Innovation can be defined as creating a better product or service. If you define better as successful financially, then its a tautology. More financially successful products are more financially successful. That's a meaningless statement.
2 is equal to 2. Well duh?
But really we can only base "better" on sales, as we can't base it on a certain product being factually better in terms of opinion, because that is what it is - opinion.
No ones opinion is fact.
In my opinion Harry Potter is better than Earthsea, that's not a fact, but neither is your oppisite opinion to mine.
So, other than something being financially successful, how else can we define something being better without taking opinions into account?
Originally posted by Valua Innovation doesn't just mean creating something never seen before, it might mean changing something enough so that it is different.
in·no·vate? ?[in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, in·no·vat·ed, in·no·vat·ing. verb (used without object) 1. to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
In order to remove this point from the more personal nature of my previous post:
When you define innovation so broadly that apple touch products, avatar, wow, harry potter, and twilight are innovations, it invalidates your point that innovation is successful because of the millions of products which then count as innovation, only 1 in a million can be considered successful.
You can say that those products are innovative but then you let in all the innovations that are not successful and then innovation =/= success.
Maybe I should change the name of the thread to "Innovation = more success than clones."
But I don't think that would matter, we disagree on the definition of the word innovation.
Sigh, I dunno what it is w/ these forums. I swear some of these discussions are worse than politics.
Innovation has very real, very specific definitions. There's not really that much wiggle room on that matter. Saying a word means something 'to you', personally, doesn't make your argument any more valid or credible.
I'm also sorry to say, but history has shown time and time again that innovation does NOT = success. It certaintly helps, but this is a way more complicated topic than just a 1 - 1 comparison. 'Success' is an extremely complex topic that many scholars, entreprenuers, and successes have produced mountains of info on, and still don't fully comprehend.
That said, some of your examples (like Apple) were not successful because of their innovation. Hell Apple was struggling for a long time inspite of its many innovations. It wasn't until Steve Jobs took the company by the helm and started getting really aggressive with marketting strategy did the company go anywhere.
Furthermore, how do you explain Call of Duty? That game hasn't been innovative for over a decade. And yet it's one of the most successful video games of all time. There are numerous cases throughout history that prove that people like 'new', but they don't necessarily like 'different'. People need to be convinced to like a new innovation, but they can easily be sold the same old thing. This is especially apparent when you start to take a closer look to the creative disciplines (arts, & science). For every successful innovation there are at least a dozen failed innovations, and many of the successful innovations barely even profited the creator. They were exploited by someone else, who then took that innovation and turned it into a formulaic model for success.
Innovation doesn't just mean creating something never seen before, it might mean changing something enough so that it is different.
in·no·vate? ?[in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, in·no·vat·ed, in·no·vat·ing. verb (used without object) 1. to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.
What's your point? One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker. Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language: Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc. These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree. To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.
If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original. It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.
I think it's fair to call everything that isn't a direct rip off of the original innovative, as long as differnent enough to stand on it's own legs and not on the legs of the orignal.
Whereas clones don't really stand on their own legs, and always carry the "very similar to *original product*" etc. Like Rift with WoW, John Carter with Avatar, Sony Tablet with the iPad etc.
Clearly we disagree on the definition of "Innovation."
Your ignorance is showing again. John Carter was around decades before Avatar. John Carter existed decades before James Cameron was even born. Avatar is the clone if anything. This was my whole point, how can you decide what is a clone when you don't actually know the history of any of the works being discussed?
More on topic, you still haven't addressed the real problem with your argument. If we accept your definition of innovation as being original, which isn't technically true, innovation DOES NOT EQUAL SUCCESS. Based on the definition you used in the very post I quote, only 0.00001% of innovative projects are successful. In fact financially clones are more successful than innovation because most clones make 10-50% of the money that your innovators make and most innovative projects make less than .1% of the profits of those same "innovators".
I think you are unequivocally wrong that your selections represent significant innovation, but it doesn't matter because innovation is not success based on your definition.
I think it's fair to call everything that isn't a direct rip off of the original innovative, as long as differnent enough to stand on it's own legs and not on the legs of the orignal.
Whereas clones don't really stand on their own legs, and always carry the "very similar to *original product*" etc. Like Rift with WoW, John Carter with Avatar, Sony Tablet with the iPad etc.
Clearly we disagree on the definition of "Innovation."
So why is WoW considered innovative compared to EQ, or Avatar innovative compared to an older 3D movie using similar technology like Chicken Little, or the iPad compared to laptops? In your examples one could agrue the differences between EQ to WoW and WoW to Rift are similar for example.
How is touch screens on mobile devices an innovation of Apple and not a direct rip of something that was done YEARS BEFORE in Asian countries. How is Harry Potter not ripping monsters out directly from the D&D manual (which ripped from Tolkien, which ripped from Mythology before it) or the fundamental plot isn't really any different from say Star Wars Jedi Academies?
Where does one drawn the line in defining innovation?
More importantly back on topic, how does this equate to innovations = success when there are plenty of products that are innovative (more so than any example you've given) that have failed miserably and plenty of products that "don't really stand on their own legs" that have had great success?
Innovation can be defined as creating a better product or service. If you define better as successful financially, then its a tautology. More financially successful products are more financially successful. That's a meaningless statement.
2 is equal to 2. Well duh?
But really we can only base "better" on sales, as we can't base it on a certain product being factually better in terms of opinion, because that is what it is - opinion.
No ones opinion is fact.
In my opinion Harry Potter is better than Earthsea, that's not a fact, but neither is your oppisite opinion to mine.
So, other than something being financially successful, how else can we define something being better without taking opinions into account?
you definately need to remove financially successful from the equation, because as was earlier pointed out, accessible the majority factor in profitability.
For example; A $500 ACER notebook is very accessable, and they sell a crapload of them. Are they better? no Are they innovative? no.
Another example: You can go to McDonalds and get a cheeseburger for a $1, and they sell a ton of them, making a substantial profit. Is it innovative or accessible? You can go to a family restaraunt and have some extremely wonderful meals but they aren't multimillionaires. So does McDonalds get kudos for being innovative by making a burger?
So yeah, I would attempt to find a better reason for the innovation argument than profit.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
The people you sited as innovated are indeed clones of something else, not really innovative at all. Apple got all it's ideas from Xerox palo=alto laboratories. Camaron's 'Noble Savage' theme is ripped right out of 18th century sentimentalism, and my parents were going to 3D movies back in the 50s... so... nothing new there. Harry Potter, can it get more taken from other sources then Harry Potter? What did these people do? Did they create a new genre? Did they bravely break new ground? Explore the Taboo? No, they did not.
What they did do is something profoundly more interesting. They made the most money at something people had been doing all along, and made it very popular. How did they do that.. Take Mr. Heines (of Heines 57), who said, “If you want to become rich, don't do something uncommon, do something common uncommonly well! And this is the success of things like Apple, Avatar, Harry Potter, and WoW. They used the common clay, the portrait of which everyone's mind reflects, and did it in such a way, with such quality, that we couldn't resist.
So when you ask, do people need to innovate (to create something truly new), to take risks... absoultely not! In fact it's the sure way to fail (however, you're groundbreaking efforts might someday become all the rage... after your dead). It's to take something common and do it uncommonly well. Thank you Mr. Heines.
In order to remove this point from the more personal nature of my previous post:
When you define innovation so broadly that apple touch products, avatar, wow, harry potter, and twilight are innovations, it invalidates your point that innovation is successful because of the millions of products which then count as innovation, only 1 in a million can be considered successful.
You can say that those products are innovative but then you let in all the innovations that are not successful and then innovation =/= success.
Maybe I should change the name of the thread to "Innovation = more success than clones."
But I don't think that would matter, we disagree on the definition of the word innovation.
Sigh, I dunno what it is w/ these forums. I swear some of these discussions are worse than politics.
Innovation has very real, very specific definitions. There's not really that much wiggle room on that matter. Saying a word means something 'to you', personally, doesn't make your argument any more valid or credible.
I'm also sorry to say, but history has shown time and time again that innovation does NOT = success. It certaintly helps, but this is a way more complicated topic than just a 1 - 1 comparison. 'Success' is an extremely complex topic that many scholars, entreprenuers, and successes have produced mountains of info on, and still don't fully comprehend.
That said, some of your examples (like Apple) were not successful because of their innovation. Hell Apple was struggling for a long time inspite of its many innovations. It wasn't until Steve Jobs took the company by the helm and started getting really aggressive with marketting strategy did the company go anywhere.
Furthermore, how do you explain Call of Duty? That game hasn't been innovative for over a decade. And yet it's one of the most successful video games of all time. There are numerous cases throughout history that prove that people like 'new', but they don't necessarily like 'different'. People need to be convinced to like a new innovation, but they can easily be sold the same old thing. This is especially apparent when you start to take a closer look to the creative disciplines (arts, & science). For every successful innovation there are at least a dozen failed innovations, and many of the successful innovations barely even profited the creator. They were exploited by someone else, who then took that innovation and turned it into a formulaic model for success.
Marketing can be innovtive! Steve Job did exactly that!
This is what many of my friends and I call great Marketing!
Innovation can be defined as creating a better product or service. If you define better as successful financially, then its a tautology. More financially successful products are more financially successful. That's a meaningless statement.
2 is equal to 2. Well duh?
But really we can only base "better" on sales, as we can't base it on a certain product being factually better in terms of opinion, because that is what it is - opinion.
No ones opinion is fact.
In my opinion Harry Potter is better than Earthsea, that's not a fact, but neither is your oppisite opinion to mine.
So, other than something being financially successful, how else can we define something being better without taking opinions into account?
Most people don't really understand that not all opinions are equal. Even if we assert that you cannot have facts about entertainment media that doesn't mean that all opinions are equal.
And again that wasn't my point. My point was that you defined INNOVATION AS SUCCESS and then made a thread saying innovation was equal to success. If you already decided that innovation was success without any actuall support for that claim, why did you then make a thread called innovation equals success? Do you understand why your claim is tautological?
See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.
What's your point? One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker. Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language: Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc. These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree. To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.
If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original. It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.
I think it's fair to call everything that isn't a direct rip off of the original innovative, as long as differnent enough to stand on it's own legs and not on the legs of the orignal.
Whereas clones don't really stand on their own legs, and always carry the "very similar to *original product*" etc. Like Rift with WoW, John Carter with Avatar, Sony Tablet with the iPad etc.
Clearly we disagree on the definition of "Innovation."
Your ignorance is showing again. John Carter was around decades before Avatar. John Carter existed decades before James Cameron was even born. Avatar is the clone if anything. This was my whole point, how can you decide what is a clone when you don't actually know the history of any of the works being discussed?
More on topic, you still haven't addressed the real problem with your argument. If we accept your definition of innovation as being original, which isn't technically true, innovation DOES NOT EQUAL SUCCESS. Based on the definition you used in the very post I quote, only 0.00001% of innovative projects are successful. In fact financially clones are more successful than innovation because most clones make 10-50% of the money that your innovators make and most innovative projects make less than .1% of the profits of those same "innovators".
I think you are unequivocally wrong that your selections represent significant innovation, but it doesn't matter because innovation is not success based on your definition.
I was talking about John Carter the movie, which I know was based on the books you speak of, but the movie would not have been made if it wasn't for Avatar. It had very a similar story, and similar visuals, and similar 3D but didn't do as well.
Avatar might be considered innovative because James Cameron took the John Carter stories and changed them to his own style, enough so that Avatar could stand on its own and be called innovative.
I realise now I've made a mistake, I wasn't talking about normal success when I mentioned it in my original post, I meant massive success comes from innovation.
I know clones are probably more financially successful than most innovations, because most innovations are never successful, but the biggest successes in any form of media etc are innovations. Like Harry Potter, Avatar, WoW etc.
I'll change my original post now though to clearly state that I meant massive successes (400million+ Harry Potter books sold, Avatar making 2.7 billion, WoW retaining 10+ million subscribers etc) not just small successes (Rift being able to stick to the sub payment model with it's small but enough players, or John Carter making 280 million, or Earthsea selling 3million copies.)
See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.
What's your point? One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker. Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language: Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc. These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree. To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.
If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original. It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.
Innovation is the pretty much the improvement of a product, or method of doing something or process. An invention is creating something brand new and never before seen. Human technology reached this point is mainly the result of innovation by making inventions better. But is OK, a lot of people don't know what innovation means and just like you, confuse it with invention.
Moving on:
Now in gaming innovation does != success unfortunately even in real life. If an innovative product comes out on the wrong time or has shitty marketing it might fail. Which is why companies tend to spend a significant amount of money marketing products. Have you ever said or hear someone said "WoW I did not know this game was even out, i saw it on sale and tried it and its really good." that is what happens when you don't have any marketing or bad marketing.
Other times the market just decides to bend you over and fuck you i.e look at the sege dreamcast, it was very innovative and some of the features were precusor to the current ps3 and 360 features, but unfortunately developers did no make games for it and it failed.
Innovation can be defined as creating a better product or service. If you define better as successful financially, then its a tautology. More financially successful products are more financially successful. That's a meaningless statement.
2 is equal to 2. Well duh?
But really we can only base "better" on sales, as we can't base it on a certain product being factually better in terms of opinion, because that is what it is - opinion.
No ones opinion is fact.
In my opinion Harry Potter is better than Earthsea, that's not a fact, but neither is your oppisite opinion to mine.
So, other than something being financially successful, how else can we define something being better without taking opinions into account?
Most people don't really understand that not all opinions are equal. Even if we assert that you cannot have facts about entertainment media that doesn't mean that all opinions are equal.
And again that wasn't my point. My point was that you defined INNOVATION AS SUCCESS and then made a thread saying innovation was equal to success. If you already decided that innovation was success without any actuall support for that claim, why did you then make a thread called innovation equals success? Do you understand why your claim is tautological?
I've changed my original post to clarify that I meant innovation = massive success.
And I will change the thread name too to clarify this.
Clones can achieve success, but they seem to be incapable of reaching the same success as something innovative.
Innovation can be defined as creating a better product or service. If you define better as successful financially, then its a tautology. More financially successful products are more financially successful. That's a meaningless statement.
2 is equal to 2. Well duh?
But really we can only base "better" on sales, as we can't base it on a certain product being factually better in terms of opinion, because that is what it is - opinion.
No ones opinion is fact.
In my opinion Harry Potter is better than Earthsea, that's not a fact, but neither is your oppisite opinion to mine.
So, other than something being financially successful, how else can we define something being better without taking opinions into account?
Most people don't really understand that not all opinions are equal. Even if we assert that you cannot have facts about entertainment media that doesn't mean that all opinions are equal.
And again that wasn't my point. My point was that you defined INNOVATION AS SUCCESS and then made a thread saying innovation was equal to success. If you already decided that innovation was success without any actuall support for that claim, why did you then make a thread called innovation equals success? Do you understand why your claim is tautological?
I've changed my original post to clarify that I meant innovation = massive success.
And I will change the thread name too to clarify this.
Clones can achieve success, but they seem to be incapable of reaching the same success as something innovative.
There was no reason for the change, some folks just need the hands held!
Pretty sure someone will come out with a MMORPG.com Tutorial.
I think it's fair to call everything that isn't a direct rip off of the original innovative, as long as differnent enough to stand on it's own legs and not on the legs of the orignal.
Whereas clones don't really stand on their own legs, and always carry the "very similar to *original product*" etc. Like Rift with WoW, John Carter with Avatar, Sony Tablet with the iPad etc.
Clearly we disagree on the definition of "Innovation."
So why is WoW considered innovative compared to EQ, or Avatar innovative compared to an older 3D movie using similar technology like Chicken Little, or the iPad compared to laptops? In your examples one could agrue the differences between EQ to WoW and WoW to Rift are similar for example.
How is touch screens on mobile devices an innovation of Apple and not a direct rip of something that was done YEARS BEFORE in Asian countries. How is Harry Potter not ripping monsters out directly from the D&D manual (which ripped from Tolkien, which ripped from Mythology before it) or the fundamental plot isn't really any different from say Star Wars Jedi Academies?
Where does one drawn the line in defining innovation?
More importantly back on topic, how does this equate to innovations = success when there are plenty of products that are innovative (more so than any example you've given) that have failed miserably and plenty of products that "don't really stand on their own legs" that have had great success?
I can answer the part about EQ and Wow, wow took the "bad" parts of EQ like the stiff death penalty, near forced grouping (or at least not easy to solo depending on class) and made it more accessible, to appeal to the masses. Add the timing of the then rapid growth of EQ, ripe PC gaming market, and the Brand success of Warcraft and Blizzard and there you have it.
Some may argue that these first steps were the steps to the sad and "Shallow" state of gaming, and I think they may be right.
as much as we didnt like the bad parts of the game, in some cases they gave it character.
either way, WoW was an EQ clone, that was less grindy and more solo friendly. It didnt start out as shallow as it is today, but it was heading on that path from the start.
You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.
Harry Potter is a fun book and I liked reading them and I read them all and even bought them right when they came out in hard cover. Nevertheless the Wizard of Earthsea Troligy and associated novels are superior in writing quality and theme. However they came out in an era when fantasy as movies was just not as big a thing and when the genre was far more niche than it is now. It did get a decent quality miniseries thingy with some pretty notable actors. I mean, think how long it took for LOTR to get movies and Earthsea never had a chance.
You may even note that later Harry Potter movies and books were given far less positive reviews because when Rowling finally did try to write on a level still below but much more similar in its darkness and grittiness and emotional content when compared to Ursula K. Leguin it was a pretty serious failure.
Twilight was similarly poor and shallow from a literary perspective and was primarily driven by the same market forces as the Backstreat boys and the Spice Girls.
In fact the evidence actually supports the arguments leveled against world of warcraft from a quality standpoint. Shallow and accessible media offerings receive far more financial success than quality movies. Even the most famous films and actors winning the most Oscars and Emmys and other recognition for quality are nowhere near as successful financially as Harry Potter and Twilight. Star Wars faces a similar situation.
It is totally impossible to argue that those massively successful financial ventures were on the same level as quality movies like The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption,or Schindler's list.
If you look at the Oscar nominations of financial blockbusters like Avatar, Titanic, and Lord of the Rings the vast majority of their awards are in technical areas. They almost never win for best actor, actress, picture or screenplay.
The real takeaway is that quality doesn't matter. Simple themes with clearly defined protagonists to root for with very specific qualities and minimal depth combined with excessive visual presentation are what matter. Just as shiny graphics and massive marketing and simple mechanics drive video games, CGI visuals, massive marketing, and simple story themes drives movies.
Innovation doesn't just mean creating something never seen before, it might mean changing something enough so that it is different.
There were novels about wizards and wizarding schools before Harry Potter, maybe some in your opinion even better, but J.K.Rowling did something new with the wizard/wizarding school story, which makes it innovative. And then with the insane popularity of Harry Potter came loads of new books about wizards/wizarding schools, none met the same success.
Earthsea are terrible books in my opinion, so you stating that they are better isn't true, it's your opinion.
Also you said that Lotr/Earthsea weren't released when fantasy movies were popular, well neither was Harry Potter. The first Harry Potter was released the same year as the first Lord of the Rings movie, these two movies combined made fantasy movies popular, maybe another reason why Harry Potter is innovative.
I didn't say Twilight was good, but like Harry Potter is innovated the romantic vampire scenario and was met with success, others since that have tried have not met the same success.
What you say about Schinders List, Shawshank and The Godfather is again down to your opinion, not fact.
And as for Avatar, Titanic and Lord of the Rings, all were nominated for best picture, Titanic and Return of the King won for best picture, Return of the King for screenplay, and both Titanic and Lord of the Rings also had best actor noms. So I don't see your point here.
The point of my post was, most of the massively successful products (WoW, Avatar, iPhone etc) were either the first of their kind, or did something new with something that already existed.
Clones of these products never do well, or at least nowhere near as well as the originals.
Please, prove me wrong.
Harry Potter did not innovate. You didn't do your research. Unless you have read 100 separate ips relating to young wizards and especially ones that went to a "magic school" you are not qualified to make that assessment.
The mistake that so many people make is that they think their favorite IPs did new things, but they were only new to those people who are ignorant of the history.
If you think Earthsea is worse than Harry Potter that doesn't make me wrong, it makes you wrong. The literary quality of Earthsea was vastly superior to that of Harry Potter. The same goes for Anne Rice vs Twilight, or any erotic romance ever vs 50 Shades of Grey. Your ignorance does not equate to my incorrectness. No one but fanbois thinks that Twilight or Harry Potter were popular because of their literary quality.
The story of Avatar was shit. It was noble savage, cultural appropriation, bullshit that was insulting to the historical basis for its Navi and furthermore it was almost a perfect clone of Dances with Wolves and Pochahontas in its entire plot. Its success was purely graphical. You can argue that you said innovation and thus graphics counts, but increasing graphical quality is not exactly news. Graphics = Money has been the rule for several decades. And anyways there was 3D for years before Avatar. Its not new.
N'Sync was wildly popular and a financial success. Guess what, New Kids on the Block was innovative. N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys were just clones.
Unless you define innovation so broadly as to be meaningless in which case 99.999% of innovative products are failures.
Defining innovation so broadly that your selections count as real innovation makes nearly every movie, game, book, or song innovative. And that means that 10000000 to 1, innovation is not successful.
NKOTB is at least as innovative, if not significantly more, than any of the examples listed by the OP. They were the first commercially succesful boy band and they had legions of immitators. Even their immitators had immitators.
NKOTB is at least as innovative, if not significantly more, than any of the examples listed by the OP. They were the first commercially succesful boy band and they had legions of immitators. Even their immitators had immitators.
Now if only folks can see what you just did there.
i dont think this is accurate!one of the issue is miss branding!a mmo should be a mmo not a mo,this is one big issue a lot of corp dont accept,why?because say you want 1000 vs 1000 in 64 bit very high quality !a dev will need to put in time and money (yes even in free techno like donnybrook)they probably dont want to put in!
why is lol so popular?tournament is probably a huge reason!money grab a lot of attention
imagine this:if ea swtor had money in tournament prize ?do you think it would fare so low?hell no everybody would be there, check last eu lol tournament.152000 viewer were on twitch.the top team prize?15000 $ so imagine!there is only one thing that can bring a lame game to the top !it is money prize!
Well... Brawl, sc2, hon, umbc3 also has money price in tournaments so idk what youre talking about... Also league stomped hon as well so it cant just be te money prizes esp since not everyone can hust go and join them.
And money prices in mmos? Didnt wow have arena tourneys with money prices? Ragnarok online had money prices in guild battles as well a long time ago.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Comments
But really we can only base "better" on sales, as we can't base it on a certain product being factually better in terms of opinion, because that is what it is - opinion.
No ones opinion is fact.
In my opinion Harry Potter is better than Earthsea, that's not a fact, but neither is your oppisite opinion to mine.
So, other than something being financially successful, how else can we define something being better without taking opinions into account?
in·no·vate? ?[in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, in·no·vat·ed, in·no·vat·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovate
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
Sigh, I dunno what it is w/ these forums. I swear some of these discussions are worse than politics.
Innovation has very real, very specific definitions. There's not really that much wiggle room on that matter. Saying a word means something 'to you', personally, doesn't make your argument any more valid or credible.
I'm also sorry to say, but history has shown time and time again that innovation does NOT = success. It certaintly helps, but this is a way more complicated topic than just a 1 - 1 comparison. 'Success' is an extremely complex topic that many scholars, entreprenuers, and successes have produced mountains of info on, and still don't fully comprehend.
That said, some of your examples (like Apple) were not successful because of their innovation. Hell Apple was struggling for a long time inspite of its many innovations. It wasn't until Steve Jobs took the company by the helm and started getting really aggressive with marketting strategy did the company go anywhere.
Furthermore, how do you explain Call of Duty? That game hasn't been innovative for over a decade. And yet it's one of the most successful video games of all time. There are numerous cases throughout history that prove that people like 'new', but they don't necessarily like 'different'. People need to be convinced to like a new innovation, but they can easily be sold the same old thing. This is especially apparent when you start to take a closer look to the creative disciplines (arts, & science). For every successful innovation there are at least a dozen failed innovations, and many of the successful innovations barely even profited the creator. They were exploited by someone else, who then took that innovation and turned it into a formulaic model for success.
Bigger is better!
Your ignorance is showing again. John Carter was around decades before Avatar. John Carter existed decades before James Cameron was even born. Avatar is the clone if anything. This was my whole point, how can you decide what is a clone when you don't actually know the history of any of the works being discussed?
More on topic, you still haven't addressed the real problem with your argument. If we accept your definition of innovation as being original, which isn't technically true, innovation DOES NOT EQUAL SUCCESS. Based on the definition you used in the very post I quote, only 0.00001% of innovative projects are successful. In fact financially clones are more successful than innovation because most clones make 10-50% of the money that your innovators make and most innovative projects make less than .1% of the profits of those same "innovators".
I think you are unequivocally wrong that your selections represent significant innovation, but it doesn't matter because innovation is not success based on your definition.
So why is WoW considered innovative compared to EQ, or Avatar innovative compared to an older 3D movie using similar technology like Chicken Little, or the iPad compared to laptops? In your examples one could agrue the differences between EQ to WoW and WoW to Rift are similar for example.
How is touch screens on mobile devices an innovation of Apple and not a direct rip of something that was done YEARS BEFORE in Asian countries. How is Harry Potter not ripping monsters out directly from the D&D manual (which ripped from Tolkien, which ripped from Mythology before it) or the fundamental plot isn't really any different from say Star Wars Jedi Academies?
Where does one drawn the line in defining innovation?
More importantly back on topic, how does this equate to innovations = success when there are plenty of products that are innovative (more so than any example you've given) that have failed miserably and plenty of products that "don't really stand on their own legs" that have had great success?
you definately need to remove financially successful from the equation, because as was earlier pointed out, accessible the majority factor in profitability.
For example; A $500 ACER notebook is very accessable, and they sell a crapload of them. Are they better? no Are they innovative? no.
Another example: You can go to McDonalds and get a cheeseburger for a $1, and they sell a ton of them, making a substantial profit. Is it innovative or accessible? You can go to a family restaraunt and have some extremely wonderful meals but they aren't multimillionaires. So does McDonalds get kudos for being innovative by making a burger?
So yeah, I would attempt to find a better reason for the innovation argument than profit.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
The people you sited as innovated are indeed clones of something else, not really innovative at all. Apple got all it's ideas from Xerox palo=alto laboratories. Camaron's 'Noble Savage' theme is ripped right out of 18th century sentimentalism, and my parents were going to 3D movies back in the 50s... so... nothing new there. Harry Potter, can it get more taken from other sources then Harry Potter? What did these people do? Did they create a new genre? Did they bravely break new ground? Explore the Taboo? No, they did not.
What they did do is something profoundly more interesting. They made the most money at something people had been doing all along, and made it very popular. How did they do that.. Take Mr. Heines (of Heines 57), who said, “If you want to become rich, don't do something uncommon, do something common uncommonly well! And this is the success of things like Apple, Avatar, Harry Potter, and WoW. They used the common clay, the portrait of which everyone's mind reflects, and did it in such a way, with such quality, that we couldn't resist.
So when you ask, do people need to innovate (to create something truly new), to take risks... absoultely not! In fact it's the sure way to fail (however, you're groundbreaking efforts might someday become all the rage... after your dead). It's to take something common and do it uncommonly well. Thank you Mr. Heines.
Marketing can be innovtive! Steve Job did exactly that!
This is what many of my friends and I call great Marketing!
Why the Best Ad on the Internet Represents Real Innovation
Most people don't really understand that not all opinions are equal. Even if we assert that you cannot have facts about entertainment media that doesn't mean that all opinions are equal.
And again that wasn't my point. My point was that you defined INNOVATION AS SUCCESS and then made a thread saying innovation was equal to success. If you already decided that innovation was success without any actuall support for that claim, why did you then make a thread called innovation equals success? Do you understand why your claim is tautological?
I was talking about John Carter the movie, which I know was based on the books you speak of, but the movie would not have been made if it wasn't for Avatar. It had very a similar story, and similar visuals, and similar 3D but didn't do as well.
Avatar might be considered innovative because James Cameron took the John Carter stories and changed them to his own style, enough so that Avatar could stand on its own and be called innovative.
I realise now I've made a mistake, I wasn't talking about normal success when I mentioned it in my original post, I meant massive success comes from innovation.
I know clones are probably more financially successful than most innovations, because most innovations are never successful, but the biggest successes in any form of media etc are innovations. Like Harry Potter, Avatar, WoW etc.
I'll change my original post now though to clearly state that I meant massive successes (400million+ Harry Potter books sold, Avatar making 2.7 billion, WoW retaining 10+ million subscribers etc) not just small successes (Rift being able to stick to the sub payment model with it's small but enough players, or John Carter making 280 million, or Earthsea selling 3million copies.)
Innovation is the pretty much the improvement of a product, or method of doing something or process. An invention is creating something brand new and never before seen. Human technology reached this point is mainly the result of innovation by making inventions better. But is OK, a lot of people don't know what innovation means and just like you, confuse it with invention.
Moving on:
Now in gaming innovation does != success unfortunately even in real life. If an innovative product comes out on the wrong time or has shitty marketing it might fail. Which is why companies tend to spend a significant amount of money marketing products. Have you ever said or hear someone said "WoW I did not know this game was even out, i saw it on sale and tried it and its really good." that is what happens when you don't have any marketing or bad marketing.
Other times the market just decides to bend you over and fuck you i.e look at the sege dreamcast, it was very innovative and some of the features were precusor to the current ps3 and 360 features, but unfortunately developers did no make games for it and it failed.
Innovation + solid art & design + polish + solid marketing + availability & solid pricing = success
NEW IDEAS that can refresh the STALE state of MMORPGs
Now, take out innovation from that equation.
It no longer seems like something I want.
You want innovation to succeed? Can't risk taking out anything out of that equation.
NEW IDEAS that can refresh the STALE state of MMORPGs
I've changed my original post to clarify that I meant innovation = massive success.
And I will change the thread name too to clarify this.
Clones can achieve success, but they seem to be incapable of reaching the same success as something innovative.
Lotta anger gettin thrown around in this thread.
http://www.twitch.tv/got_game_tv/ (livestream)
The War Z Shenanigans(youtube)
DayZ FUNTIME!
Mortal Online Vids
There was no reason for the change, some folks just need the hands held!
Pretty sure someone will come out with a MMORPG.com Tutorial.
I can answer the part about EQ and Wow, wow took the "bad" parts of EQ like the stiff death penalty, near forced grouping (or at least not easy to solo depending on class) and made it more accessible, to appeal to the masses. Add the timing of the then rapid growth of EQ, ripe PC gaming market, and the Brand success of Warcraft and Blizzard and there you have it.
Some may argue that these first steps were the steps to the sad and "Shallow" state of gaming, and I think they may be right.
as much as we didnt like the bad parts of the game, in some cases they gave it character.
either way, WoW was an EQ clone, that was less grindy and more solo friendly. It didnt start out as shallow as it is today, but it was heading on that path from the start.
LoL how was NKOTB innovative?
NKOTB is at least as innovative, if not significantly more, than any of the examples listed by the OP. They were the first commercially succesful boy band and they had legions of immitators. Even their immitators had immitators.
Now if only folks can see what you just did there.
i dont think this is accurate!one of the issue is miss branding!a mmo should be a mmo not a mo,this is one big issue a lot of corp dont accept,why?because say you want 1000 vs 1000 in 64 bit very high quality !a dev will need to put in time and money (yes even in free techno like donnybrook)they probably dont want to put in!
why is lol so popular?tournament is probably a huge reason!money grab a lot of attention
imagine this:if ea swtor had money in tournament prize ?do you think it would fare so low?hell no everybody would be there, check last eu lol tournament.152000 viewer were on twitch.the top team prize?15000 $ so imagine!there is only one thing that can bring a lame game to the top !it is money prize!
Also league stomped hon as well so it cant just be te money prizes esp since not everyone can hust go and join them.
And money prices in mmos? Didnt wow have arena tourneys with money prices? Ragnarok online had money prices in guild battles as well a long time ago.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
I didn't say Twilight was good
but like Harry Potter is innovated the romantic vampire scenario and was met with success