No but look, this is mystiquizing. Nobody goes "let's make some cool shit" and then, after the cool shit is made, has meetings to establish if it will be sold as a Broadway musical, a make your own adventure book series or a line of branded sodas. The revenue model is established first, the thing that will sell is made within that model. Anyone is free to feel creatively superior to reality, but it's just a feeling.
I don't believe the distinction between the type of game/revenue model is that black and white. You can't, for example, design a game, seperately determine a revenue model and then assume that the two will fit. Some revenue models fit certain types of game better than others. As an extreme example consider a game developed with a total time to play-through measured in the 10s of hours. If the game is great then it could do very well sold through app stores for a small one-off fee - but it would fail dismally if you tried to sell it using a monthly-subscription model. To a significant extent the revenue model is coupled tightly to some aspects of the game.
There are also massive design decisions which have to be made in terms of game-play. If you're going with the item-mall idea then you first need to determine which model of it you'll use. All of these comments are my own views - not based on forum discussions. I see item-malls as being split into two types:
1. The model widely used - especially by all the Chinese companies - where players basically buy success. The vast bulk of revenue in these games comes from a very small number of whales. To be successful (at generating revenue) game design has to focus on ways for the whales to be able to compare their strength to other players and, ideally, bully those who haven't paid much. That allows the whales to stand out (and see clear benefit for the cash they've handed over) - and also keeps operational costs down by driving out those who won't pay as they can't compete or achieve much.
2. Item-malls aimed at taking a smaller amount of cash from a far wider user-base. That means ensuring that no massive difference in progress/strength can be easily bought. It also means having to appeal to players via actual content/game-play rather than just "if you spend some more money you can be the strongest."
Type 1 is what so many gamers object to. Progress is achieved through use of a credit-card not a brain. As someone who has played a LOT of games over the years (and continues to do so) I don't like type 1 from a player's perspective at all - because they don't provide the challenge I'm looking for. But that doesn't invalidate them as a means of making a profit. And that's where thestringpuller is, I think, going wrong. As a game-player I far prefer type 2. But investors in S.MG (should) want whichever will give the best return on investment - the company's focus should NOT be on "what will make the most players happy" but on "what will make the most profit for our investors". And I'm VERY certain MP is on the side of investors not players.
None of which to say the two (pleasing investors and having satisifed players) are mutually exclusive - it's just that it's far easier to develop something that focuses on one of them than to try to deliver to both.