Can your model of "objective" success actually make any predictions? Could you have predicted the success of Minecraft Alpha, for instance? We both agree that given X=1 person, Y=~$0, T=1 year, and Z=$80 million, that Minecraft Alpha was a success. But how would you have objectively known that that was going to happen?

A prediction is very possible indeed, but it won't be an exact prediction (nor does it need to be, because there's levels of success, not just "either complete success or complete failure"). It's similar to Peter Jackson being in no position to predict the exact number of Oscars that he'd win. But that's not synonymous to saying that it was pure chance that made the LOTR movies succeed rather than flop. The world isn't black and white.

Let's analyse Minecraft:
- The game has a virtually infinite creative possibility space.
- It is almost effortless to learn playing it.
- It is low-tech, Java based and easily run on almost all machines.
- The theme of Minecraft is pleasant and family-friendly.
- Notch chose a set of simple principles for the game.
- Minecraft balances the creative aspect with the challenge of survival etc.
- Minecraft is a 10-second DL, it doesn't even need installing.
- Minecraft is unique (afaik) in that it allows for multi-player, real-time creativity between players.
and more.

Now, let's analyze the gaming community:
- Java has exploded in popularity, in general.
- Indie games have gotten more media attention.
- "Fun" in games typically refers to how players' motivations are satisfied - fantasy, fellowship, challenge, mystery, bragging rights, exploration, etc.
- For the last decade, the popularity of player-generated content has sky-rocketed, clearly showing the importance of player creativity.

Well, considering what type of game Minecraft is, you do the math. But a small correction - Minecraft Alpha wasn't that big of a success, compared to now. It's largely what Notch has chosen to add into the game for the last 2 years or so, that has made it what it is today. And my current prediction is that the game is going to continue to grow in popularity for at least another 1-2 years (depending on which areas Mojang choose to improve things in).

- It is almost effortless to learn playing it.

For Minecraft Alpha, that wasn't even remotely true. I downloaded it one day on a rare "free server weekend." There were no tutorials on how to do anything at all, and hardly anything in game to make one interested in doing the next "gameplay thing." It seems that most people, unlike myself, learned how to play MA by watching YouTube videos of other people playing.

- It is low-tech, Java based and easily run on almost all machines.
[/quote]

That's an advantage for penetration to an installed base. Why would it be a marketing advantage? Here is the problem of the Casual vs. Hardcore audience, or at least what the game industry typically thought was one or the other. The game wore "low tech" like a badge, looking butt-ugly to many people's eyes. That's not historically been a way to sell games.

- The theme of Minecraft is pleasant and family-friendly.
[/quote]

I have my doubts that families and children made up the bulk of early MA sales. Do you have data to support that? What you call "pleasant" others call rudimentary and boring.

Now, let's analyze the gaming community:
- Java has exploded in popularity, in general.
[/quote]

So much so, that all the AAA titles are using it. Not. Still dominated by C++ and hardcore 3d graphics. So if Java exploded, one has to ask "exploded where?"

- Indie games have gotten more media attention.
[/quote]

More relevant is how Notch got attention for his game.

- "Fun" in games typically refers to how players' motivations are satisfied - fantasy, fellowship, challenge, mystery, bragging rights, exploration, etc.
[/quote]

This says nothing with regards to MA.

- For the last decade, the popularity of player-generated content has sky-rocketed, clearly showing the importance of player creativity.
[/quote]

MA was hardly the first "builder" game to come along, and certainly not the most polished.

*snip*

As I ended my comment with, Minecraft Alpha wasn't even remotely successful compared to now. Your premise is flawed, using Minecrafts current success and tying that to how the game looked during its alpha stage. It's real success didn't really start until after the early Beta and even then it was pretty moderate. The real explosion happened just before and after going Gold. The only success Minecraft had during Alpha was by means of a small, compact group of fans producing a ton of videos and photos that was shown on Youtube and beyond.

Try removing survival mode, the End, the Nether, and the rest of two thirds of the game's content, and see what happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft

- "Fun" in games typically refers to how players' motivations are satisfied - fantasy, fellowship, challenge, mystery, bragging rights, exploration, etc.

This says nothing with regards to MA.
[/quote]

Really? So the proven fact that players buy games (and thus giving income to the devs) almost exclusively because the game has something to offer in terms of fun, is completely irrelevant to game sales? I'm struggling to see your logic.

As I ended my comment with, Minecraft Alpha wasn't even remotely successful compared to now.

Minecraft Alpha was pulling in 40,000 Euros a week. PayPal shut down Notch's account because they thought he was either a drug money launderer or a terrorist.

The only success Minecraft had during Alpha was by means of a small, compact group of fans producing a ton of videos and photos that was shown on Youtube and beyond.
[/quote]

"The only" ? It seems your measures of success are skewed by AAA budgets and team sizes. You have missed half the point of how Minecraft "made it."

Minecraft Alpha was pulling in 40,000 Euros a week. PayPal shut down Notch's account because they thought he was either a drug money launderer or a terrorist.

"The only" ? It seems your measures of success are skewed by AAA budgets and team sizes. You have missed half the point of how Minecraft "made it."

You're completely missing the issue here. €40,000 a week is still pocket change compared to now. Also, I never said that Minecraft didn't have any success during Alpha, I'm trying to explain how a vast majority of the game content was added during Beta and beyond (the Nether, survival, new biomes, Endermen, the End, villagers and more), and it's the complete package of how Minecraft is built right now, that has determined the game's overall success. Start removing two thirds of the content and you'll quickly see players quit the game.

Success increases as the content of the game increases, because more content means that more players are likely to find the game interesting. E.g. if you add PvP to a game (provided it's good enough), then suddenly you get a bunch of PvP players into the game that would otherwise not be playing it (unless they also liked other things featured in the game).

€40,000 a week is still pocket change compared to now.

€40,000/week for one indie developer. Do you realize what an achievement that is? Why do you even bother analyzing Minecraft's success after that point? The thing to learn is how someone goes from €0/week to €40,000/week. After that, who cares? Success follows success.

I'm trying to explain how a vast majority of the game content was added during Beta and beyond[/quote]

And I'm "trying" to explain that many of us thought MA had almost no content, no instructions, sucked, was a non-game... yet it made that much money even in Alpha stage. If your predictive notions of "objective" fun don't have anything to say about that, well then what use are they?

Some guys are going off topic. If you could solve a difference of opinion by arguing, the internet would be a better place. Anyway:

What limits should the player have, and how should it be increased.

In my opinion, by limiting the player by making him to X to do stuff, and by making the player not do the opposite of X, you are limiting his playstyle. What if they want to play as one of the grey-morality or black-morality gods, who often just kill everybody whether or not the person worships the god? However, at the same time, without limits, some player is going to get bored because he spent the whole time killing everybody. As such, I propose that there's a spirit that aims to do the opposite of the the player tries to do, such that if the player tries to destroy all, hope can still survive, but if the player tries to build an utopia, he will have to face many battles. Also, he should gain more power in what he wants to do, such that if he tries to teach humans knowledge, the player will become adept at it and whatnot, and also become slightly better overall. You could also do something such that the player gets better depending on what your opposite does.

Also, if we go with my idea of the opposing spirit, note that I imagine it as an antivillain at worse, and foe yay at other times. After all, he couldn't exist without you.

If your predictive notions of "objective" fun don't have anything to say about that, well then what use are they?

- In order to make resource-managers more interested in the game, deepen the resource mmt. + copies sold.
- In order to make traders interested, add more trading functions in a game. + copies sold.
- In order to satisfy PvP'ers, add PvP to the game. + copies sold.
- In order to engage socializers, deepen the social elements. + copies sold.
- In order to interest explorers, add extra incentives to discovery. + copies sold.

On Topic:
I think this is where much of the problem with God games lie. They're providing too much in terms of a specialized type of gameplay, which means that they may not attract players across the board. Having 1 million people like a game is more profitable than having 100 thousand love it. Otherwise, I really don't see much issues with God games.

Doing too many different minigames, and nothing particularly well, is the fault of Spore. So I really can't see any a priori reason to follow the "write a little something for everybody" advice. It shows a lack of focus and vision, and isn't what most game developers believe in doing. They often end up doing it anyways, because of the design-by-committee and political tussling that typically occurs on a large project.