IAP of extra game levels, something that extends existing game universe without changing the rules (and that also maps onto a non-trivial work on developer's end) is NOT a sham.
This jibes pretty well with me, in regards to most games. However, where do games like EVE Online fit in, where (IIRC) a month's subscription is an item in the game world that you can pay real money for and trade with others (who are using their in-game wealth to pay for their game subscription)? Technically it does confer advantages to people with cash to spare (who can bypass normal progression through trade), but the way it links the in-game economy to the real world and the fact that it's an organic, player-driven process and not some "pay2win shop" makes it seem more legitimate to me.
I've never actually played the game, so I don't know how well it works for them, but it's always seemed like an interesting idea to me, and EVE has a lot of hardcore fans that don't seem bothered by it.
So, if I can IAP to get an extra 5 moves in a puzzle game, or infinitely replay the same level and get stuck, never playing the game again, that's a sham?
What about currencies/powerups that I can either get via IAP vs social obligation? I'd rather pay than bug my friends.
(Of course, one argument is that none of these mechanics should exist in the first place. But they do.)
IAP of extendable resources is a sham.
IAP of shortcuts and powerups is a sham.
IAP of extra game levels, something that extends existing game universe without changing the rules (and that also maps onto a non-trivial work on developer's end) is NOT a sham.
Easy-peasy.