Well, I agree and disagree on the "politics" statements. Largely, I think there's just more nuance needed here to have a meaningful discussion, because he's making some broad statements.
Games are an art form. Using this art form, creative individuals can express themselves - express their beliefs, their views, and their politics. I think that's fine, as it is for every other art form. Look at Metal Gear Solid, Deus Ex, slews of JRPGs. No one complains about "muh politics" there, because the political stuff is in the game's story that the player is invited to interpret and interact with in meaningful ways.
With more modern games, though, the politics isn't in the game's story - it's in the game's development and marketing. Battlefield V's "story" is about as "unpolitical" as you can get in gaming - Nazi's bad, player good, shoot more, think less. Yet, I'd label it a very political game, because it attempts to re-write extremely well documented 20th century war-time history using 21st century social-media virtue signalling. The latter is the kind of "politics in games" that needs to go the way of the dodo, while the former, I think, is largely already celebrated. If Sweeney is referring to the latter form of politics, I agree with him in full. But if he's referring to the former, I think his Chinese overlords are exerting a little too much control.
In any case, with the loot box stuff - I agree in full. AAA video games need to decide if they're just pachinko machines, or if they're something more - and by something more, I don't mean "movies disguised as video games" to stroke The Writer's ego. I mean the immersive sim, dynamic narrative, interactive experiences that only video games can be. I really, really hope they go with latter.
