I think the common sticking point for many is how, with the gold level subscriptions (i.e. forking out the most money), you don't retain access to the game itself if you cease your subscription.
For those who have made the comparison to similar models for programs like MS Office or Adobe, let's keep things in perspective. Those are programs that people use for business, to earn an income, or further their education. This is a game for entertainment and relaxation.
As Tony has mentioned, sales are going gangbusters with the gold membership seeming to be the preference. Great stuff and well done; can't argue with the facts. I'm wondering though, how many of those purchasers are fully aware that they would no longer have access to the basic game itself if they, for whatever reason, stop paying. I've already seen at least one comment here on the forums where someone has not fully understood this, let alone those who don't frequent these (or any) forums.
Most discussions also seem to be made under the assumption that, if people decide to stop paying their subscription, that they will have done so of free choice. What about anyone who finds themselves in unexpected financial difficulties (for whatever reason) and basically has no choice but to, at least, suspend their subscription? (again, this is only a game, not a business or life essential). Surely it's a bit unfair that not only do they have to forgo the benefits associated with that (fair enough), but to have to lose the game itself as well? And what good is being able to keep any DLC that you have bought, if you don't have anything to use it with? That's the definition of wasted money.
I would have thought that it would make good business sense as well, to a allow people to at least keep the game at whatever level it was at when their subscription lapsed as it would at least keep them engaged with the game and much more likely to renew their membership at a later date when they could. Whereas if they are forced to forgo the game as well, they may actually find that they can survive without it after all (or get back into the genre with a competitor's product), and you've lost a valued customer.
I understand the issue with the monthly subscriptions in that, you couldn't have people paying for just one month and getting the game as well. But it wouldn't be too difficult to nominate a cut-off where, after X-number of months of subscription (either concurrent or individual), that a person then gets to retain access to the game, even if they have to stop subscribing. And it should be included with the first annual subscription too. (Edit), Maybe the current prices could be for the first year, which secures full access to the game, with a reduced rate for ongoing subscription after that?
Just my thoughts.
Cheers,
Piere.