You haven't played a game with a good f2p system.
Well. That alone is pretty tell-tale I think.
Free to play is better for the company and better for the players, if done correctly. It all boils down to this, do you trust SE to make a fair F2P system? There are plenty of games out there with great f2p systems.
Right. Yet I still have to see a single case where the IF
left the realm of the purely speculative. Do I trust SE to make a fair FtP system? No, because I doubt that a FtP system that would meet my definition of "fair game" exists. One that limits paid content to cosmetics? - Such a game does not exist, since it would never make enough money to survive. Is it one that limits paid content to EXP boosts and consumables like potions? - I don't consider that fair, because in the end those who pay more get more. Is it a game like SWtoR, which sells UI elements piecemeal, because you are, theoretically completely fine with just a limited number of action slots? Sorry, but I've yet to see a FtP system I would buy into. Name one.
Also it's not a case of if the game was p2p you would get all these items for free because the items would not be made if not for being sold in the cash shop. It's like saying you should not have to pay for DLC for xbox games, the DLC would not be made if not for that.
Harr harr harr!!! When I was young, games were sold almost bug-free with all the content included from the get-go. Your argumentation is circular; DLCs exist right because
people pay for them; in a subscription based game, the subscriber can expect a constantly updated assortment of good new items for free, because the respective development costs are covered by the subscription fee. The difference is just that in a subscription based game, the chances to obtain such items rise in relation to your efforts, while in FtP games the chances rise in relation to your wallet.