I'm not sure I get the complaint - won't anyone with the resources to have a high-end computer to run the software and buy the original game be in a position to pay $10 a month if the game means that much to them? Again, I'm asking as someone with a very strong single-player bias who does little multiplayer gaming.
I don't mind the fact that the game costs a monthly fee. However, I do strongly mind the fact that they will sell their box as a standard 'pay once, play as much as you like' game as Diablo was and then offer players an advantage in a multiplayer game by paying more than others - why not sell in-game currency or level-ups, too, once you're at it. Beyond being unfair, immersion in Hellgate's world will suffer from this.
Moreover, they are not just offering 'elite' customers additional features, they are also artificially limiting features for standard customers. As I stated, what is paid extra needs to cost extra for the dev, and this isn't.
As for the matter of $10 being peanuts, sure, but it's usually the accumulation of those peanuts that eats away all our spending money, isn't it? Games such as Hellgate are still primarily marketed towards male adolescents, a demographic that infamously is having their computers paid by their parents but not their games. $120 a year is a lot for them for a single game (in addition to the $50 for the box), and it is even for me for one more game - I'm spending too much as it is and I have a wife and a couple children. How many MMO subscriptions can you afford?
IMHO, Flagship should either be honest and scrap their 'regular' game for a real trial version or make damn sure 'elite' players are just getting token exclusives and pay in advance for expansion stuff that will be available to others as well, and that they do NOT hand any gameplay relevant advantages to their priviledged customers (and neither any artificial disadvantages for the others, such as the much-lamented item storage limitation).