I don't think Overwatch's progression system could possibly be any less meaningful. Leveling is a glacial process; rewards are undefined and often disappointing. The stick is too long and the carrot is too small. I'm sure Blizzard has a better idea of what drives their playerbase than I do, but I think competitive rankings and seasonal events play a much bigger role. And, again, Overwatch has that dripfeed of free, semi-regular updates.
The dripfeed of updates that need to be paid for by someone somewhere is somewhat tangential, because... the games that have RNG uncapped player spending tend to also have ongoing support, the games that sell specific DLCs as one off purchases.... tend to be one and done annual installments, so let's shelve that.
It seems obvious that for a multiplayer focussed game to maintain a critical mass that keeps it 'alive', it needs a progression system that players enjoy fulfilling.
You can argue whether that in itself is a good or bad thing, but market realities are that it is a necessity.
Just ask Lawbreakers.
So; is a 'good' progression system one that is fairly 'light' in consequence, and has no real demands on a player other than time spent playing the game?
Or is a 'good' progression system one that directly affects gameplay, and has specific criteria a player must be able to prove they are capable of before progressing?
An example of the first is OW. Levels are meaningless outside of showing you when you get a next 'goody bag'. 'Goody bags' provide no gameplay benefits. Anyone can get to whatever level they want.
An example of the second is CoD. Levels require specific tasks to be achieved, and if you cannot achieve those tasks, fuck you you;re staying where you are. The rewards for levelling have direct gameplay impact.
