As the commentators at Gamasutra and here have noted, I don't think one can make the claim that 2008 marked the transition to a different form of monetization in online games. The implication in the article is that microtransaction schemes will in the near future supersede subscription plans. At one level this is sort of trivial; they already have, even in the West, and most people haven't noticed. Habbo Hotel, Club Penguin, Disney's recently released toy/mmo product represent a far larger market, in terms of active users, then the subscription based MMO player base combined. The revenue isn't the same as Blizzard's yearly billion dollar haul but it doesn't have to be to maintain similiar or even larger margins.

And that perhaps is the real, substantial shift, one captured in the point about fantasy MMOs as being "solved problems." Developers are realizing that developing a game on par with established MMOs in the genre is an untenable goal; they not only have to produce a comparable product to what those properties were at launch but they also have to compete with years of added content and evolution plus the loyalty of the existing player base. One might be able to eke out a small victory here but it will be a pyhrric one at best. The other option? Follow Nintendo, don't chase the "core" consumer, and instead offer experiences that are hopefully appealing to both old and new gamers alike. Battlefield Heroes seems like a perfect example of this.

Where I think Zenke may have erred in the article was to posit that this expanded audience would come to dominate the existing one to the exclusion of the "core" and its standard business model, the subscription. Instead of being the rule, the subscription may come be to viewed as emblematic of the old guard of MMOs; but it will still have a place among the vastly expanded array of games and game play opportunities. Just as I might enjoy Wii Sports for 30 minutes, I might also like to sink a couple hours into Fallout 3; and then pay 10$ more for the DLC when I'm done.