We can discuss the issue  till the cows come home. The journal  Nature has in my view rightly earned its place as have some of the journals in the real sciences --reproducebility/replicability, etc.

 There are also open journals, which are less commercial. As a double-blind reviewer, I am often surprised  with what I read -- I then ask for the data but the journals do not have a policy of asking for the data.  As you know,  there is thing called data massaging, dropping outliers, deleting data that runs counter to a  warmly embraced hypothesis...

First and foremost you should aim your paper for the journals that cater most closely match your target audience. Second, do a reality check with Beall's list of predatory publishers to ensure that the journal is not blacklisted. Third, all things being equal, choose journals with highest claimed impact factors consistent with your belief about how good your research is. Finally, all remaining things being equal, choose a journal that has no or the lowest submission charge. In practice, there is usually one outstanding journal that looks as if it will accept your paper, so just aim for it.

I recently noticed that some journals advertise impact factors that are not authentic. If you see impact factors that are not SJR or Thomson-Reuters (such as "Global Impact Factor", "Universal Impact Factor", etc') you should stay away from that journal. If you suspect that the impact factor is not authentic, you can check it with SJR or JCR.

But relying on impact factors might not be the optimal criterion to choose a journal. You should choose by the readership and the general reputation of the journal in the field rather than the impact factor, which is a function of numerous factors that have little or nothing to do with quality or impact on the field.