Another interesting result of this list is that comparing these games with games released during previous years, 13 of them were incremental innovations over existing game mechanics, but 21 of them were new game mechanics for the market:

Antarctic Adventure, Bomb Jack, Boulder Dash, Buggy Challenge, Cobra Command, Mr. Do Run Run, Circus Charlie, Duck Hunt, ExciteBike, Hat Trick, Mikie, Hyper Sports, Kung Fu Master, Lode Runner, Marble Madness, Mr. Do Wild Ride, Paperboy, Pac-Land, Punch Out, Road Fighter, and Root Beer Tapper.

Twenty one radically innovative games! When was the last time you could play so many new game experiences in one year?

After a big depressive moment, I took the strength to make the casual games list. Here it is:

Unique Casual Games List, 2006

Magic Match

Acropolis

Gold Miner Vegas

Hotel Solitaire

7 Wonders

Mirror Magic

Cake Mania

Mystery Case Files: Prime Suspects

Fish Tycoon

Mosaic: Tomb of Mystery

Family Feud

Super Collapse 3

Feeding Frenzy 2

Virtual Villagers

Luxor 2

Westward

The result is that there were 16 unique casual games in 2006. But 11 of them were incremental innovations over existing game mechanics, and only five of them were new game mechanics introduced in the casual market (Magic Match, Fish Tycoon, Family Feud, which is an existing game but newly introduced to casual players, Virtual Villagers and Westward).

Just five. And there lies a problem. If we are talking about audience growth -- and by just considering the examples we were talking about before -- the more new successful game experiences we can bring to the market, the more new players we can bring:

And the number of unique titles available also determines the number of types of gameplay mechanisms and therefore players you could bring to the table - though I understand that this may not mean absolute growth of this amount:

Conclusion

I think some of these issues are relevant to other parts of the game industry, but since they are not my expertise, I'll stick to casual.

It's important that we realize the audience's behaviors, and put ourselves in their seats when we plan our portfolio of titles every year. I'm sure a lot of you have similar stories to this one: New Publisher Division, first six months: "We need to differentiate ourselves! Let's create radically innovative titles. Let's show the other guys how it's done!" A year later, of the 12 titles released, only one is a hit. Another two have been fairly successful, but with flaws.

Sales steps in: "We're not selling squat!" A coup d'etat ensues. Next year's portfolio is 50% clones, and 50% minor incremental innovations. Sales go up, but churn is high because players lose interest. We need to understand and plan this better. We need to realize that incremental innovation is what most players feel comfortable with. But radical innovation brings new players and renews the interest of existing ones who are done with their favorite genre.

In order to keep a healthy industry we need both. So let's invest in them!