{We are aware that some companies simply don’t wish to consider ideas “not invented here”, and others (quite naturally) don’t want to waste their time looking at a bunch of stupid/half baked ideas created by amateurs.}

___________________________________________

Background of our system provided below:

Allows players to create and own their own territorial empires, and the ability to enter/leave at will (with their empires) from a large ongoing territorial game having hundreds or even thousands of players empires, without harsh disruption of the relations of those already in the game. [Yes, this is still unclear.]

As a concrete example, imagine a large multiplayer game similar to  Risk (™), in which each player controls one or more land masses with his units, and can engage in combat or trade with (up to) hundreds of other players.  Using our system, a player can enter an ongoing game (with his empire as it was when he left), engage with others for as long as wishes, and then leave, with his empire intact to return when he chooses.

Specific benefits include:

Easy entry/exit to an ongoing territorial game (preserving player empires)

Accurate player ratings using an Elo (chess style) rating scheme, which works (in our system) even when several players are simultaneously engaged in combat.

Accurate player ratings → allow player stratification, so minnows can avoid the sharks.

Rapid engagement with other players

Maximal player/player interaction (the nature of the system provides players significant benefits from interacting → the winning strategy typically requires close cooperation.)

Enhanced freedom of association

Players create their own game maps through their play.

{For any who are interested in more detail, a partially truncated design document is attached as a PDF.}

FluidMosaicTerrainDesign.pdf

You should probably read this.

10 hours ago, VictorHelsing said:

what is the best means of doing this without scaring these companies who may wish to avoid a potential intellectual property scam

Not a law expert, but I am pretty sure it is the other way around. You should fear that they steal your idea and get away with it. They have the money to pay an army of good lawyers and it is hard to prove that they stole something from you if you have just a manuscript of a game concept and not a useable product.

Many game companies actively avoid reading any unsolicited game ideas to avoid any legal issues. But this is not about a game idea, this is about a technology/engine/middleware kind of a thing.

Have you created a game using your system? A working game, or even better, a successful game, may help you gain recognition and interest. It should be easier to approach a company if they know about you and if they are interested in your product. Or even better, if they approach you.

1024 - That is very good advice.  We have been working on creating a prototype game using this system, both to concretely demonstrate how it works, but also to validate our system components and design.  Our terrain system is not totally newfangled; it can be applied functionally to a conventional map (with traditional positional elements such as hexes).  We have been planning to develop a class library implementing the terrain system in C++ or C#, with meaningful concern about how an existing publisher with a well trodden code base would react to integrating foreign software which might be written in a different language than they are using and would invariably handle terrain differently than their current choices.  Obviously other meaningful choices are related to how much processing to place in a central server vs. client, player interaction, animating game action, that are bound to be different than their past decisions.  Our intuition is that once a sale is made (to a publisher with an established code base), most or all of our code would be rewritten to be compliant with their internal practices.  We would be willing to assist with that process, understanding that it is certain to be filled with fiery disagreement and potential ego threat from multiple parties fighting for what they "know" to be right.

DerTroll - Your point is well founded.  I have personal experience with developing a game that (to put it kindly) inspired others to copy it for fun and profit.  Because of that, we went to the trouble {3 years +} of patenting the system.  Of course, that is not perfect, but we need to have some protection before presenting the system in detail to others with strong financial interests.

Okay, so you're pitching technology - that's fine. You don't have to worry about the IP aspect at this point, since they won't have anything except the documentation to work from. What you do need to worry about is the fact that you have a dreadfully-written pitch document.

You need to be able to say all of the following in one page:

• The system's name
• What it does
• Who it's aimed at
• How it helps them
• What they would need in order to use it
• Why you are qualified to offer this
• How to ask you for more information

One page - not thirty-one with the threat of more. (Nobody needs to see your detailed design docs except the people implementing the technology itself. )

Following on from that, it's good to have a slide deck that goes into more detail on all the things above. That should be maybe 10 slides, 20 max.

Once you have a company's interest with all of the above in place, you can agree to discuss further details, perhaps under non-disclosure agreements etc. At that point you have both agreed to enter into discussions and therefore there is a paper trail to discourage anybody from stealing IP.

Kylotan -

{ We do have a two page cover letter which is much more concise than our design document. }

I agree with your point that nobody cares about our game/system going in, and the cover/pitch letter needs to explain why they should care, concisely.  Thank you for your excellent summary of points - I will apply it to our cover letter to see if we can get that to fit on a single page.

We worry that our system is sufficiently unusual and want to effectively communicate a number of its advantages that will not be apparent to the reader after a concise description.  You are absolutely right that any attempt at eloquence is futile if if our pitch document is too long and the reader drops it in the trash.

Tom -

Thank you, we are hoping to target larger publishers who do in house development, and I inadvertently used "developer" to describe this type of capable publisher.

I understand your repeated point in other writings that barriers are quite high, and accept the proposition that our best route is to develop a game using our system to demonstrate its value in the marketplace.