Why is going F2P always looks at like "Oh, this game failed hard". It will most likely bring a much larger audience to the game, and bring in more revenue as a F2P game than it would as a sub-based game. Still, this is purely speculation, but it can be seen in the model of DCUO, and many of other F2P games that sport this model. DDO is another good example of a F2P game that is still going strong, not to mention all of the Korean MMO's out there (Eden Eternal, Aika Online, etc.)
Contrary to popular belief, an MMO going F2P doesn't necessarily mean it "failed". EA is probably just realizing that the age of sub-based MMO's is dead.
Once again, this is all my opinion. I guess I need to specifically state whether or not something is an opinion or not, since you can't tell the difference.
I've not played DCUO, but DDO is often used as an example of the wonders of F2P, but DDO is a strange beast, it was never a MMORPG in the traditional sense, it always seemed designed as a F2P buy as you play Multiplayer-cashshop driven multi-player DnD game.
Which was probably why it tanked as a subscription MMO, when it went F2P it basically had 3 players and one of the Devs dogs playing it.
LOTRO is a much better example, but as it showed, athough F2P brings in more active accounts, unless those active accounts are spending an average of $15 a month then the numbers are misleading.
And as LOTRO shows (and CoH for that matter), F2P numbers tail off too.
SWTOR is bound to get a surge in active accounts with F2P, but whether those accounts will be spending an average of $15 a month and whether they'll still be around 12 months after F2P is a different kettle of fish.