Quote Originally Posted by ZavosEsperian View Post
I think I wasn't clear on this, but I never said to not cater to newer players. Churn is inevitable and cannot be denied, but you do need to take some measures to limit the number of established players lost to churn instead of not doing anything at all, which was how I interpreted the prefaced argument.
It may not be an entirely accurate assessment, but, I do feel the idea of established players being "hooked" already is what leads devs to not needing to spend much consideration on their needs. They already know the churn is going to bleed players. Addressing their concerns is an investment, and one that might not see adequate pay-off. They might stem the flow, but will such actions retain enough players to justify the expense? As well, once they've got these players in the game and established, one of the biggest things keeping them hooked is that sunk cost feeling. Devs know even without doing anything, many players will continue playing just because they've already played for so long.

It's brutal, but it's business. Money spent trying to keep some players around a few extra years before the churn claims them can be put to better use developing something to hook a new batch of players that might stick around for several years longer.

And, frankly, all of this is a rather optimistic outlook. As has been pointed out elsewhere, gaming trends as a whole are in flux. Where we are now is a far cry from where we started. There's no going back, and even adapting to "today" sets you behind if you can't get yourself ahead of "tomorrow"s trends.