We saw this more openly back during the previous generation... I can remember both EA and Ubisoft commenting about it... one a major reasons third parties were pushing for a Xbox Live like paywalls on the other consoles was because of simple standard accounting practices. When money is collected for a service, that money can only be claimed as revenue as the service is performed. Without a paywall, revenue from the actual game sale was being deferred over many quarters to cover the online services. With a paywall, game sales revenue could be claimed immediately because service costs were being covered elsewhere. In theory, it shouldn't have mattered one way or the other, but in practice publishers liked being able to claim huge profits after Christmas.
If this is still a factor, then it would make sense why F2P games wouldn't be effected. There is no need for deferment as service costs can spread across short-term items, like Battle Passes.
Damn, this is a good point, lol.
Not really. There has always been a balance between "best experience" and "as much money" long before F2P games were a thing. Street Fighter II, CE, Turbo, Super, Super Turbo, and Super Turbo Ultimate EX HD were not made with just "the best experience" in mind. The key has always been to find a means to get more money by means that the consumer is conformable with. There are companies that have done it well and those that have done it poorly. F2P games are not inherently any different. ResetGAF just has a new word they like to use every time someone doesn't personally like something that costs money.
