I think Fortnite is just a bad example. It's one of the few games where you don't feel at a complete disadvantage when you choose not to spend money on it.
Yeah, if anything I think Fortnite does a good job of avoiding gambling and preserving the integrity of free-to-play.
Loot crates, which are basically slot machines, don't exist. You buy what you see, a skin.
They make a lot of money from skins but once again, there's no in-game advantage. It's purely cosmetic so at the end of the day even if you don't give Epic a dime you're still on a level playing field with everyone else.
I agree, Fortnite handles this pretty well. The only thing I would describe as somewhat manipulative would be their store. Having a rotation that only lasts a day or two rather than allowing players to purchase the items that they want evokes a feeling of "If I don't purchase this skin now, how long is it going to be before I get another chance?" I have a few friends who stockpile skins that they think are "alright" just in case they want to use them in the future.
A simpler example is Battlefield 1942 vs Battlefield 5, 1, or any of the recent entries: the first had zero unlocks; everything was available, and it was a game for the fun of it. In the newer entries, the unlocks and other bars you fill provide a sense of achievement and progress, and maybe that just gives players with fun objectives to do while playing but the cynic in me sees people gloating about 1000 kills with the Kolibri and thinks it's more about preying on addictive tendencies.
