Each player chooses, on a session-by-session basis which mode to play in. If players choose not to play in Open, for whatever reason, then that's their choice and their choice alone. None of the game modes is incentivised - each player gets the same reward for the same input. The fact that other players may affect a players effectiveness in Open would seem to be the result of players choosing to play in a game mode where they will affect, and be affected by, other players.
If Open play is a sufficiently attractive to the majority of players then the majority of players may choose to play there - it's up to all players to make Open a good place to play to encourage others to play in it - not for Frontier to incentivise it in some way as they are on record as holding the opinion that all modes are valid and equal.
On paper, sure FD claims that all modes are equal and valid, it seem to hold on a conceptual level. Income are the same, effects are the same, no multipliers of any sort.
But in a practical sense, or from a pragmatic view. One mode is a "independent, closed system," while the other is a "dependent, open system."
Let's discuss the former first. The premise of Solo mode is that a player will never encounter another player. People who make the choice of playing Solo wishes to be left in solitude and completely void of player interaction.
Thus, as long as the condition of the entire playground being composed of nothing but a single player and NPC, the system is closed and independent.
The latter, however, has a large set of premises. Open mode is where player will encounter other players. People who make the choice of playing Open wishes to interact with other players, let it be cooperative or competitive interaction.
However, like legal fine prints, there are a few elements Open mode players must swallow regardless:
First, the Universe is shared between Open mode and Solo mode, meaning that there will be people who no one can see or affect, yet still impact the said Universe.
Second, players have the right to swiftly exit the mode (15 second combat logging or just combat logging in general).
Third, while Open mode players have no way to counter Solo mode players (ex. PP), Solo players may hop onto Open if they choose to do so and affect Open players, unless the Open players exit into their own Solo mode and overwhelm one another with the numbers of people playing in Solo (See how Open players just got converted into Solo players just to compete/have equal footing in PP?).
I think the issue is clear at this point, all modes weren't created equal and valid, and they aren't equal and valid.
People that play Open mode seeking player interaction and wanting to have impact on other players ultimately falls short in the sense that it only affects a selective group of players that have to voluntarily give their consent, which can be revoked nearly instantaneously for player interaction to occur. While Solo mode is complete in the sense that it achieves its purpose of attaining total solitude, Open mode falls very short of its purpose.
Why would anyone play in Open if Solo has such a large benefit (total seclusion while maintaining 100% impact on the Universe), other than one's desperation for human interaction?
And what are they rewarded with? Combat Logging, hacking, congruent reward with players that do not take the same amount of risk, and being told that modes are equal when they are clearly not.
So no, I sincerely disagree with FD's statement. Respecting choices is great, but pretending to respect choices and shoving inequality as equality down people's throats are not so great.
"
