Here's the original letter. It's as dry as it is depressing:
Some choice quotes for you:
> I realize that some people who “play to have fun” and who currently form the majority of players have voiced their reservations toward these new trends, and understandably so. However, I believe that there will be a certain number of people whose motivation is to “play to contribute,” by which I mean to help make the game more exciting.
Translation: I realize that the majority of people play games to have fun, but I only care about the people who will continue to give me money after they've bought the game. And I don't know about you, but "play to contribute" sounds a lot like work to me.
> Traditional gaming has offered no explicit incentive to this latter group of people, who were motivated strictly by such inconsistent personal feelings as goodwill and volunteer spirit.
Yeah, fuck those feelings.
> It is precisely this sort of ecosystem that lies at the heart of what I refer to as “decentralized gaming,” and I hope that this becomes a major trend in gaming going forward. If we refer to the one-way relationship where game players and game providers are linked by games that are finished products as “centralized gaming” to contrast it with decentralized gaming, then incorporating decentralized games into our portfolio in addition to centralized games will be a major strategic theme for us starting in 2022.
He keeps throwing that phrase around, "decentralized gaming". Does he even know what decentralized means? If it's made and controlled by his company, then it's by definition centralized.
Sorry if this was a bit long, but corporate drivel such as this really gets my goat.