I am of the opinion that feedback is a meritocracy that should be valued based on the individual’s argumentative abilities and the experience they have on a game.
For instance, someone who mains a champion, class, or weapon, should be listened to when they’re upset about changes that’ll drastically affect their enjoyment - if a player has spent thousands of hours on one weapon and is upset that a change or update ruined that one weapon they enjoyed, then their opinion should absolutely be taken into account for future changes - your dedicated players are your most vital resource, these are the players that hype the product up, that create wikis, that spread word of mouth - their feedback matters.
On the same coin, if someone presents a really good argument and is able to debate their point on why they feel something in the game should be changed, then they too should be listened to. Critics who are able to dissect a system in full depth while presenting supporting details that ground their argument are absolutely worth listening to - these are the types of players who might have experience in the field, these are the types players who might have extensive experience in modding the game and do volunteer community work; I am reminded of this thread that was completely ignored:
With all that said, feedback is a very delicate thing to balance. What do you do if someone is able to argue really well why a weapon should be nerfed while another player who has 4k hours with that weapon is arguing against the nerf - I’m not sure.
One thing is for certain: someone who spends exorbitant amounts of monies on the game shouldn’t be taken seriously if they don’t even play the game, let alone provide adequate critical analysis for future changes. Just because you spend money doesn’t give you an advantage over another player’s feedback, period.