I can believe it, and the article lays it out very well. It's a one-time payoff, yet continuous development is being poured into it with no monetary return. (One might argue that that's a pretty poor business model..but on the flip side, the kind of gamer investing in StarCraft II expects constant balancing and whatnot.) With the F2P model, the income stream is continuous and warrants the ongoing development for as long as the game can pull in money.
Gaming is forever changing, whether we like it or not. There is increasingly no "complete experience", because not only is that not where the money is, it's not what makes sense any more in terms of expectation either. Our demands as the type of consumers we are don't really matter any more. People have bought into the F2P/microtransaction model. If people weren't tossing oodles of time and money into those experiences, they wouldn't be emerging as the market leader the way they are now.
That may be, but this is StarCraft II! The game sold 1.5 million copies in the first 48 hours of its release. It is the fastest selling realtime strategy game of ALL TIME. Surely, by most metrics, StarCraft II is still a huge success. I get the business logic Activision is using, I just find it incredibly sad that one of the top selling (and well crafted) games of our time is not even considered a success under the new business model that finds that trickling out content through a pay-as-you-go system is so much better for making money.
It's also sad that while game designers may strive to become the next Will Wright, Shigeru Miaymoto, John Carmack, Hideo Kojima, or Warren Spector, all of those dreams won't matter much in the new market if they can't help their corporate leaders become the next Zynga.