I might suggest that the 90% Crap Idea is pretty much what we already get from the MMORPG companies.
Yep. That's exactly what Sturgeon's Law observes.
So let's make games that are in the 10% or, rather, in the 1%.
I suppose I could say that Open Source never could work because of this Sturgeons Law, but what is the reality there ???
Yep, all all a miserable failure ... right ? Nobody in their right mind will do anything quality for free ... right ?
Sturgeon's Law doesn't say 100% of opensource projects would be trash. Sturgeon's Law would predict that 90% of open source projects are trash.
What does real life say? "Caution: the vast majority (>90%) of FOSSD projects fail to grow or to produce a viable, sustained software release".
So, yes, Sturgeon's Law applies to Open Source software.
The few dozen people know about - i.e. the famous ones - are a tiny percentage of the ocean of open source projects, the vast majority of which fail.
Further, many opensource projects, even when 'successful', are still buggy, poorly coded, or stupidly unintuitive to use, from a lack of cohesion (what I call "unity of design"). Few opensource projects are actually incredible - and many of those incredible ones are incredible because commercial companies pay people to work on them, or were even started by corporations and released as opensource later, given the project a good running start of consistency, organization, and dedicated workers.
That wasn't my point though - my point was within your one game, 90% of everything players would create would be trash, and of the remaining 10%, 90% of that would be merely mediocre. Even then, everything still lacks cohesion.
Actually, maybe even higher than 90% would be trash - Sturgeons Law was applying to published works that have already gone through editing - and still 90% was bad. A scary thought in itself.
Players are constantly starved for content and wake up their accounts for a month or two and then stop playing and paying (til 6+ months for the next 'drop'). The big games can continue as they have, but have only in those limited genres.
This reminds me of an interesting side-topic, which I'll start a new thread about.
Someone does good ideas or planning, another basic shapes/structures, another refines that (and possibly others do later), another is good at textures and applying them, another is good at realistic weathering/usifying, another can adapt behavior attributes (tweaking or just installing existing templates) and animations/sound effects , some other can do any needed specialized behaviors.
I'd like to see your project succeed - we need more incredible worlds - I just don't see it as all that viable, given the exponential distribution of skill in humans, and human nature / desires. It's not that I don't understand what you are saying (again, people have been discussing this for a decade now, and I've looked into it and given it thought a half-dozen years back) - I understand it fine, I just think it would result in merely mediocre games instead of excellent games; unless you have discovered some truly brilliant insight.
Vision is one thing, carrying it out is another.
While you can say it takes 'a visionary', 'a pioneer', 'consistency', 'expandability', a 'new paradigm', 'next-next generation tech', etc... These words don't mean anything concrete. They sound impressive but lack substance, being mostly marketing fluff words.
That's why I'm unconvinced - I still haven't heard anything new. That said, many great ideas throughout history have had people staring at it saying, 'it can't be done', so don't get discouraged by my lack of agreement. Instead, prove me wrong sometime, by making an incredible game that I'd actually want to play.
[Edit:] hplus0603 is discussing this much better. I'm attacking the flaws I think I see in your ideas, but he's asking you to elaborate on your insight - asking you to share anything you have that is actually new and original. My posts were too confrontational, sorry.