I think your point that the status quo is a nash equilibrium point is a very good one, and one that too many founders ignore ("If I build it, they will come!"). It's a good way to describing the inertia you have to overcome to get people to adopt your product.
However, I don't think you really have any other observations in the piece that add much to the existing literature on product-market fit (which is really what you mean when you're talking about "adoption"). You don't need to think in game theoretical terms to understand that enterprises have multiple players, and I don't think it gets you anything new.
And perhaps worse, game theory is inherently reductionist and assumes rationality (or at most bounded rationality), which I think is an extremely dangerous assumption for any entrepreneur. Even enterprise customers are not rational--for example, they tend to be irrationally risk-averse when it comes to buying new things or buying things from new companies.
Your point around payoff change I think is better encapsulated by Ben Horowitz's "10X" rule (from the Hard Thing about Hard Things). I am also dubious that you can count any form of adoption as a "new Nash equilibrium". That seems overly simplistic to me, because the reality is that whether or not you're at Nash equilibrium points will vary customer-by-customer; you'll have some that will be really sticky, and others that are more tenuous.
Also even in successful organizations with successful sales efforts, I really don't think you ever get to some kind of stable Nash equilibria with most customers--it takes a concerted and ongoing customer success organization to keep retention above 90% for SaaS subscriptions, even B2B.