And if one does not accept this as authoritative?
A better description would probably be "argues that games are a form of art." That doesn't carry the connotation of necessary correctness.
There were acquisitions between those two events. So the set of assets sold in the two transactions were not the same. That would explain at least part of the difference.
Sure, if you ignore the actual context of this discussion, this might be relevant. In this discussion, however, "fantasy" is clearly being used in the "elves and wizards" sense.
I for one am very surprised to learn that some people who play RPGs prefer to play them in ways that I don't, but at least I can rest assured that I'm the one actually playing the game while they're just doing something that I can poo-poo.
This response is mind-boggling. The post you quoted explicitly states, multiple times over, that's it's all about their personal preferences. It could not be any clearer that they are speaking for themselves. The fact that you read it otherwise is on you.
If there are soulless self-aware beings, then souls are clearly not key in differentiating self-awareness. And in such a case, the attitude that they are "just robots" is gross, which was my point.
It is not inherently capricious. If you interpret it as such, that's as much on you as the speaker. The solution here is to not assume capriciousness without a real reason to. Don't make assumptions.
I play elfgames. The idea that I would be dismissive of my own hobbies is interesting to say the least.
As noted above, it's a term that tries to put things in perspective when discussing this hobby.
This is a massive misrepresentation of my words. I said that calling something like that described above "just a robot" is gross. That if you don't have a soul in a world where souls exist you're a lesser being, you're "just a robot." That idea is gross.