Yet something like minecraft that didn't have instabuzz took the world by storm. The idea is, you need a small audience with some kind of respect, who can be like "yo, dude, this is fucking awesome, you gotta try it out!" And that dude who tries it has to be like "yo, that was amazing. I bet even my girlfriend would like this!" Then she tries, and she networks, and the networks branch and spread from there. The idea is, you need a solid product that's easy to enjoy from start to finish, with no more than a 10 minute learning curve before you start having fun, even if the game has much, much higher complexity (and it should). You should then be able to take off even with only 100 customers. Building and/or crafting mechanics seem to be a given right now, with the games we're seeing on top, as well as a way to do stupid stuff that aide in communication (apparently emotes/gestures/dances are a thing), and it needs to be multiplayer (at least to use this trick), with an avenue for co-op with optional competition. People like to form guilds, and we've learned this way back in the 2000s, and things haven't really changed except people are starting to favor randomly created co-op teams instead of dedicated co-op teams (to lower BS drama). At the end of the day, it was some dude that say "woah, you can decapitate someone in this game, or make them explode with a kiss" that got people playing mortal kombat. Never seen a VRChat advertisement, myself, but i saw everyone and their brother with a VR set trying it out. At the end of the day, the hype train is merely the best way companies have figured out how to tap into this, but it's not hype, per se. Cave Story wasn't hyped, but it was a major game. And what of Flappy Bird? You just need to create something that gets a handful of customers who turn around and say "bro, you need to try this."

The Last of Us, Fortnite Battle Royale, Overwatch, PlayUnknown's Battleground, ARK

But I agree that most of the new games are some Zelda, Call of Duty, Halo, Diablo, Assassin's Creed, Sims, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Fifa, GTA sequel. Probably 80% to 90% of all new AAA games.

TLOU: high budget "dad simulator" game (basic cover shooter core gameplay).
Overwatch: TF2 rip off that is slowly dying off and gained massive popularity because "it's a Blizzard game" and porn.
Fortnite: jumped on the Battle Royale trend that overshadowed it's main game mode.

PUBG is probably the only actually new IP.

I see. I understood you were criticizing the uselesness of achievements not what an achievements is supposed to be. My bad, again ! So, yes, it's a vicious circle.

Ever heard of the Activision Patches ?

https://www.digitpress.com/archives/cc_patches_2600.htm

At least they require a bit more involvement. As for self imposed challenges, I heard a lot about Nuzlocke for Pokemon. It's a neat idea to play the same game differently. As to myself, I usually start a game on the highest difficulty, use no upgrades, no items. That isn't so different of my addiction to Roguelikes/D-RPG.

IP maybe, but if Counter Strike count as a Half Life mod, and Overwatch a ripoff of TF2, PUBG is nothing more than the developper improved DayZ battle royale which was already a mod for Arma II.

I hoped for more examples as the only ones that really come to mind are Horizon:Zero Dawn (and it's only another open world) and Nioh which, if proven true is a spin off to Ninja Gaiden.

I understand why people like indie titles. :)

Right, and it's honorable. But speedrunner drama should be the first indicator of what's going on. Achievements were cooler back when you didn't get an achievement for opening your inventory for the first time and people weren't cheating to get a high "gamer score." Achievements should just be officially recognized challenges, nothing more, nothing less. Honestly, some cash grabs like that aren't bad, which is why we even recognize AAAs to begin with. Sometimes more of the same is just what we need or want. Sometimes the experience isn't just about the challenge. I think the companies that find a way to appeal to the different types of experiences end up doing exceptionally well. Back to minecraft: You can play safe, play challenging, you can focus on more role playing aspects (even without mods), simply hanging out with long distance friends, and i've even seen (and used) minecraft for educational purposes (on many fronts).

Indies are often cheaper and more generic, but they also often don't come with the shenanigans (although that's changing fast). Alot also, due to a lack of established lore or methods, are like indie movie where you can't rely on knowing the hero will actually make it (but you know that James Tiberius Kirk will never die, just the guys in red who aren't Montgomery Scott).

I did notice that but I just put it down to Youtubers trying to get more views with clickbait titles and over the top content. I remember seeing one video a while back claiming Bill Gates planned on taking over the world so we should stop buying Microsoft products. I forget the content of the video but I do remember it had Bill Gate's face photoshopped over Hitler's in a WW2 army recruitment poster. It was also showed the windows logo and traced a swastika in the window panes claiming it was a hidden meaning, total nonsense really but I fell for the clickbait. I think the video was recommended to me because I was doing some research on Mac computers. Specifically, what was available on Mac in terms of creating animations. I wasn't looking for anything on why Windows/Macs suck or anything like that.

What i find most ironic is that there is evidence that the Gates foundation actually is supporting groups that are attempting to make a unified sovereignty over the world. However, there's no evidence that Bill or anyone from Microsoft plans on being on top (although Microsoft does try to act as a world cyber police, like when they sued No-IP ex parte).

It is quite possible to have absolute standards (for morality, as well). The crucial requirement is an (implicit) agreement for everyone. For all shared values, like money (which doesn't exist except as an agreement between two or more people that a piece of paper, for example, has a particular value) or any other virtual symbol, it requires the stake-holders buy into the premise.

So, for example, all Roman Catholics are quite accepting of the absolute morality of sacred life, even though Aquinas clearly and concisely demonstrated a manner in which it may be modified. For instance, it is not okay to kill a person, except if that person were about to go on a homicidal rampage; in this particular context, the competing requirements balance out nicely to allow for the deliberate killing of a person intent on doing harm.

Again, though, epistemology is a fractal boundary between absolutes.
Like the masochist who took thirty years to finally score Pac-Man perfectly (3,333,360 points, obtained by killing all four ghosts, every time a big pill is swallowed, and always eating the fruit).
Yes, please don't. :)

Although the mechanism is as old as conversation. Whispers, gossip, and status updates are all just grist in the mill of human culture. Enforcing standards, now that is a new-old concept.

I was being more facetious: without something with authority over humanity without being human, you can't really have one. This idea of getting everyone to agree implies a lack of need for morality: why have a moral code if no one will break it? If someone can break it, would not they focus more on breaking the moral code itself to justify that their action which broke the code was not in violation? In other words, everyoen agrees murder is wrong, until someone is murdered, then the murderer would simply disagree that murder is wrong, no? We could take on a more democratic process, but that would still be relative to the times, not objective. The best attempt i've seen an atheist pull off was Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior." I recommend giving it a good skim at the very least. Sweet Jesus. Have fun. I'm just trying to get people to follow Paul Graham's "How to Disagree," but it ain't happening outside of the best of social circles.

Yeah, he will NEVER play it EVER again, or so he says. (I believe him.)

Thanks for the book reference, I'll check it out. :)

I don't. You know that being his claim to fame, someone will make him do it at a party. Guy likes to take on challenges to his book publicly on youtube, too. Not many have tried. XD

Well, it's mostly muscle-memory, in any case. The game has patterns (computers are deterministic mechanisms, ironically used for random number generation), so the first fifty screens or so are pretty straight forward. He'd be able to do them in his sleep. Getting the images out of his head afterwards, though, might take a bit longer ….