I feel like you're unfairly mixing together payment model with developer execution. I also feel like that your bias, at best, clouds your conclusions. Let me explain...
The problem is we are continuing to get crappy games due to the prolonged life of other terrible ones from milking cash shops, instead of new and fresh ideas to try and win market share or innovate when something doesn't work. Why actually push the boundaries when you can make a mediocre game and get good return on investment even if your game isn't a WOW home run?
I disagree with those assumptions. I would argue that EQNext, while not a game I was looking forward to, included a host of "new and fresh ideas to try and win market share" which is/was entirely being funded by a collection of "crappy games." Now, whether or not SoE/Daybreak can turn that into a fun and rewarding experience is another thing all together but the whole voxel, destructive enviroments, community building, Landmark, Story Bricks thing was sure as hell something I've never seen in a MMO before. This is where developer execution would probably impact your perception of a cash shop's implementation. EQNext performs well or ends up being a game you like... F2P huge success, amazing idea! EQNext performs poorly... F2P continues to prolong crappy games. See what I did there?
EQ and UO moved things forward with their model. Most games over the last decade have done the reverse for consumers and gamers, by and large. Sure, nickle and diming are great for bringing in revenue and keeping a crappy MMO that should die alive, but it sure isn't good for the average gamer.
I would argue that the exact opposite has happened and, using some current examples, is something you should actually be cheering for. GW2, Destiny, and, very soon, ESO are games that you'd seem to actually desire from a payment perspective. You want to pay for DLC type "content" and each of those games actually support that type of model. I would say that their ability to offer that type of payment model is a direct evolution of early F2P/B2P models pioneered in GW, LOTRO and EQ2. Again, those might not be games that you like, so your perception of that conclusion will probably be different.
On a side note, hasn't the stagnation of innovation really been related to developers being lazy trying to emulate World of Warcraft's success and not cash-shops?
In the 90s it was a good deal, but as of now I despise subscription models. I want to purchase 'content'. Content as in new expansions or additions to a game and to be able to play it whenever I want. I don't want to have to pay 15 dollars to play a game and expansion I've already bought. The only reason most MMOs aren't free is corporate suits see the very small western market who pays a sub and gets the gleam in their eye for that pure profit revenue, instead of looking at better models for loyalty and building a community that will continue to purchase products.
This whole paragraph just doesn't make any real sense to me, other than you like DLC. Obviously, the reason MMOs aren't free is because they aren't charities and people like money. If it's a surprise to you that they are profit driven, then I've got some nice ocean front property to sell you in Arizona. In the end, I'll go back to my original post... "The real problem for the umpteenth time, is that there are so many games out there that are complete and total crap." The evolution of the payment model has increased accessibility and broadened the market, but it hasn't caused the rampant poor game design seen in the MMO space which you seem to associate to it.
