So I came across this article:
and I got inspired by the section about elevator pitches. After reading this section, I decided to write an elevator pitch about a game that I want to make.
Here is the elevator pitch:
You are a flying object. Navigate through waves of obstacles to score points or suffer death. A simple addictive completely free open source game with singleplayer and local multiplayer modes.
Do you guys think the elevator pitch is good? What could I do to improve it?
Who are you pitching this to? Players wonât care about open source. Investors arenât interested if its free. Modders and devs typically arenât interested in simple games.
My quick take away is you have no idea who this game is actually for.
Since Iâm pitching this to players, should I just take out the open-source part? Please note that Iâm completely new to pitches.
Just think about from a perspective of the gamer or investor.
As a gamer, I want to play something fun.
As an investor, I invest into something profitable.
Either way, âfree and open sourceâ are unnecessary during the pitch.
Multiplayer flappy bird?
In my opinion, the pitch should always be short and get to the points that make it shine (if itâs investors) Iâd find key words that push a solid investment. if itâs (players) like you mentioned, you need to find what makes you game special, point these out to said potential players. It has to be what makes your game unique. Nobody cares about a boss, or if your game is open source, they care about the actual game and what makes it unique to the millions of otherâs out there.
Thanks for the feedback. I will work on a better pitch right now.
Absolutely not.
Tell me something I donât know.
I beg to differ as to pitching it as an open source game. Granted that most of the players wouldnât care if a game is an open source or not. But there do exists small number of people who actually care, and if itâs fun enough some people might even volunteer to contribute and make it much better and bigger than it originally is. You might even be able to learn a lot from managing such a project, like how to do a collaborative work online, or simply by reviewing codes from other developers.
Besides, even though there are not too many quality open source games yet, but those exist (i.e. The Battle for Wesnoth, SuperTuxKart, and etc) normally enjoy additional exposure to the public, when they get packaged and made available on various Linux distributions.
Back in the days when Steam didnât have so many games that support Linux, people used to search for such little open source games in package repositories or from various websites dedicated to them. And there are people who still actively search for such open sourced games.
So, if majority of players donât really care if itâs open source or not, but thereâs chance minority of people think better of it because of its license, why not making it an open source game and let people know of the fact?
Because in the time youâre telling that small minority that hey, this is an open-source game! the rest of your audience is losing interest because they donât care.
This is an elevator pitch, not an argument for or against making the game open-source.
Something to keep in mind: most elevator pitches make a lot of X meets Y comparisons. The point is to pack as much specific meaning into as few words as possible, usually requiring the use of something similar. Unless youâre Shakespeare, you arenât going to be able to paint a clear picture of a complex assembly without drawing parallels to something mostly like it.
The issues with this specifically are that it vaguely summarizes every game in the last forty years. Open source, singleplayer, and multiplayer are the only tangibles to this. Also, donât bother mentioning addictiveness unless you actively have people lining up for their next fix.
I understand that itâs about a marketing pitch. Though, I admit that I have probably mixed two different kinds of subjects in my previous post.
I still believe adding just two words wonât do much harm while potentially giving some positive ideas about the game. But maybe itâs because I already have a quite positive idea about the open source movement. So, please take it as a personal opinion from who has more familiarity of open source than of marketing.
LOL I remember back when I was in the state military giving a pitch to the adjutant general (the states highest general) which few states have that is elected. And I got in trouble because I bypassed chain of command hahahaha⌠Well I mean shoot he was sitting right next to me in a class we were taking, lolâŚ
Sounded somewhat interesting until this part:
Anything is completely FREE*!!! usually would try to ask for money, and opensource games do not exactly have a great quality track record.
Iâll be honest, âflying objectsâ and âobstaclesâ are both not good at all. You need descriptive text.
Focus on a hook, something unique and fun. Omit open source (as previously mentioned) and single/multiplayer modes. X meets Y (also previously mentioned) is a concise way to suggest a hook by leveraging existing experience.
One advantage, apart from being more appealing to the listener, is that you end up focusing on the core gameplay feature. For example, Flinthook is all about the grappling hook. You could waste time on procedural generation, or bounties, or the platforms it plays on, but the thing that makes it unique and will catch a listenerâs ear is the grappling hook mechanic. You could start your pitch like âSpace pirate Spelunky with a grappling hook.â
The elevator pitch is not used to hope you are talking to those small numbers, it is for the vast majority of people who will be interested in the game. The elevator pitch is supposed to be short, snappy and intriguing! Mentioning a feature that a small number of people might be interested in is wasting the short time you have (in the elevator) to pitch what is the main selling points of the game.
However - IF this is the main selling point of the game then - yes I would include it in the elevator pitch - but would not expect a lot of interest - from the majority of people riding the elevator with me.
Iâm not interested. 
The elevator pitch for the game demo in my sig is - Fantasy based Tic-Tac-Toe, with combat and board destruction.
That sounds kinda cool right? 
Might be helpful -
I think the shorter and more descriptive the better, but at the same time short and sweet defining the core hook(s) - same with game design - the simpler the core mechanics can be defined the better.
IMO the pitch should be obvious to any/all - meaning the (elevator) pitch should work regardless of the audience, gamers, investors, prospective partners etc. Because you never know who will be in the elevator with you, and the pitch should be intriguing!
Also if you need to use game modes in the pitch - the pitch isnât good enough. You are searching for sellable points of interest. Game modes arenât interesting - they are common.
The audience should be interested enough in the simple pitch to ask questions about the game, leading into game modes and additional features of the game
First of all âyou are a flying objectâ. I am now am I? And what is an âobjectâ - an entity that you havenât defined yet even to yourself?
If I had to sum up what I think, I would say that you completely fail to answer the âWhy?â and only the âWhatâ. Lean much more into the expressive/emotional and away from the descriptive. Itâs like a resume or speed-dating - everybody knows how to list out things that they know/have done, but not in a compelling way.
If you fail to describe something properly, but succeed in grabbing someoneâs attention emotionally, you have a chance - but not vice versa.
Iâve used âold school mortal combat 2D fighting, except with boats and waves and stuffâ.
Really that sounds interesting - tell me more about it.
See! It works!