Web services today often emphasize the value of their service once they have +100k users. They talk about users interactions with each other creating incremental value which can be used to drive human-computation-based features, like recommendations. Digg, Del.icio.us Popular, Yahoo Answers, Craigslist, MySpace, YouTube, etc are all examples of value derived from the interaction of many users. Digg would be lame if only 10 people were contributing and digg articles. Likewise, YouTube would be useless if only 8 people submitted videos. You get the picture; the point I’m making here is obvious.

All web services that eventually want to leverage the interactions of +100k users have to overcome an initial adoption hump. There are few ways to do this:

1. Create a compelling single-user value propostion that makes users adopt the service without the multi-user value. Del.icio.us did this by creating a compelling bookmarking service that didn’t need to leverage social interaction to be useful and better than existing bookmarking offerings (client-side browser bookmarks).
2. Seed the service with initial users in some “artificial” (perhaps “unsustainable” would be a better word) way. For example, pay your initial users to use your site or aggregate them from other services. Yahoo Answers did this by creating a large promotional contest with giveaway that involve celebrity tie-ins. It was an aggressive (and I’m sure, expensive) marketing campaign that helped users over the initial adoption hump when the service itself wasn’t compelling enough to drive adoption.

Why am I mentioning this distinction now? What’s the point? It’s not an original point. It is a concept that floats around our office all the time with the deals we see. Furthermore, the point I am making here is a meme that has come and gone on the blogosphere.

Well, right now, I’m downloading a copy of F.E.A.R. Combat, and I can’t wait to play it. I’m giddy with anticipation. It’s a multiplayer-only First-Person-Shooter game developed by one of my favorite game studios: Monolith Productions. (I still think Shogo - developed by Monolith - is one of the most entertaining FPS games I have ever played because of the division between mech and foot battling. But, that’s besides the point here.)

On August 17th Monolith started giving away multiplayer-only versions of their 2005 blockbuster hit F.E.A.R. and users stormed to download a copy. There is no single-player value proposition to F.E.A.R. Combat. Without other users, there is nothing to play. They never intend to close down the giveaway, so this offering is not a short, unsustainable gimmick. Yet, they never had to deal with an initial adoption hump to generate demand of their service. Gamers salivated at the opportunity to play F.E.A.R. multiplayer-only for free.

Monolith didn’t offer a compelling single-player value proposition, and they didn’t resort to any unsustainable gimmicks to drive initial growth. They simply created a multi-user value proposition SO COMPELLING that users stampeded to join. Monolith’s success in this respect is a rare phenomenon, and I would love to see more businesses capable of developing such a valuable multi-user value proposition.

If F.E.A.R. Combat intrigues you, then download it.