It has been postulated in this thread, that "if you just want it bad enough, you will have it". Well, consider the case of Bulletball. Tell me this guy didn't want it enough:
Wanting things enough, and trying real hard won't make up for making a bad decision, or poorly executing on a decision you made, that the market doesn't want. I could also name several things he is doing wrong with his game. Anyhow...
It seems like you’re trying to say pure effort alone will not make someone successful, but I’m sure everyone would have conceded that from the beginning; after all, playing videogames for 10,000 hours is (probably) not going to lead to much success. What you’re putting that effort towards and whether you can be effective in that field are just as important as the amount of work you actually do.
With that said, as Kasz has already pointed out, this doesn't really fit well with your hypothesis. Bulletball wasn't unsuccessful because the inventor lacked luck; it was unsuccessful because the inventor's efforts were either inadequate or directed inappropriately and the game itself was not interesting enough for wide market appeal.
The kicker here, in regards to luck is, just like buying lottery tickets, because you have very incomplete information, you don't know whether or not all the effort is in the right direction. With some tweaks Bulletball COULD end up being viable, and if a dozen factors or more, happened to break a certain way, which the developer or no one else can see, it COULD end up an Olympic event in the future. One just doesn't know here and can't tell.
Again, it is back to luck.
You're assuming that these are things which can not be predicted or understood ...
Game design is a learnable skill, and people who put the time and effort into learning it don't have to depend on "luck" to give them the inspiration they need. It is entirely realistic to believe that bulletball would be successful had the inventor spent the time to read a couple of game design books that are readily available on Amazon or in the Library, and started experimenting with the ideas contained in these books.
The first step towards success in an creative/inovative field is to copy the approach of other successful people and then (after you've mastered their approach) inovate and create your own works. As an example of this consider musicians, you will rarely find a successful musician who has not already mastered the works of most of the successful artists with their insturment in their genre.
The few things I mentioned regarding I saw, come from game design, that are clear to me. But, if he happened to end up doing things differently, it might work. His costs are too high for one thing. But, there is also the case of top designers of games NOT making it. Sid Sackson had his entire game collection auctioned off to pay medical bills, and he was top in the world at one time. BOARDGAME designer, noted, but just didn't happen to be in an area that was really viable.
As far as the first step you mention, is that, if a market is saturated, copying someone else merely makes you an also-ran, because everyone is doing it. The innovation and blue ocean comes from being different, and in the area where you do make a difference, it isn't guaranteed. Risk is risk for a reason. Risk means you can fail.
