Okay, this helps me with my earlier question, but leads to further ones:
Isn't the business model still more complicated than what you've already laid out? (Not saying that you neglected anything, but just that it is an incomplete picture still.) Is it not also in the interest of the business for it to let the other payment models be viable, and for f2p to still be attractive gaming option, lest it leaves those players feeling like they are being heavily disadvantaged, making them dissatisfied, and therefore damaging the game in a different way?
Is discussing business models something that is even meaningful? I have only just started to participate in these forums (as anyone should be able to tell), but I can already imagine any form of "features" applying unequally, even only marginally, to players utilizing different payment models will resurrect this the very same debate and sthe same viewpoints. But the bottomline still stands - whether a business model works or doesn't, whether it will or will not, is not something that the regular forumer can tell, so where are they drawing their empirical support from?
Furthermore, how Turbine chooses to shape their business is strictly speaking irrelevant to us. Do we seriously care that they are making more money or less money? Probably not. Do we care that if they choose to experiment with their business model a little, to take a little more risk to see what it brings? Again, probably not. Why should we? It seems like people are just trying to make it seem like they are players who are rightfully the 'chosen ones' in that they are more relevant to Turbine's business model than others, and therefore they should gain more benefits. Specifically, they want to ensure that they are better off than some other players. (What's the point of being more powerful if everyone is also made just as powerful, innit?)
In other words, I think this entire strand of discussion has derailed.