For once, I have to disagree! (This is good - discourse is growth :) )
Specifically about "You're the boss":
Note: I'm a big newbie on Splinterlands and haven't tried other blockchain games, so pardon my ignorance here
1. Does owning the coin grant "choosing power"?
As far as I know, even if you're a HUGE player with giant wins, you don't really get a say in the development of the game itself, do you?
I mean, you could threaten to leave and remove a big player (yourself) from the game if they do things you disagree with, but in theory the same could be said for a professional e-gamer to leave LoL if he doesn't like some change in the game, too.
2. This is technically (but not realistically) a feature in publicly traded companies
On the contrary, you could in theory become a shareholder in the devs of Call of Duty (cool fact I just learned - turns out that every other CoD game has a different dev - https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Call_of_Duty_developers).
Realistically of course, your 10,000$ buy-in (assuming you're THAT invested) won't give you any real say on the direction of the company. Only the board of directors decides that stuff. But in theory if you're a millionaire you could buy up shares of the dev until you get a say.
3. Fan suggestions are not blockchain-speciic
Indie devs especially (but not only) listen to what their fandom says on forums. This is of course entirely dependent on company culture (menacing look at Blizzard), but is a known phenomenon.
So I guess what I mean is - isn't company culture and willingness to listen to fans more important than whether the game is on the blockchain or not?
- I suppose there is a strong argument to be made that since the gamers ARE the investors, that you don't get this gross corporate "remove that, add that, marketing team says it will sell more... add loot boxes even if players hate it..." etc.
P.S. Tagging 
RE: Only Blockchain games will exist in the future