Proponents of cash shops, F2P, P2W, and microtransactions often cite the idea that they like these models because they value real money over time invested in the game.
The rationale is that real money and time are both currencies. When we are younger, we have time but no money. As we get older, we have money but no time.
So for those with money and no time, spending money through cash shops is seen as a very viable and practical way to gain a level footing with those who are spending time.
But here's the rub and why this rationale is wrong.
In the scenario of a subscription model where we spend "time" to gain our in-game advantages, the incentive for the dev is to keep you playing and resubbed. While this has it's obvious flaws, the dev also has an incentive to make any grind as fun and interesting as possible.
Whereas, in the second scenario where he wants you to spend money to gain an advantage, he wants it to be as painful as possible without causing you to quit. Games are carefully designed to "hook you" and then make you frustrated enough to want to spend money to AVOID whatever blocker they have placed in your path.
So what kind of exploitation do you prefer? The kind where the dev bribes you with Pavlovian treats to keep you subbed or the kind where they withhold the treats unless you pay $5 to get your fix?
I'll take the bribe.