I personally prefer alternative monetization methods to season passes/paid packs, but I don't see why lootboxes have to be that alternative method or why they have to be implemented in a way that can compromise gameplay balance.
While I've never been a fan of lootboxes, Battlefront II is the first game with lootbox implementation that I actually found egregious. Unlike Overwatch, DICE has made lootboxes contain the Battlefront equivalent of perks (Star Cards), small stat boosts that dole out advantages. By design, this is a system that will favour those with more money to spend, as more money means a greater opportunity to get better cards. Battlefront II's implementation may not completely pay-to-win just yet, but within a year's time we've already gone from boxes that were purely cosmetic (Overwatch) to boxes that affect gameplay in a competitive environment. That's really unsettling! Is it great that I won't have to worry about underpopulated DLC playlists in Battlefront II? Of course! But the further of encroaching of gameplay-altering lootboxes doesn't make me think it will have been worth it, at least in the long run. Once again, I realize that publishers are going to want to a way subsidize post-release content, and that it's probably unrealistic to expect years of free content, but it's worth keeping in mind that the
last Battlefront game sold over 14 million copies within its first six months. It's not like EA is going to need to resort to lootboxes in BF2 to keep the lights on, especially when there are other ways to ensure a continuous stream of revenue post-release that aren't so blatantly anti-consumer.
For example, while Rainbow Six Siege recently introduced purely cosmetic boxes (Alpha Packs), all of the items found inside are also just the regular cosmetic items that can still be purchased through in-game currency (Renown). Unlike Overwatch, Renown isn't found in lootboxes, you earn it just from completing matches and in-game challenges, meaning you're not limited or tied to the lootbox economy just to customize your character. In addition, there are premium cosmetics that are purchased through one-time microtransactions (not RNG based), and a season pass implementation that only provides instant and early access to new characters while ensuring the playerbase is never fragmented due to everyone sharing the same map pool. In this case you could still take issue with the existence of lootboxes purely out of principal, but it's undeniable that Siege's methods of post-launch monetization are much less anti-consumer than that of Battlefront II or Call of Duty.
In the end I just don't see why the alternative to paid map packs has to be lootboxes, or why publishers can't find a way to implement lootboxes and/or other post-launch monetization methods that aren't potentially detrimental to the competitive game balance.
