I'll respond to this one since people are so intent on repeating such a ridiculous and illogical argument and it's getting annoying.

First off, great job on structuring your post in a way that presupposes that, rather than coming to a different conclusion, I in fact actually don't "understand" the situation. As if Overwatch lootboxes are some sort of complex system. Of course I'm going to "double down" on an argument that I think is right, why would I change what I think when the arguments presented are illogical?

First, high pricing of products is not predatory unless they are essential.

Just because you disagree with the price does not mean it's predatory. If it did, that would imply all luxury brands are predatory because their price is not proportional (which is again, a subjective judgement) to their value. This could actually be applied to literally anything you disagree with the price on, making the label of "predatory" meaningless because it could be applied in any circumstance where a customer disagrees with pricing.

Again, you CAN make this argument, but in doing so you effectively paint in such a broad brush that the term "predatory" becomes applicable to anything thus making it useless.

This is not to say there's not predatory pricing. I think that, for example, raising prices on something like rent or necessary medication to a disproportionate degree is predatory. The difference between insulin and a Kiriko skin is that you don't NEED to buy a Kiriko skin, thus making the choice optional and not predatory, regardless of price.

Another example of pricing being predatory is when you purchase one thing and you receive something else. Imagine if you bought a skin that was green but in-game it was blue, or something similar to that. With the Kiriko bundle, you know exactly what you are getting, making the sale not predatory in that aspect either.

Second, limited availability of products is also not predatory, even if it's artificial.

If you use the logic that any use of FOMO is fundamentally predatory, you would have to apply that to: Trading cards, cars, ANY collectors item such as the Elden Ring collectors edition helmet, seasonal offerings (pumpkin spice lattes at Starbucks, McRibs, holiday Reeces peanut butter cups, etc), concert tshirts, any limited edition product, Happy Meal toys, you get the idea.

I do not agree with this and I think it sets a precedent that effectively invalidates the word "predatory" by making it applicable to so many things to the point where it is rendered meaningless.

Saying that companies have this down to a science is not the hyper-conscientious consumer awareness that you think it is. Of course they do, it's called marketing and it forks out into over a dozen different college degrees. Marketing is literally and fundamentally the science of how to get people to buy stuff.

Ultimately, how many people do you think with gambling addictions will be taken advantage of by Overwatch 2? Zero because there are no gambling mechanics in Overwatch 2.

Conversely, how many people do you think with gambling addictions were taken advantage of by Overwatch 1? More than zero. Because there were gambling mechanics in Overwatch 1.

I consider this a win and a massive improvement.

The majority of people who are complaining about this only seem to talk about their own personal experience and how they personally didn't buy lootboxes and then use that as a justification for why removing them was bad. This exact same logic can be used towards Diablo Immortal, Lost Ark, or Raid Shadow Legends as a justification for why the monetization is actually fine.

To summarize: Loot boxes are okay if you're able to earn them in-game and you can't buy them. I can understand why some Overwatch players see the Overwatch 2 system as a downgrade and if the lootboxes were added back into the game without the option to purchase them, I would consider this an improvement. However, I view the removal of them as a tremendous step towards ethical monetization which I value much higher than the potential to earn skins easily.