I wonder if minecraft's financial success (after the initial stage where Persson couldn't have done it another way as the article argues) was because of the pricing model that bucked trends in the gaming world, signalling "this game is different", or if it was despite the difference?
I was pretty surprised when Minecraft was charging money for a fairly simple and uncompleted game. I was surprised because I had not seen that done very often. Now it's definitely more popular with things like Kickstarter but I think the fact he was asking for money early on helped a lot. If he had not asked for money, he may not have been able to develop the game to the level he did.
Both. Neither. There's a tendency to mimic currently successful pricing models, almost in a cargo cult manner. Looking at the product, the potential customers, etc. and actually making a decision is harder. But that's exactly how the currently successful pricing models were developed in the first place.
The first time I tried to play Minecraft, I didn't understand it. Once I did understand the basic idea, I simply had to have the game. I would have gone through any sign-up process there was to get the game, and paid anything up to about $60. The game was different and was a watershed, regardless of inspirations. The sum of those inspirations was much bigger than the parts. I would guess that the success was mostly driven by sheer demand for a unique experience, plus network effects once it reached popularity.
