Additionally VB devs no longer needed to rely on C++ for ActiveX controls, aka OCX, the VBX replacement.

P-code was still offered as an option because some wanted the smaller output binary sizes, and the build process was faster⁰.

Some incorrectly assume that the native option wasn't really fully compiled because the main supporting library (msvbvm60.dll) was still used¹, but this was for common library functions³ and the interpreter portion was not touched.

There were unofficial tools that would statically link your exe with the relevant VB runtime (and certain other libraries) but the use of those was rare.

----

[0] Though I don't think the build speed matter was actually significant for many, if any, workflows, even on really slow kit.

[1] Some didn't distribute it after a time, to reduce download sizes, as they were included with Windows so users already had them. Windows 7 (and maybe Vista?) included msvbvm60.dll and friends by default, and most XP and 98 installs² had it too as it came with Internet Explorer updates.

[2] though there was a compatibility break at one point that meant you needed to recompile with VB6sp6 if you hadn't included a local copy in your apps directory

[3] Much like many C programs don't have glibc statically linked into them, but work because it is practically ubiquitous on the systems they target.

Both QuickBASIC and the BASIC Professional Development System compiled to full native DOS code, and could make standalone EXE files.

VB finally gained this with VB 6 which could also make native EXE files.

It didn't output p-code. You're confusing it with Visual Basic.

Real BASIC seemed the only alternative to VB that was somehow still market relevant.