You can be disappointed if they make you pay for what was previously free but saying it's extortion to make people pay for software isn't very considerate to all of us who make a living of writing software, isn't it?
When done right, Freemium is a fantastic model which can not only generate more revenue to the company (both short and long term), but is also more enjoyable and a more fun experience for the user.
When done greedily, it's extortion and is by far the most disgusting sales model known to mankind.
The latter is most common.
It's hard not to be sarcastic about this topic, but I honestly want to know which game is more fun freemium than pay once?
The LoL model is controversial. You may not pay anything, but it will take you literally thousands of hours to get most champs and runes. Do you need all? Thats arguable. Can you get IP fast enough to buy champs as they come out? Most people cant, from what i understand.
Dota and tf2 fit in the freemium that cares for the users.
Blizzard has a very solid F2P model, even though theirs is one of the most expensive of the lot.
There is a lot of enjoyment in earning bonuses over time rather than getting everything at once. Since the developer wants you to keep playing the game, they need a hook. For subscription-based games, that hook tends to be anti-fun (spend time grinding, time-gating content, etc). Store-based content allows for a non-time-based hook and pushes the developer to keep releasing content. So yeah, if done right, it's beneficial for everybody.
I find it the contrary. It's a rare sight to find a modern non-indie mobile game that you can pay for and get a version that's completely free of advertisement, phoning-home analytics and other stuff I don't want, except for an actual game.
(Returning to article in question, Microsoft is actually the worst case imaginable. You don't pay to remove ads once, but subscribe for ad-free experience.)
Software that has already been written and does not require changes is free to maintain and develop.
There is a trend recently for newer versions of software to remove features that older versions had, for varying reasons that are invariably not in the users' interests.
Removing something but then offering to put it back in return for money or accepting ads or accepting spyware or whatever other onerous condition is user-hostile. Some would say it's just business, but to many it seems malicious.
Promoting new software that does this as being an upgrade, and trying to seduce users into making the switch by giving away the new software freely but not openly disclosing what the user will lose by switching is misleading advertising.
While the stuff parent comment had mentioned is legal, it's at least questionable, and is perfectly valid to complain about, and even call this extortion (given that the comment was about a mild case of gaming addiction).
When I'm reminded of this I'm somehow saddened by the fact users en masse seems to have very self-respect when it comes to such stuff (and/or lack choice), so voting by feet doesn't work.
There are cases where the "gotta cover the costs" argument applies, but this is not one of them.
Otherwise, I said NOTHING even close to suggesting that "software developers shouldn't make a living." That straw man you just made doesn't look even slightly like me.