It’s funny they have chosen this approach, because it makes plain what should be somehow hidden.
For example, suppose you have the alternatives:
Pay $500 up front, and then $10/month to use a product or service.
Pay $50 up front, and then $50/month to use a product or service.
Assuming you will use the thing every month, and it’s just a question of which vendor to choose, obviously you choose option 1, since you will be better off after one year, and much better off after two or more.
But now consider this:
Pay $500. You will have to pay something monthly, too.
Pay $50. You will have to pay something monthly, too.
Now you go with option 2. HP did this with printers and ink, by making the ink an effective subscription, but not actually advertising the prices along with the printer. Even today, when everyone knows how the printer/ink pricing model works, it’s psychologically easier to go with option 2, even though you know it’s more expensive (and also, the entire industry was corrupted by the system, so you don’t have much choice anyway.)
Adobe, I suppose, just hasn’t come up with a way to hide the oppressive burden of the CC subscription. You’d think they would be happy with just eliminating the enormous volume of piracy of their stuff, but it seems they are being rather greedy. At one point, for example, I believe you could just buy Adobe Muse for $20 as it was kind of a toy. Now it’s either part of the $50/month CC, or you can get it for $15 a month on its own. Crazy. It’s yet to be seen if they have enough locked in business users that it doesn’t much matter what they do, kind of like Oracle and their own absurd subscription-based licensing system.