My purchasing decisions have no relevance to Overwatch's shortcomings. Or issues.
And not buying it, does not place Overwatch above criticism.

It's also worth mentioning that... The added content should have been there on launch anyway as the content that has been added over 18 months hasn't exactly been massive.

And I happily criticize those Micro-transactions too.
Whether I buy or play a game has no bearing on whether I can/cannot give criticism.

In-case you aren't aware... Blizzard is extremely community focused, they tend to take criticism on board, Diablo 3 being a prime example.
Criticism got rid of the market place, criticism is what made the game more reliable... And to top it off, Blizzard has consistently added free content for free and made it a far better game than it was on launch.

Criticizing the lack of a campaign and multiplayer content are valid criticisms... So no. I will not stop "whining". - I will keep on "whining" as I am entitled to do so... And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, so deal with it.

Doesn't matter how often/not often such a thing has occurred. My point is still relevant.
But if you wish for me to provide more examples I can?

It wasn't necessary. It was the principle of the matter.
Such an "item" would have been a free mod on PC. Free. Think about that for a moment.

And it should have been included in the base game anyway.

I don't understand how you can defend anti-consumer practices such as DLC, Microtransactions, Loot boxes and so on?
It does nothing good for us gamers.

I don't mind developers finding a way to increase their profits, but don't do it at the expense of the game or gamers.

In-fact, some developers have taken some pretty great approaches... Like in-game advertising, for instance roaming around a large city and having a Coca Cola billboard sign in the game to bring in advertising revenue.

Halo 5's scheme was garbage.
The Req systems wrecked the game, it is easily the worst Halo in the entire franchise.
Halo 5's graphics were (Still are... Even on the Xbox One X) mediocre, gameplay was a regression, Micro-transactions added no real value to the game or gameplay, game was missing vital features on release, story was convoluted.

I prefer Halo 3's system better... Where the map was littered with vehicles, weapons and powerups. - You know what that did to gameplay? It added strategy.
It added depth to the gameplay.
It became important to gain map control over certain areas to try and gain an advantage... And the hard part was to keep that advantage.

Now Halo 5's fun is hidden behind a rubbish unlock scheme, don't have a card unlock for a tank? Stiff shit. You aren't driving a tank... But the enemy who can have a tank has a massive field advantage compared to you who cannot have a tank.
You see how that is an issue for balance?

I am hoping Halo 6 isn't a continuation of the rubbish Halo 5 has introduced... Because guess what? It will draw my criticism as well... And will reaffirm the fact that Halo is no longer the great franchise it once was.

Not buying Overwatch can be criticism on its own. But if you buy it in spite of shortcomings, then you saw value in what it is. Hence, games can have value even if they don't scratch every itch.

Some games add relatively little content and sell it as an expensive season pass. Again, I rather have the actual gameplay content free and aesthetic stuff be the optional purchases.

I'm pointing out F2P games tend to be more aggressive with the micro transaction crap and it can affect gameplay. So maybe F2P titles are kinda a bad example?

I think its fine to want more content in Overwatch and I'm sure its coming. But you also knew what you buying into. If a campaign is crucial for you, that doesn't mean Blizzard did something wrong. It means you bought the wrong game.

Provide all the examples you want, it wasn't standard. However, online focused games have a tendency to keep adding content to keep people coming back.

You saw the horse armor as something that should have been free and they screwed us by selling it! I saw it as useless content that had no impact on the game. Its just funny, Oblivion did so much right but you focus on some useless DLC. I don't take you seriously, I just see whining.

Its evident games, big and small, aren't limiting their profit opportunities at simply buying the game. It would be great for us consumers if they did, but its not gonna happen. So we should simply research the games we buy and decide if its worth the price.

I still wanna play Battlefront 2, but there is no chance I will pay full price because I know what it is and its not worth it to me.

Increase profits but don't do it at the expense of the game or gamers? Okay, the game shouldn't be ruined because an attempt to make more money. But loot boxes at their best simply eliminate selling actual game content but don't create some sort of imbalance either.

You're simply being critical of Halo 5's Warzone mode and its use of consumable cards, but what impact does that have on the traditional competitive modes? None.

The value of the micro transactions was no map packs. They micro transactions are basically times savers to buy card packs. For traditional PvP modes, the card packs are just aesthetic content. That's the ideal scenario for me.

You keep going on tangents, I don't care about what you think of Halo 5 as a whole. I'm simply focusing on how it used micro transactions without breaking the game. Its just Warzone mode that uses consumable cards that impacts gameplay. I suggest just ignoring Warzone if that bothers you.

The hits keep on coming, folks: EA's shenanigans have caused them to lose $3.1 billion in shares as a result of the BF II backlash.

Now hopefully Activision will get their just desserts for THEIR scummy ways of conducting "business".