I still haven't seen a good argument as to why loot crates are better than just being able to buy the thing you want.
From the individualistic perspective that detractors cite - that they have insufficient reasons to be playing the game for fun anymore and are playing for unlocks - there obviously isn't.
You buy the thing you want, you are now sated, and can move onto the next game.
From a publishers perspective, it removes (or lessens) the spending
cap; there are people out there that enjoy your game enough that they
want to pay more than their entry sticker price, but if you put a fixed price tag on everything, those people literally cannot pay more then that ever.
And if you think that is ludicrous, I ask you genuinely - have you ever played a game you enjoyed enough that you thought that the price you paid was actually
too good of a deal, and you wouldn't begrudge kicking the makers a little bit more than they asked?
Because I have.
Real World Example, I blind preordered the most expensive edition of Natural Selection 2, because I enjoyed Natural Selection 1 so much (and
it was free) that it felt like the very least I could do was back the developers, because they were doing something I liked that nobody else is.
If you've never felt like you've got more than your moneys worth in any game you've ever played, then okay, I'm not judging you, but have the courtesy to do the same.
From a game health perspective, if you can't pick the one skin you want for the one character you main, you continue playing the game until you do.
Maybe you get an amazing skin for a character you never really played as much, and give that character a shot because you have that skin, and maybe you grow to like that character and get to play the game a bit longer with 'fresh eyes' as a new gameplay style.
Playerbases sticking around are good for a games overall health because it means games are easy to find, and you can find fun games without getting owned because all that is left are the diehard superfans.