Mr Lindemann said it best, third parties don't have other sources of income. They need all the money a game can make them. Nintendo (or first party Sony/Microsoft developers) on the other hand don't have that problem. They don't need things like lootboxes or micro transactions.
And yet, development cost for games that Electronic Arts have made over the past 6 years has dipped, hitting a low since 2009 in 2016.
What it is is that Microtransactions offer stable profit Vs. the Boom-or-bust sorts of profit that just putting out more games and hoping they'd all sell tend to pay out. This, in turn, tantalizes investors to keep their money in EA as they make money hand-over-fist with Ultimate Team and-until Battlefront 2's big stink- Ultimate Team-like business models shoved into games like Dungeon Keeper Mobile, Need For Speed, Mass Effect 3's co-op hoarde mode thing.
likening this business practice to the likes of the Booster Pack or the Blindbag is frankly, disingenuous, and I do think the practice of monetization in this way is a predatory practice in ALL forms. sadly, unless the consumer base keeps up it's ire to the point where this sort of thing becomes unprofitable and profits from this sort of thing plateau, we're only going to continue down the slippery slope... and yeah, I know, slippery slope arguments are ****, but really, We have evidence of this ACTUALLY being the case so far.
You know what I'd be fine with? a company subscription service that has a monthly ceiling and you can spend your free tickets for digital tat in whatever game is under said subscription fee's banner... but otherwise it's stuff you can earn in game. yeah, you're still in insidious pay-2-win territory, but then there's at least a cap on the amount of pay-2-win buggery that goes on.