This is also survivorship bias. Plenty of companies would love to support their game post launch and make this much money, but they go under trying to follow the same playbook; even the ones that were successful doing so before.

I should totally put release date on there too. Just a sec, will add on a column with that.

F2P games are subsidized by a small minority who will throw a hundred dollars a month into the game to obtain and max out whatever FOMO event or item/character is on rotation, and by an even smaller group of obscenely wealthy (or mentally ill) players who will spend tens of thousands of dollars just to say they own everything.

I'd honestly be fine with this model if the ones funding it were treated like patrons of the arts or something, but instead the industry hired a bunch of psychologists to run incredibly unethical experiments to create literally addictive design patterns encouraging the weak-willed or mentally ill to spend more.

Modern F2P game design is predatory and downright evil in the way it's carefully cultivated to be just fun enough to continue playing, while constantly dangling the promise of more enjoyment if you'd only spend a tiny bit more (with that 'bit more' often only granting a small chance at getting what you want, with 'pity' systems only guaranteeing the desired drop if you spend the equivalent of around a hundred bucks in premium currency). But since it's obscenely profitable, I don't foresee it going away without legislation banning those practices.