While I do hate loot crates with the fire of a thousand suns, I’m still curious about the game itself. I used to play BF 1942, BF Vietnam, and even BF 2142 a good amount. However, when they moved to unlocks it really turned me off from the game even though they took no money to “purchase,” just time. This was frustrating to me as the gameplay did seem to improve (not always steadily, but still improved) as new versions came out. But the thing was, I felt like I was playing more for the unlock rather than the win, and that just wasn’t so fun.
That said, I know it’s not a popular opinion. Unlocks exist to encourage gamers to go online and keep the community going, and they also become points of pride for the gamers and essentially “thank you notes” from the developers for playing so much. There’s nothing inherently bad about unlocks, but they just don’t jive with my playstyle.
It’s kind of like Steam achievements; when I get one, I think “Oh, neat!” I see how common or uncommon it is, see if there’s any humor or added meaning, and then dive back in the game. I don’t feel like I’m playing for the achievements because they don’t impact the actual game.
So I wonder; do you think the game would be best to play (not best for business - that’s a different question) if everything was unlocked from the get-go, unlocked via a campaign progress, or by accumulating points over time?