It is same as with pc-man and tetris. Most of clones are not fun at all, despite having the same concept.
Source: I played both original flappy and then tried some of clones.
1. If Flappy Bird was a clone, what made it more "addictive" or "fun to play" than the original (Piou Piou)?
2. What did clones of Flappy Bird do wrong?
3. How does Flappy Bird's "addictive mechanics" compare/relate to other games that hook players?
4. What about similar schemes/products (non-virtual)?
I mean - what do all these hook into; why and how do they become ultra-popular (seriously - $50K per day for Flappy Bird!), etc?
I and some former coworkers called these types of products (League of Legends could certainly fit in here) "Money Fountains" - relatively simple mechanics (in some cases executed extremely well - I mean, to my eye, LoL is a beautiful and engaging game, despite the basic concepts) that generate for their developers insane amounts of cash, seemingly without end.
All legally.
But at the same time, others trying to follow in the footsteps of the "pioneers" seem to fail more than they succeed. So the question is, why and how to the originals succeed? Is it just luck? First mover advantage? Or is it something else?
> LoL is a beautiful and engaging game, despite the basic concepts
I assume you haven't played much LoL, have you? I've been playing for 3 years and I still consider myself a newbie and not only mechanics wise but also (or even specially) game-knowledge wise.
140 champions with their own stats (and growth per level), each with at least 4 abilities (+ a passive, some of them taking paragraphs to describe), plus two summoner-spells (to choose out of ~10), each with its own cooldown that you have to track (not only for yourself, but also for the enemy). ~250 items that modify up to 16 different character stats both in flat and % form, many of those with passive and active abilities that modify game rules and interact in often unexpected ways. 19 different types of crowd-control effects that can combine with each other in the same ability. 2 different types of invisibility.
Frantically trying to maximize your gold and experience gains last-hitting minions, while trying to survive and maybe kill the enemy.
In a game with limited knowledge where you can't see most of the map and only have a trinket that gives vision for a very limited time (lack of vision and incomplete knowledge being a feature, sought by the game designers). 4 different types of trinkets, useful for very different situations.
Then there's the neutral monsters in the jungle. 2 types of neutral monster (in each jungle, 4 total) that give you stats for some time if you kill them. 5 different types of dragons that randomly spawn each game. The powerful herald and baron. And there's a guy whose sole reason to exist is to live in the jungle hidden from your vision and come to your lane and ruin your existence surprising you with a 1v2 skirmish.
All of this in a constant flux due to balance changes and new champions regularly introduced (currently ~6 each year) changing the meta-game (or even the game itself). Plus reworks of many old champions that make them even more complex.
And that's the bare minimum! Akin to knowing how chess pieces move. Even the top of the ladder games, where strategical and tactical thought is critical, are simple compared with the complex strategies that eSports teams can carry out.
LoL is probably the most complex game I've ever played. It's just hidden beneath a thin layer of simplicity ("kill, don't die, destroy the enemy nexus").
That is what made LoL successful and why I think it can't be compared to Flappy Bird's success.
It does not matter who was first nor who of the two games is better. There is too much luck involved, there was social network effect in play and playstore is not meritocracy.
However, most flappy clones that popup are not fun to play are not fun to play nor addictive.
1.) I have no idea what differences are. It is perfectly possible Piou Piou is more fun.
2.) I suggest you download some and play. Did you played for 20 minutes, did they got you angry while you simultaneously are still hitting "next"? It is safe to guess that not, which is why they did not replaced it.
Some were too slow and no challenge. Others had elaborate long die animation that took you out of mood to continue. Yet others were ugly or reacted slowly to your touches. Just like millions tetris clones out there, despite being theoretically same game, they are not fun.
3.) Pretty similar in concepts.
4.) What about them? All the kids want fidget spinner and dont care about brand. However, all fidget spinner turn well. Clones that don't turn well eventually don't sell and if the stores routinely selled them, fidget spinners would die much sooner. Fidget spinners existed long before everyone discovered them this summer.
> So the question is, why and how to the originals succeed? Is it just luck? First mover advantage? Or is it something else?
You yourself claimed Flappy Bird was not original. Piou Piou had same concept and was first. It is not that originals succeed. It is that randomly once in a while someone succeed. Fidget spinner copies are selling. In flappy bird case, most of clones are bad and thus popularity died with flappy bird being pulled from stores.
Haven't read the Wiki page, or heard of Piou Piou, but I always thought FB was a rip off of Copter, a game for Nokia style phones where you pressed 5 (IIRC) to keep it airborne.
Maybe "original" Flappy was great and I just played crappy Flappy clones, but dying literally within seconds over and over again didn't make me want to continue, I was just instantly bored, stopped playing and forgot it. I don't understand the craze for such a horrible game.
Copter was good though.
The first Flappy bird was new and exciting. Nobody wrote about clone number 20 that comes out a few years later.
However, when we're talking about fads and popularity, it is much less relevant than what public thinks is and is not a clone.