Unfortunately the technological progression of video games is what allowed for this in the first place. When games couldn't rely on constant internet access, there was no way to have smaller in game purchases. It also wouldn't be possible to monitor your players for the purposes of figuring out how to exploit them most effectively either.

This is one of the main reasons I'm against loot boxes, because they are within easy reach of children. There is a reason that you can't legally gamble until you're 18, and loot boxes seem like a way of sidestepping the law because it isn't technically gambling, although it is functionally similar.

Funnily enough, another reason is that players don't technically "own" virtual items. The most basic form is that when a game finally shuts down, the players have no rights to the items they purchased, but there are some other effects of this. If a company removes an in-game item which someone paid for, there isn't really anything the player can do.

I've read a great article from someone who is supposedly a former free to play developer, who talked about this exact thing. There are a lot of tricks that they can use to weasel information out of you, such as having you link social media accounts to the game, which they can then scan for information, and learn more than you would expect.

Heres the link: https://toucharcade.com/2015/09/16/we-own-you-confessions-of-a-free-to-play-producer/

I really enjoy this definition of what is considered a predatory practice. I've had trouble articulating what exactly I find to be predatory, despite being able to notice these practices easily enough. It really is just something that tricks the player long enough to catch them it their snare, where its much harder to escape.