I can understand that, but it is 'second order reasoning'. The logic there is 'if you have to work for something you'll appreciate it more, so you'll have more fun'. While that seems reasonably on paper, the overwhelming feedback has been:"this isn't fun.". So it needs to change. I enjoyed playing the CG in my Vulture. I wouldn't have enjoyed it more if FD first made me grind 50 hours extra for my vulture.
Grind, in general, is a negative thing. Grind is when people feel forced to do something they dont enjoy to get to a part of the game they would enjoy. Its part the fault of gamers who want to do the most efficient thing even if its no fun, and part the fault of designers looking to pad the game with 'content' that requires no additional dev time. Ideally, a game consists of repeatable loops that are fun to some parts of the community, with everyone having at least one or a few loops they enjoy, and with no 'non-core' loops being mandatory for everyone.
For example, in a shooter you can be a medic, sniper or assault trooper. All of them have their own loops, are fun to some but not to others. A quick way to add grind is to say you have to be an assault trooper for 50 hours before you get to be a medic. A better design would be to give choice to the player from the start. Mandatory parts should only exist as a quick and easy introduction of something new, to save the player from frustration had they not known that bit of info.
FD should comb through the ED design and ask at any step:"To whom is this fun?". If the answer is 'it is all but universally loathed' it should simply go no matter what original reasoning existed behind it.
