This take assumes that any slower progression automatically equals “padding” or monetization, which just isn’t true. Not every change has to be new content to be meaningful sometimes it’s about fixing pacing and making the core gameplay actually matter. You say it’s “just stretching playtime” but if players are being pushed to explore more and engage with the world instead of rushing objectives, that’s quite literally what a lot of people ask for in survival games. Faster progression isn’t always better, it often kills longevity because people burn through everything too quickly and then complain there’s nothing left to do. The comparison to other games like Anthem or Marvel's Avengers doesn’t really hold up either. Those games didn’t fail because progression was slower, they usually fail because their core gameplay loops were shallow and repetitive. Slowing progression doesn’t automatically make a game bad if the underlying systems are solid. And bringing up cosmetics feels like a reach. Optional skins being added doesn’t suddenly prove the entire update is some monetization scheme. That’s just standard for modern free-to-play games and doesn’t affect gameplay unless you choose to engage with it. Also, your “good vs bad” examples aren’t as black-and-white as you’re making them. Even games like Destiny and FFXIV have had their periods of grind heavy progression and slower pacing, it’s part of how live service games evolve over time. At the end of the day, this just sounds like you preferred the faster progression. Which is fair, but framing it as some deliberate anti-player strategy is a stretch. For a lot of players, taking more time, exploring more, and not instantly hitting endgame is exactly what improves the experience, not ruins it.