A thought on solving the content gating issue. Long read, pls bare with me.

[Reinha]

There are no credible sources for either of us to cite. Not every topic has a foundation of research on hand to be used in debate, and yet we can still discuss these things. Hiding behind the tired XKCD "[citation needed]" non-argument in unquantifiable matters is such an intellectual dishonesty that I'm surprised it's not considered a fallacy yet.

It's absurd to doubt that people have quit the game over the gated content. I really hope . . . <a belief-based and poor attempt to attack my point of view, and some examples about quitting players>

Citing your claims is debate basics and is not limited to scientific debates. Challenging an unproven claim is not a fallacy. It's a valid way to find out whether you are announcing your personal beliefs instead of facts, or if you are actually contributing something meaningful. I was just wondering if you had a way to prove you were actually right, no need to get defensive. People quitting because of story requirements is a fact, but what is not a proven fact is that SE is losing money over it. (<- That's your original claim if I understand correctly. I hope you are not moving goalposts now. If you were just stating that some amount of individuals quit over it and were not commenting on the total sub numbers, well, that doesn't really add anything of value and no one who has followed this discussion is in denial about it.) The story structure could be attracting in people who like working through attunements and/or being guided through the game via a single questline (like me for example). The story could also be a compelling reason for long term subscription as opposed to subbing for a month just to try DRK. You calling people delusional for not sharing your beliefs is equally as insignificant as a religious person calling non-believers delusional.

My second statement is projection, and really can't be cited by definition. It must be supported logically. With this, I again turn to the question from the previous threads that no one has still been able to answer: "if the story content is made optional, how does it affect you?". The answer is "it doesn't," unless someone can finally provide a better one.

People wouldn't quit if the story is made optional because it wouldn't affect them. The game wouldn't change for them. They could still do the story themselves. It would contain all the same content. You don't remove something you truly enjoy from your life when it changes in a way that you'll never see or be affected by.

I answered this in the long thread, several times in fact. Last time I used myself as an example but now I'm citing an article about reward structures in games. This is to prove that making the story optional is not as minor a thing as you attempt to make it sound. I'm very curious if you're going to dodge the response again (or imply I'm sadist hahaha).

Gaining access to content is a reward, and rewards are designed to make the player feel like they are advancing in the game. Making the story optional is removing the access-gaining reward from the story. This would reduce the rewards for doing the story and therefore the MSQ experience would be less fun for some of those who would do it anyway (including me). Story gating is the same reward mechanism as gaining levels, as it gives players a sense of progress and a feeling of anticipation of the soon-to-be-accessed content. The following article points out that gating mechanisms indeed do have a psychological effect on players. Making the story optional would affect everyone, not just story haters.

http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uplo...1310.20247.pdf

In the following sections,
we analyze how reward systems provide pleasure and satisfying experiences by
classifying rewards and playing activities, and relate reward mechanics to psychological
theories.
. . .
Unlocking mechanisms give players access to game content (e.g., new levels, access to
special virtual environments, and mini-games) once certain requirements are met. This
kind of reward is best classified as access (Hallford & Hallford, 2001). When discussing
ways to arouse curiosity, Malone (1981) suggests that one of the most important features
of intrinsically motivating environments is providing incomplete information about a
subject. Rather than show all possibilities and choices at the beginning of games, these
mechanisms reward players as games progress by gradually exposing hidden parts of
gameworlds. For example, World of Warcraft avatars must achieve certain levels before
gaining access to higher-level environments. Unlocking mechanisms are thought to
maintain player curiosity about what might be made available for future play, and to
make players feel as though there is always something new to look forward to. This form
of reward is strongly associated with Gee’s (2007) ideas regarding the correspondence
between learning and game playing. The reward system serves not only as reinforcement
for good performance, but also as an environment in support of an “ongoing learning
principle.”
. . .
Reward mechanisms in video games can enhance feelings of fun long before rewards are
actually given—that is, rewards can create a sense of anticipation among players who
know what is specifically required to earn them.

TLDR: bolded