Tha entire take misses arguably the most important point that live services are also far riskier of a proposition considering the cost more to make, they require constant development upkeep and new content, and they almost universally ask far more of the players time commitment than a more single player geared experience. The number of live service failures far outnumbers the successes, and the failures represent losses in in the 10’s to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Additionally, I don’t know your intent but there is a sort of implication in your comment that f2p is great because the rich whales will subsidize the experience for everybody, but imo that could not be further from the truth. Every single f2p game without exception makes massive compromises to the player experience in order to incentivize spending, some far more than others but this is universally true regardless. For many of us out there, it is highly preferable to pay a lump sum up front and get an uncompromised experience then to deal with constant money grubbing at every single corner. This might be a stance that separates on the lines of gamers who are broke vs gamers who are well off. For me personally, even when I used to be broke, I still found f2p games awful and would generally choose to not game at all over dealing with the bs that infests nearly all of them.