Yeah, but the point is they replaced one game they created for no reason with another entirely different game, when they could have just kept the original game for those who enjoyed that and had a standalone version for people who wanted the collectables etc. but nope, intelligence and forethought doesn't seem to be something the games industry is capable of these days.
Many companies fail completely when making F2P games (that usually turn out to be pay2win). Actually, I think Valve did the right thing to make TF2 F2P. TF2 is much more popular now than compared to when it was a paid game. The company makes more money as a result of a higher number of players, and the players benefit by being able to try the game, and play it without paying anything. The gameplay is as balanced as it was when it came out, and players who trade/buy from the store have no gameplay advantages over players who don't spend money.
I think Valve is making out particularly well because it isn't difficult to sell TF2 items.
When they're selling these keys, what they're really doing is selling lottery tickets. In reality, Valve operates in TF2 as a casino (whether they admit it or not, everything tradeable in their game has an easily-redeemable FMV) and has cleverly managed to evade regulation for doing so.
That said, I also don't think TF2 is really f2p-p2w, because the useful upgraded weapons are so easy to come by, they're more like how BF2 does level-unlocks on weapons, where the rare ones don't do much more than look cool (similar to hats). The collectibles aspect can be completely ignored. This is in contrast to the vast majority of f2p-p2w games, and Popcaps recent PvZ2 even has a BS purchasable item which simply completes the game.
In EVE Online, there was a big scuffle over their $500 (or whatever it was) in-game monocle. This monocle did nothing, it was purely cosmetic. People purchased it, and as I see it, it's because they wanted to support the developers and maybe get a little recognition for doing so. It's basically the same as having a "Bitcoin Foundation Gold Member" avatar, but we'd never say that's a "pay-to-win" item.... well - maybe -- I guess it can lend a lot of credibility wherever you plaster it. Really, though, I like the cosmetic-donation model - and giving users an easy way to do so in-game, with cosmetic upgrades, I think's a fantastic way of subsidizing the poor or initially-skeptical until they can fall in love with the game, rather than putting up a paywall. Even if you skip the ability to quickly-easily donate in-game, Dwarf Fortress for example, an indie ASICII game, is able to support two workers full-time on a pure donation model. They bring in anywhere from $2k-$6k per month, but that's after years of them developing while still having to work somewhere else for living expenses. What's especially cool about how DF's worked out, is that it's almost a milestone-model, where they'll see a huge uptick in donations when new major updates are pushed. They can keep developing their baby for the rest of their lives and almost certainly live comfortably for the entirety, and that's not something so guaranteed anywhere else I can think of.