Recently, the new rules for airdrops have sparked quite a bit of discussion. Let's first see how the studios are playing it—

The mainstream methods for accumulating points are basically these. Using the 2+17 configuration, you spend about 240 yuan per month to reach 19 points, aiming for the core reward of 285 points. Or, by downgrading a bit, 2+16 costs around 100 yuan monthly and reliably earns 18 points, enough to reach 270 points. The most popular is actually the 2+15 setup, which costs just over 50 yuan per month to get 17 points, easily reaching 255 points—lowest cost while still grabbing plenty of good stuff. There are even more cost-effective options, like 2+14 for 23 yuan per month, or the 1+15 which offers incredible value, especially suitable for bulk account creation.

But what’s truly interesting is the earning side. Suppose each airdrop consistently yields around 40 yuan; with the 285-point setup, you can claim 6 times, netting 300 yuan. The 270-point setup allows 4 claims, earning about 110 yuan. The 255-point setup also offers 4 claims, with profits close to 150 yuan. Even the lowest configuration at 240 points can net 80 yuan from 2 airdrops. And the 1+15 setup, with just 2 airdrops, can bring in 45 yuan—potentially up to over 5000 yuan for a single account.

Here’s the problem. Whether the threshold is set at 220 or 240, studios don’t really care; in fact, it might even inadvertently harm regular players. The new rules add a point deduction mechanism for claiming, making it look more strict. But what’s the result? High-score rewards are likely to be monopolized by studios, making it even harder for retail users to accumulate points.

Once airdrops remain steady at around 40 yuan each over the long term, studios are likely to coordinate and push the threshold above 240 points. At that point, retail players will have even less to sustain themselves. In the future, grabbing a reward casually? It might not be that easy anymore.

Speaking of which, the original intention of the rules might have been to pursue fairness, but in practice, it often turns into a phenomenon: those with resources call the shots. Project teams need to keep a close eye on point inflation and the balance of the real ecosystem, so that a good rule doesn’t end up being distorted.