Some free games manage to go by using advertisement generated revenue (I know it’s not easy). So in effect you can have a grid of 4 different types of games, and on each axis – it’s polarizing, look at Runescape Free servers and compare the community and players with those of paying gamers. I know people to whom F2P is like a stigma for a game that is heavy on interactions (like MMORPG games are), because you will have loads of spammers, scammers and 10-14 year olds unable to speak full sentences (though Free to play web strategy games are a lot more bearable, as it’s a lot more difficult to scam/spam in them, and frankly – there is no point, also – you can annihilate anyone you don’t like, and bam – he’s gone).

So if you would look at “The Reincarnation” a niche web based strategy game, it’s free, but a lot of people would quit the second someone can buy in game stuff that gives any kind of strategic advantage.
If you would suddenly make it possible to play WoW for free, I’d guess it would become a gold farmer hellhole with every spawn camped by 20 guys.

I personally would rather play a Pay to Play + RMT than a Free to Play game that is not designed to separate me from people that I don’t like and don’t want to deal with

SOE has stated they intend to retain their current subscription model. As with all of their other controversial moves they will lose a certain percentage of their player base. That has happened in the past and despite those who question their compentency, they can add and subtract and obviously decided that in light of the state of the game this was a worthwhile risk. I really dont see them changing their policies towards bug fixes and additional content as long as they continue to charge a monthly fee. Doing that would IMO be more damaging than allowing someone to pay $5 to buy a dodad for their house.

Then it would just be a matter of making sure that the people that have paid for the additional content stay interested in the lower level content so those areas aren’t ghost towns.

My question is, since they are going to continue with subscriptions, are they still going to fix bugs and more importantly update the game with additional content?

There have been endless discussions on RMT, so the arguments of any of these groups are well known.
Basically the RMT lovers say: It is my money, so I can do with it what I want. And it happens anyway, whether officially allowed or not.
Those who don’t care say: As long as I don’t do RMT it doesn’t affect me. If it affects you, it is your fault that you let it affect you in your brain. It’s just a game after all.
Those who hate it say: RMT gives an unfair advantage to those with a bigger wallet, and therefore it’s unethical.

Of course there are still some more arguments. And for the record: I myself am an avid RMT hater. It’s just in my psychology I guess I quite playing all SOE games back in 2005, when they introduced Station Exchange for EQ2. Some friends did understand, some did not; some also left, some stayed. But I never regretted my decision (much more so right now).

Now looked at it from a larger viewpoint, any company has to realize that these 3 different groups exist, and likely will always exist. All talk of “revenue system XYZ is the future” is just propaganda.
Therefore, different revenue models have to exist, since there is a market niche for each of them. No matter what you do, F2P with microtransactions, base flat rate per month, single lifetime payment, item/plat trade for RL money allowed or not allowed… you will always find a significant amount of players who like your model and who hate your model.

But the important thing is that a given game needs a certain continuity. If your model is base flat rate per month without item shop, you have attracted a good bunch of players, who hate item shops. If you now suddenly introduce an item shop into your game, a lot of players (though not all) will feel cheated and leave in disgust. If a lot of people leave, this is bad for your community, even for those “non-carers” who stay.

I guess that SOE did some math, and SOE obviously expects they make more money with their Station Cash than they loose money from leaving subscribers.
I think they will fall flat or their nose. Why?
We know they also did some math before the NGE came, and we know how they failed.
We know they also did some math before the Station Exchange came, and I am pretty sure they failed here too (SOE claims that the SE was a success, but I don’t believe it, simply because SE was not introduced to any other SOE or non-SOE game ever since).

Short summary: As company, choose the revenue model you want. All is fine, but announce it before the game goes live and don’t make sudden changes after release.

You’re not catching what I mean. It’s how people likely perceive the model.

@Jason: Exactly… Which is why this is lame. Add to that, Imagine if I come in with friends. Imagine that they have money to blow on those pots, and I don’t. These games are about advancement. Do you think they’re going to wait around for you to “keep-up”? Another reason why this is sad. I rather not deal with it.

Yeah, no subscription games have gone bye-bye