You already know the answer, there are plenty of free to play examples of games that do not restrict the player in these manners, that make money. SWTOR does not exist in a vacuum, where other games do not exist. It exists in a world where it's subscription model did not work, where the game could not, and did not, stand on the subscription model. Nickel and dimming, crippling and restricting the player in order to force a subscription might sound like a good idea to someone out there, but the majority have already spoken on what they thought of having to pay a monthly fee for this game. They left. The majority left.I'm merely discussing the implications/value of complaining about not receiving the subscription when people are not subscribed.
The reality is that the subscription model for this game should have been axed entirely, and, like other well thought out F2P games out there, they should have embraced the F2P model, and made their money off the cash shop alone. The cash shop providing, 'want' and not 'need' sales that players buy up because they, 'want' them has worked for quite a few F2P MMOs out there, it's made them money and kept them going, these are profitable games that make money.
Creating a separation between the players, F2P and Subscriber, was never a good idea in the first place, especially given how I've started to see some of the Subscription players treating the free players in game recently. At this point, without the free to play players.. I don't think the subscribers would like how the game would look down the road. You want them to stay around, and, given quite a few F2P players aren't happy with the F2P model presented, it's in question how many, and how long, they'll stick around. That is why a subscriber should be worried about what F2P players are getting, because if they don't stick around, buying little bits and pieces from the cash shop, you're right back where you started. A subscription model that the majority walked out on.