I see what your saying. And your right, I probably would buy it.
And I completely agree with your first post. I think Dev's like Zipper, and others like them, think there is no money in making a game with a 2-3 year shelf life. And I think they are completely wrong. I think there is more money in making a great game and then gouging the Hell of the players with DLC for the next three years. As long as that DLC added something to the game.
I also agree with Dis. I would gladly pay a monthly/yearly fee for a superior game. But it would have to be superior. You would think that console Dev's would take some tips from WoW. How much has that game made in total with their monthly fee's and DLC.
Here is an excerpt about WoW profits. And this is from an Jan. 2008 article.
Blizzard is still making $810 million a year (not to mention the cost to purchase the original game and the expansion pack, which at this point is probably negligible at this point given how much retailers like to take out)
And here is another excerpt. Basically an answer that it cost $200 million a year to run WoW.
Okay, so let's do a conservative estimate, and say even 1 million of these counted subscribers are still in their free month. That leaves 9 million paying subscribers who, at the $15 fee, are generating $135 million every month. Hell, even if you adjust that to, say, $120 million (since many subscribers may be paying for slightly discounted 3- or 6-month subscriptions), that still means Blizzard more than recouped their entire upkeep costs over a four-year period in just two months. We believe the words you are looking for are "hot damn."
So how does a Dev that has a game on ALL three platforms not see the astronomical amount of profits they could make on a great game with all kinds of community support and DLC? It's just mind boggling.