I think some people are realising that a product, once sold in its entirity, has now fulfilled a customer and that's one less source of income after the initial purchase.
Ironic as it may be, the theory is that you actually WANT customers to remain `in need of your product` and you don't want to *really* give them everything they want otherwise they won't come back. In order to make them slave to your system, you would have to dangle a carrot which says `you can have it, but you cant`. You give it and then you take it away sufficiently to require them to want it again so that they will pay again.
In many markets other than games, such as in general sales and marketing, and perhaps take Microsoft as an example, they know that if they control the product and give it to you `with conditions` and that they somehow retain a hold over you or over the freedom of the product, then you will be forced/required to give them some future return commitment in order to continue the phase of satisfaction. That's why people create planned obsolescence.
You give the person what they want, but but strings attached, and you get them really loving it and dependent on it and attached to it, then you reel them in by suggesting that they now have a new `need`, or that the fulfillment of their existing need has now run out. This is exactly the same approach as subscription systems where you keep making these micro transactions and you keep the customer AS a customer, ie they need to continue to pay in future, because then you would potentially get more money back in the long term.
This is commonly known in sales circles, as far as I can tell, whereby in order to make a customer a `repeat customer` you have to limit what you give them - enough to satisfy and to make them want more, then when they come seeking the continued satisfaction it's ok, time to cough up some more money. In the meantime you do what you can to thoroughly addict the person to the product, ie tie their needs to it, so that they can't live without it, in which case your product is basically a sales pitch for its own future sales.
That's also what, I think, we're seeing more and more advertising in games, because basically what is a game if not a giant persuasion device to get you into it, addicted to it, wanting it, being a part of it, so that you'll be much more inclined to give over your money. I am *sure* we're going to see games in future, if not already, that are thoroughly saturated with tonnes of ads, amounting to much the same as an ad-filled sales brochure or one of those magazines which is almost entirely advertising. And these games will basically be turned into marketing machines - you think you're playing them to enjoy the game, but really the whole game is designed to reel you in and make you hungry for more, so that you'll fill someone's pockets.
To me this is really the classic behavior of the ego. I'm not saying it's wrong as such, but one of the ego's behaviors is to give but only with conditions. It is highly contradictory, and is actually insane. It would sell you the *illusion* of receiving something that you want, but would really be giving you an empty nothingness, just some nibble at a fake carrot which looks appealing but is really worthless, and would make sure that you are just satisfied enough but not permanently fulfilled, so that you'll keep searching and searching and searching and never really totally finding any answers to your life's problems. And then you'll look to the ego again to fulfill you further, thus having to meet its conditions and play by its rules in order to continue to think that you're having a great time. This is precicely what's happening in this approach of making money. And it can be very effective, if you want to pursue it.
I am actually thinking of adopting this approach myself, in some form, although it really runs heavily against my sense of values - but it may be the only sensible approach. I was thinking to have an engine of sorts which would be free, complete with tools and stuff which anyone can use for free to create content/modify with it, but then I would also create good quality content and sell it at a price, perhaps also along with selling services. I would then be competing on an equal playing field with other people's creations that they've made with my platform, so naturally I better be sure that my content is going to be good, and hopefully having insider knowledge about the system will help in that regard. I think this would be a pretty reasonable sales model so long as you carefully orchestrate it so that you actually do make plenty of sales still.
Ironic as it may be, the theory is that you actually WANT customers to remain `in need of your product` and you don't want to *really* give them everything they want otherwise they won't come back. In order to make them slave to your system, you would have to dangle a carrot which says `you can have it, but you cant`. You give it and then you take it away sufficiently to require them to want it again so that they will pay again.
In many markets other than games, such as in general sales and marketing, and perhaps take Microsoft as an example, they know that if they control the product and give it to you `with conditions` and that they somehow retain a hold over you or over the freedom of the product, then you will be forced/required to give them some future return commitment in order to continue the phase of satisfaction. That's why people create planned obsolescence.
You give the person what they want, but but strings attached, and you get them really loving it and dependent on it and attached to it, then you reel them in by suggesting that they now have a new `need`, or that the fulfillment of their existing need has now run out. This is exactly the same approach as subscription systems where you keep making these micro transactions and you keep the customer AS a customer, ie they need to continue to pay in future, because then you would potentially get more money back in the long term.
This is commonly known in sales circles, as far as I can tell, whereby in order to make a customer a `repeat customer` you have to limit what you give them - enough to satisfy and to make them want more, then when they come seeking the continued satisfaction it's ok, time to cough up some more money. In the meantime you do what you can to thoroughly addict the person to the product, ie tie their needs to it, so that they can't live without it, in which case your product is basically a sales pitch for its own future sales.
That's also what, I think, we're seeing more and more advertising in games, because basically what is a game if not a giant persuasion device to get you into it, addicted to it, wanting it, being a part of it, so that you'll be much more inclined to give over your money. I am *sure* we're going to see games in future, if not already, that are thoroughly saturated with tonnes of ads, amounting to much the same as an ad-filled sales brochure or one of those magazines which is almost entirely advertising. And these games will basically be turned into marketing machines - you think you're playing them to enjoy the game, but really the whole game is designed to reel you in and make you hungry for more, so that you'll fill someone's pockets.
To me this is really the classic behavior of the ego. I'm not saying it's wrong as such, but one of the ego's behaviors is to give but only with conditions. It is highly contradictory, and is actually insane. It would sell you the *illusion* of receiving something that you want, but would really be giving you an empty nothingness, just some nibble at a fake carrot which looks appealing but is really worthless, and would make sure that you are just satisfied enough but not permanently fulfilled, so that you'll keep searching and searching and searching and never really totally finding any answers to your life's problems. And then you'll look to the ego again to fulfill you further, thus having to meet its conditions and play by its rules in order to continue to think that you're having a great time. This is precicely what's happening in this approach of making money. And it can be very effective, if you want to pursue it.
I am actually thinking of adopting this approach myself, in some form, although it really runs heavily against my sense of values - but it may be the only sensible approach. I was thinking to have an engine of sorts which would be free, complete with tools and stuff which anyone can use for free to create content/modify with it, but then I would also create good quality content and sell it at a price, perhaps also along with selling services. I would then be competing on an equal playing field with other people's creations that they've made with my platform, so naturally I better be sure that my content is going to be good, and hopefully having insider knowledge about the system will help in that regard. I think this would be a pretty reasonable sales model so long as you carefully orchestrate it so that you actually do make plenty of sales still.