like I said in the other thread, he should have stuck to free-2-play (his original plan). the market is saturated, and it's hard to get people to take a chance on your game. but if it's 'free', at least there's no risk in taking that chance
I definitely agree that this thing some game companies do of launching a title in a certain model and then changing it to another model... that doesn't work, at all. Other companies have done it, it's never gone well I think and it's a sign of weakness and reactivity.
One problem with going free to play with this specific game is: when you create a product that directly competes with a similar product and you make it free you have to keep two things in mind:
1. Perception
A mobile game player responds to that very differently than a PC or console player generally, because generally these titles are not free to play (you pay 60 bucks and play) and full on games that are offered free to play don't really come through and the idea is that you'll have to pay a lot to make the game somewhat enjoyable. Not a good look especially because in a multiplayer game you want to limit the 'pay to win' part (e.g. pay for upgrades) to a minimum because since in free to play only a small percentage of players pay, you will soon have a small group dominating most matches which will in turn churn players who do not pay at all. Exception to this is Hearthstone (Free to play and you can buy packs of cards and heroes) but that is because it's 1-on-1 and thus way easier to control the skill levels of the players competing through proper matchmaking.
2. Direct competition and huge price differences can cause suspicion
When you have 2 fashionable sneakers released by competitors, one by Nike, one by Adidas - you can expect the price of both to be around 100-150 dollars. If 1 was 150 dollars and the other was.. 2 dollars, it would raise suspicion in the consumer. 'Hey.. this game is just like Overwatch.. I love Overwatch.. but wait, this game is free... ok so Overwatch is definitely the better game because the company believes in it and charges 60 dollars. They must be going free to play because they don't believe in it.. and (see #1) they will end up charging me like crazy, how do I know this is even balanced properly as far as monetization and what they'll be asking for??'
Short version: a free-to-play direct competitor of Overwatch is a terrible idea because target audience expects to pay for a great experience and they don't trust free-to-play on a AAA game, the pay for win factor comes into play when big groups play each other and the perception is 'oh Overwatch is better, the company really believes in it and charges 60 dollars.. as opposed to the other company.. who's asking for no money and will probably screw the players on expensive things to play normally.