I'd be very surprised if any solo/PG players continued to lobby for PP to return to all modes if it got changed. Most of those against the idea don't seem to care about Powerplay itself it by the looks of it, but are more against the idea of open-only features. If it proved a very successful move, those against it would have a weaker agruement anyway.And if they made the BSG or PP open only, you'd just have a different demographic beating their head against a brick wall for the following two years or whatever until they left.
At the moment you have two systems in the game which relate to territory control, BGS and Powerplay.. neither of which support goal-orientated PvP very well. To me it would be balanced and likely please more people if one were open to all modes (BGS) and one was restricted to open to support and encourage the PvP gameplay Fdevs developers claimed Powerplay was created for.Its the general rule of software development (or almost anything), you can't please all the people all the time. For those who open only is a critical feature, they may leave. For those who bought the game based on the premise of parity between modes, should FD change that, some of them will leave.
Yes, because having one territory control system aimed at PvE players and one aimed at PvPers is fair. Having two for one and none for the other is not. They would get over it. However, Elite has always failed to retain most PvP players long-term due to the lack of purpose PvP has. Keeping PvP groups interested in the game longer is good for Fdev, and by extension, good for PvE players because there will be more money available for development of all areas of the game.In short, in order to please one demographic, FD would have to displease a demographic that is currently happy.
If they do a trial of OOPP they can see how well it works and use it to justify any long-term changes. It's hard to argue against facts and figures if going open-only results in a large uptake in interest. If it fails we can all forget about the idea.The main question becomes, do FD considering the risk worth it and would such a change bring an overall positive result? And are they ready to handle the threads from those who are displeased that will be "FD lied to us!"..... remember offlinegate?
It doesn't matter if you think the devs never promised mode parity in perpetuity, those threads will exist, and you can be sure some of the gaming press will pick up on it as well. FD need to be certain they would want to do such a thing and have the data or analyses that shows it would be a good thing overall.