Having sent a few prototypes the way of XBLA I can say that I personally wanted to test the waters a bit with some games which were not completely revolutionary in terms of gameplay. If you have an idea/prototype which you feel is very unique as a designer you become just a bit more protective of it. Considering XBLA’s youth and Microsoft’s new found love of the “indie” I don’t think it’s too strange that you haven’t seen all the innovation developers could muster just yet. Once XBLA has established some “street cred” with indie developers (well underway) you’ll probably see more revolution and less evolution.

With large publishers there’s too much money at stake to be revolutionary and with indies there’s too much pride to lay it all on the line initially. I’d like to draw a parallel to the simple physics concepts of potential and kinetic energy. Large publishers already have the ball rolling meanwhile the indie is standing at the top of a relatively large hill with their boulder(s) pondering the best direction to push for the longest ride. From the indie perspective that dream of executing a revolutionary game from conception to completion in an ideal fashion is just as valuable as $30 million to a large publisher, it’s their driving force.

If an indie sends their greatest potential project over the hill first and they botch it even in the least, what’s there to look forward to? I think you’ll see more revolutionary projects being built and pitched once developers have personally gone a few rounds with XBLA and are confident in the stability of the platform overall.

Of course, what designer created their most revolutionary title early on? Perhaps it has nothing to do with potential energy, the platform’s stability, or “street cred”. Maybe, it’s merely indicative of the design capabilities a typical indie wields as they leave the starting gate. There’s also something to be said for your comparison to The Sopranos. Some people don’t want to change the world, they just want to make it more fun!

ps: Morgan, play more Zuma & think less :-)

In other words, evolutionary games — not revolutionary games.

In other words, incremental innovation — not radical innovation. Although radical innovation is often sought as the answer 42, the prize placed high into the heavens upon a pedestal of light, there’s nothing “wrong” with incremental innovation when the innovation process is continously incremental. Innovations historically transition from A to B to C before reaching radically different Z. After all, leaping from A to Z in a single bound may bypass the audience and demand would be too low for the radical innovation to succeed. In my opinion, the success of some radical innovations is a result of sophisticated marketing, or said another way, helping consumers bridge the gap between two seemingly unrelated points on the value curve.