The whole point of the game is playing the game and having fun. That should be the first priority. If people weren't supposed to rent cards why would we have a rental system? Rents are low because assets have lost value, earnings are super low and we're on a bear global market. Who would rent cards for $10 if they could only earn $1 with them?
MTG and Pokemon don't have rental systems, but isn't the rental system on splinterlands sold to us as a big advantage? Anyway, I played MTG and MTGO for over a decade. MTGO is actually a play2earn game even without NFTs. In real life people lend cards to each other all the time. In MTGO some stores have implemented renting full decks to players.
Owning is still better than renting. Renting takes time and effort finding what you need. You also need to check if rents didn't get cancelled or expired. If you rent the same cards over and over for a long time you end up paying a lot for something you don't own. As long as you earn more than you spend it's fine but, as long as cards retain or increase value, it's way better to own if you can.
I have been a gamer when games were still in black and white.
The fact is, when it comes to games, there are many reason people play. Otherwise, the idle-clickers like Rising Star or even TerraCore would never exist. Why do some people play Clash of Clans? or Candy Crush? I don't see these are fun games, yet there is a place for them. So that common statement used by thousands of folks is just not a valid point. Those same people may play "games" that are not even considered games themselves if they can extract value (SplinterForge, Golem Lord, etc.).
This is the same with TCG. It's a particular type of game that SPL is trying to copy. So if they keep on using this SPL is not a "fun" argument, then forgot that this is a free market, and NO one forced them to play SPL. Go play Rising Star or Sorare instead.
"Owning is still better than renting." While I see you type this, this is what I think I disagree on. Based on how the games are set up today, you can borrow a deck for nothing as a scholar, play for free and split a reward. Or you can rent cards, which is cheaper than owning the asset if I can rent LUX for 400/DEC a day; that is cheap when the market price of LUX is $900+. I can rent it for 5 years and still pay less than owning a LUX card. So renting today is better than OWNING. This is why asset mispricing HURT the OWNERS. This is why RENTAL systems today HURT the owners. This is why some CARD OWNERS are hurting themselves and everyone else how OWNS cards.
Never would I say renting is NOT supposed to happen. It is just a different pricing structure. But when the pricing structure encourages more ROI with RENTAL users, it upsets owners (like what you shared about your personal experience as an OWNER). In the previous post, you suggested that you went "APE-IN" (heavily invested) with SPL cards and haven't reaped any ROI. I also own assets, but I use rental cards because it still makes more sense to rent higher-level cards. I rent my extra cards, earning next to nothing (~5 DEC a day). This upset me as an OWNER of cards because the mispricing benefits the rental users.
Then a system is designed and creates winners/and losers; people will determine how to take advantage of that. This is the reason for BOT Farms and multi-accounting. There is a reason why nearly every SPL-TV streamer has 5-10 accounts. If the incentives were aligned right, this would not be the common theme along players. BOT FARMS are still around. Multi-Accounting is still around.
Many of the last year's changes have reduced some benefits, and this one will continue that trend.