Not sure about cod battlefield or halo but in siege there's no bullshit loot box to unlock weapons that can drastically change the outcome of each engagement
If you're talking about the dlc operators is not pay to win because they're still balanced affording
I never said that these games used loot boxes (some do, some don't) but each has a gameplay affecting progression system. Even if Siege's DLC operators are truly well balanced (I suspect, like anything else, some are a little better and some are a little worse), having a larger range of operators is undeniably advantageous. Regardless, even in Rainbow Six you have to pay ingame currency to unlock weapon attachments.
For what it's worth, Rainbow Six: Siege is by far the best of that bunch, but it's not entirely above this kind of thing. Also, for what it's worth, I'm not against gameplay affecting progression systems, but a lot of people seem to be acting as if they don't exist in older games which is totally untrue.
I gotta disagree. I don't know about COD, but the rest of those games are pretty balanced. Yea they have loot boxes, but players without them can easily hold their own. In Siege especially, you only unlock Operators, and they are pretty balanced.
You seem to have a very imprecise definition of balanced. A level one player is at a pretty spectacular disadvantage compared to a max level player in all of those games except for Siege. It doesn't break those games, but then I doubt Battlefront II's system will either.
I am playing devil's advocate here to some extent, but I do think some are being a bit hasty to lay the smackdown here when really this is just a continuation of a trend rather than some wholly new level of bullshit. Discussions around microtransactions are far too often argued in black and white terms which makes it entirely pointless. This is a very grey area and we should start treating it as such.