It seems like there are two schools of thought here. One might be called Singular Design, while the other could be Plural Design. 

I make a car that only turns right, and I love the hell out of it. I let my friend take a ride in it, he tells my other friend, and pretty soon there are five of us driving around in a car that only allows San Francisco lefts, and having the time of our lives.

To me, it is a mistake to suggest that sharing this idea more widely can result in determining it’s absolutely bad. It determines only that it’s not absolutely applicable, and/or appreciated. 

Sharing the idea is the only way to find out how to make it more widely accommodating, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the idea will get better.

Selling such a car would actually limit the amount of input received in a way that giving away the car, or at least the design would not, because fewer people can afford to pay, than simply receive such a gift. 

Asking for money is a custom in our culture, and I don’t see it as obligatory. Someone can ask me for a buck all day, and I never have to give it to them. 

Simply associating a dollar value with an idea doesn’t mean that idea is then required to have greater appeal, and not having greater appeal doesn’t make it bad.

So, if one was trying to avoid biased, or insulting language, something along the lines of singular, and plural schools of thought might help. If not, absolutism away ; )

It seems to me that if we play a game, and we have “bad” feelings about the experience, that it’s easy to conflate those with the game itself, especially, because playing such games is usually a huge investment of time.