I'm curious why you're so against these? On the one hand you say that you're very much against them (although with no backing as to why), and on the other you state that, as with playing The Division you're still running around in the same original wearables (something for which B< I believe you will start with barely any wearables at all) and you think the same will happen for B<.
Those statements are a little contradictory imo. If you feel that you'll only be running around in the first best set of wearables you find, why so against others that want to wear something different, or even relatively unique to the sets available through progression - and more importantly, would be willing to pay the devs for to attain?
If anything, as the wearables are horizontal (with the exception of stat enhancing rings - which I don't believe should be sold for real money), it's just another form of character customisation... something that you already stated that you're ok with!
With blueprints, I don't believe players should be able to upload their designs - it's already been designed as an in-game mechanic, and it should remain in game, as a tradable item for in-game coin or other items.
They should be tradable by player interaction as well, not just by plinths. I think there would be a certain amount of people that would pay real money for a dev designed building that could get them started - they could be price scaled by beacon size and/or complexity of the build. After a time, when master builders start to appear and are able to start trading their designs, I think that particular revenue stream would fizzle out a lot. But I guess that would depend on what the in-game price was for blueprints and how attainable they would be.
I'm ok with these, but I feel they should be alternatives to emotes already within the game, and not for core game features such as the trading animation - for example, a different set of dance moves, or a different rude gesture.
I'm not sure how well that would work, as according to several posts about private worlds - the person paying the rent will have complete control over the server anyway. If they want more area to build they can just restrict who can place blocks or beacons on their world.
I'm ok with this - we already have different pricing tiers which allow this anyway (albeit permanently, not rented), so it wouldn't be game breaking really. Although there is the argument that this could be considered an unfair advantage for those with money to throw at it.
I'm not sure how well this would work as I believe portals are tied into progression. And I strongly believe that people will still use the original worlds they started on as their home world, if anything to be away from others that have decided to uproot to the next one.
Additionally, I know if I moved onto the next world, I would probably remove all the blocks I had placed and the beacons that covered them ... blocks = coin. Plus if the blocks weren't removed, but the beacon was, world regeneration would claim back anything that was changed anyway.
I'm definitely in favour of real world items as a possible revenue stream as well.
If there were things like 3D character models, t-shirts, wrist bands, baseball caps etc, I'm sure people would snap these up! There have already been several posts from people asking for such things.