Maybe your definition of 'change the world' is too stringent.
Squeezable ketchup bottles changed the world too.
Instead of being so uptight about how people use the phrase why you don't you start trying to create your own impact?
Many of those 8 million had something unforgettable and bizarrely enlightening to share with their friends, or not, as the case may be (if they don't really have any friends). I would say that you underestimate that monkey, he has brought a lot of happiness to a lot of people and he fully deserves his own reality TV show. So, yep, he has changed the world.
I much prefer the world to be changed by things like 2048, which is like an online version of the Rubik's Cube for our times.
Contrast with the world-changing ways of the politicians. Bush, Blair and co worked very hard to take the world to war, yet, ultimately, they lost and it was all a complete waste of time.
The other extreme, the one people frequently have in mind, is "to change or alter many parts of the world very directly", such as the invention of flight.
However, a better phrase for the feeling in developer circles I think would be "touched the world." Doing so, with the internet, is easy. Like building a public bench in a city park, many people may gain small enjoyment from it, and as the one who built it, all that small joy brings you lots of excitement.
The hard part is reaching enough people. He has already done that.
Another way to think about it: Richard Sherman is a cornerback for the Seahawks. Is he having an impact? Well, they just signed him to a $58 Million contract. And part of what he does with his money is fund the The Richard Sherman Family Foundation whose goal is to help as many kids as possible have adequate School supplies and clothes.
So does Richard Sherman change the world by intercepting passes and talking trash after playoff games? You bet he does.
People who have the platform to change the world are more likely to, in either a positive or a negative direction.
Besides, this game might just be a stepping stone for something bigger.
How has 2048 changed the world?
The fact that anyone would question that a project like this would change the world indicates that there's still a kind of meta-narrative playing out in people's minds that tells them that only established players can have any real impact on things. It may seem chaotic, but any weekend project could become just as influential as any software out there.
We're still hopefully pretty early in the history of programming.
I agree, but the claim was essentially that "x changes y" is a transitive relation (I tried to express this notion in a less mathematical way, but it was the best I could come up with), which is an exceedingly broad view of causality.
If "changing the world" was as simple as spending a couple of days hacking up a simplistic browser game, a lot more people would do it. Similarly, if the criteria for "changed the world" were so low, the term would essentially be meaningless.
> If "changing the world" was as simple as spending a couple of days hacking up a simplistic browser game, a lot more people would do it.
That sorta implies (to me) that a lot of people are doing things that genuinely change the world, in the high-criteria sense. Is that really true, though? I think the world would definitely be a richer place if we had a lot more "simplistic browser games"- elegant, engaging, entertaining. I can't say in advance what that would lead to, but I'm sure a world with 100 different versions of 2048 (and I don't mean direct copies, but different games altogether that were addictive, compelling and fun in different ways) would be a relatively more interesting world.
And it'll only take a couple of days per person, no? So why isn't this already the case? Why aren't we awash in this stuff? Is it because most people are busy working on more meaningful things? (Objectively I think we can say things like ending malaria, improving education, project: water, etc are all 'more meaningful' in an anthropocentric sense... but is that what most people are working on?)
sorry for wordiness
I think instead of being obsessed with criticizing others, it would be nice if people focused on just about anything else in the world.
Games are not the loftiest goal in the world, but they do make people happy and engage their minds. Not everyone is going to cure cancer, and it is not reasonable to criticize them for not being that person. Yes, curing cancer would be grand, but we need plumbers too. Just because something isn't historically significant doesn't mean it isn't significant.
If you don't like their arrogance, put them in their place by doing better.
I'm now working on changing a small area of society, but I don't make any arrogant claims of changing the world in doing so.
I enjoyed 2048, but yeah it didn't change my life in the slightest.
And every other "world changing effect" they ascribe to it, could more easily explained with the "butterfly effect", than the significance of this game.
UPDATE: Downvoting with someone you disagree is fun, but try at least offering an argument.
Or telling Jobs & Wozniak that their tiny computer for hobbyists is meaningless, and they should do some serious work with mainframes.
Or perhaps you'd walk up to Picasso and tell him to stop painting triangles and squares, and get into industrial design? And scientific illustrations?
See, the effect of a project can be estimated in hindsight. 2048 made some people interested in programming, and inspired a ton of other people. Who knows, perhaps some future Einstein in 20 years will say: "it all started when I played this stupid game, that had an open source, and I decided to play with it."