Don't worry, I didn't think you were trying to convince us! I just like to explain things

The key thing here is something we struggle with A LOT, which is that perception is way more important than what is actually going on. An interesting example is the dance we had to play with Flop Rocket for where to put the pay wall.
We knew we were going to do it, but exactly where to put it is not obvious. We could have said, "after 50 runs you can't play anymore until you buy it!" but that kind of hard paywall just pisses people off. So we wanted a "horizontal" paywall (a payfence?) so that players could play the game forever, and even beat it, without making the purchase. The problem then is which content falls behind the fence? If we put too little up for free, players won't get to play enough to know they like the game. If we put too much up for free, the remaining content seems less valuable and is therefore harder to convince people to buy.
If you look at each of our games and where the payments are, then look at play complaints in the reviews, you can see this problem in action! In Flop Rocket especially, people frequently ask "why do I have to pay another $3 just to access more upgrade tracks? Why isn't it all free?" because they aren't framing it as "this game is $3" but instead "the REST of this game is $3". These are functionally the same, but subjectively quite different. And, consequently, people's willingness to pay and complain totally depend on how they perceive (frame) what the purchase means!