These days cool ideas comes about ( in addition to intelligence and creativity) by: accidentally, experimentally or both, otherwise it will be obvious and would have been done.
If you don't agree you are saying the rest of the world is not as smart (or maybe dumb) - in other words you are saying "i can easily see what other cannot see"

It is not about being smarter or dumber. It is about information, and ability to act on that information.

Ideas never appear in a vacuum. The myth of the lone genius is nothing more then that, a myth.

If you have a great idea, chances are high thousands of other people have had the same idea or something very similar.

Pretty much all ideas are obvious if you have the right information.

But since information is always evolving, and adding up, it means there is always lots and lots of innovative ideas waiting just around the corner.

They don't get less with time, they actually increase in number!

This is were the lone guy has an advantage, he only has to convince himself the idea is good to act on it.

We could take Minecraft as an example again. Notch actually pitched it to his employer at the time. (King) They wern't interested. So he quit.

Easier said than done. I can't imagine what a lone developer can do that big studio can't

They can do anything you can. But they won't unless it will make them big money.

Those who have unusual, cool ideas, but are unable to implement them.
Those who have no innovative ideas, but would be able to implement them.
And a very small group of those who have both. Those are the guys that can actually live off of their work as indies (if they somehow manage to get the business part right, too).

These days cool ideas comes about ( in addition to intelligence and creativity) by: accidentally, experimentally or both, otherwise it will be obvious and would have been done.
If you don't agree you are saying the rest of the world is not as smart (or maybe dumb) - in other words you are saying "i can easily see what other cannot see"

Over the years I was working at EA we had many wonderful ideas for great products.

These products could have easily become commercial successes. We even built several pitches and ran the numbers on what it would take to build the game.

The problem was that EA was too large to make the game.

As an example, when Nintendo announced the DSi and their downloadable titles, while we were working with our Hasbro contacts we came up with several great pitches for essentially coloring books. Not the old 1980s style mono-colored books, but supporting fun textures and stay-within-the-lines functionality. On the DSi we could put the images across the Internet in a secure area for parents to see, or on SD cards, trade images, and do so much more. The cost to build the program was relatively low and it could be used with DLC content to pump out as much ultra-cheap coloring book art as they wanted.

If we were able to remove so many of the corporate requirements, remove the corporate overhead, get around contracts requiring union-rate audio, and a few others, we could have made a very inexpensive but quite likely profitable collection of software. Great idea, lots of great contracts providing branded content, but too inexpensive to make.

Once a studio or group is large enough that they are dealing with multi-million dollar properties, the properties below that value become inaccessible.

I've heard the same thing out of other places as well. If a product is inexpensive to build but will only bring in $2M in profit, they'll turn it down. Not because the idea is not profitable, but because the idea is too small. They're looking for big products with a $20M return, a small product may have a higher probable ROI when it comes to development, but the bigger companies demand bigger bottom-line numbers.

Many of these good ideas tend to encourage small groups to break away to form their own startups. They know the idea is good and viable, and for them the predicted high profit is worth it.

But you're falling into a false dichotomy, because you don't have to go big-budget, go low-budget. You could make a different game, and thereby build experience and perhaps earn a nestegg with which to take on a bigger idea.

Ok I get it now

This has been the overwhelming reasoning: The development focus of an indie or lone developer doesn't (and shouldn't) overlap with that of big studios.

If i think it overlaps then i'm writing the wrong game

You won't beat the big guys by playing their game

summarises what i've learnt from this discussion

I'd agree with Frob and say it is much easier for smaller guys to produce and execute good idea. Every games company has several programmers, designers and artists and being gamers every one of these people probably has a new games idea every day but, none of them ever see the light of day.

There is a much smaller risk for the little guy than there is for a large corporation with shareholders etc..

Also all the mega corps started somewhere.

Microsoft started with Bill Gates and Paul Allen writing BASIC Interpreters.
Facebook started with Zukeberg hacking his university student records.
Twitter started as a brainstorming idea at a small podcasting company.
Apple started in a garage.

Just look at the startup scene in Silicon Valley, Austin, London or Tel Aviv at the moment. These are all being run by smart 20 somethings with an idea. And a lot of them have hedge fund managers and VC queuing up to throw money at them because they are all willing to take the risk that one of these little guys could eventually be the next mega - corp.

On the other hand the mega corps cannot take the risk with every idea because perceived risk can mean a drop in share prices. and a half point dip could be the equivalent of millions wiped of the value of a company.

In the games space just look at Minecraft, temple run, Flappy Bird, No Mans Sky to see what can be achieved by a little guy with a good idea and the skills to execute that idea.