There is some merit to that but we aren't just counting players. People seem to be ultimately paying more. If mobile gaming was more available but also more affordable the revenue might not surpass console and PC games.
Which is no surprise, since most freemium games are structured to get players spending, dangling extra lives and new characters in front of them, often escalating to the point where even people grinding hours every day struggle to advance without paying. It's not uncommon to see people in mobile gaming communities saying how they spent thousands of dollars on a game and regretting it, something that is not even a possibility for console games without microtransactions.
The graph and tables are for total revenue across the industry and they even separate ad revenue into a different category. What this shows is that freemium is more expensive than paid at this point.
Expecting growth to keep up forever is investor nonsense, but it is very relevant that, up to 2021, mobile games which are largely based on the freemium model have overtaken the rest of the industry by far. Console and PC games are now a secondary market, which is sad to see.
It is an absolute sham that they aren't regulated as strictly as casinos, exclusively for adults, with the company liable if they fail to prevent minors from participating.
We are the problem in so much it's very well known that psychologically conditioning tactics work on the human brain.
The real problem is a lack of education and regulation. People know regular casino gambling is a problem but governments act to make people aware and limit its harm. Meanwhile even rating agencies play coy about the effects of lootboxes in games rated for actual children. They try to argue that it's not "real gambling" because players can't officially redeem rewards as money, but it's exactly the same as far as the negative effects go, incentiving compulsive spending which can be financially damaging.
You tried to argue with someone else over this, but the fact that more people played it, being F2P, means that more people can agree that they wouldn't recommend it. Given how Steam ratings work, that makes it the worst rated. There's no arguing how it is. You seem to take an issue with it as if it meant Gabe Newell personally stamped it with a 0/10, which is not how it works.
In Steam, being 4/10 for thousands of people is worse than being 0/10 for a couple people.
You are really trying to downplay the power of marketing, but you seem to realize that gets people playing. Not only that but live service design is very effective at keeping people playing even when they are not having any fun whatsoever. Because they gotta grind the battle pass and such. Extrinsic rewards and habit-forming conditioning making up for a lack of intrinsic enjoyment.
Still, I would agree with you that it's not the worst game on Steam, but like I mentioned in the other comment, that's not what steam ratings mean. It means that the vast majority people would not recommend it, and that seems pretty reasonable.