I'm about to write up a summary of that interview, but the piece that might be relevant to your concerns:
Richard Gariott is someone who plays F2P games, and doesn't mind paying for them. However, he hates the fact that most of them always "have a hand out", meaning, "Sure.. You could do it the hard way, but if you'd rather save time and spend a little money....". He's more in favor of what he calls the "Fair Handshake", where you let people play for free, originally, with the understanding that some will never pay. But you don't do anything to push them out, because those people can still bring in others to the game that MIGHT be willing to pay.
They're going to see how the genre develops these payment methods and adapt accordingly. They're pretty sure even 3 months before release, they'll still be figuring out how to go about it, and what fits the game best. What he wants to be certain of is that what they ask you to pay for is a reasonable and fair request, like to access new areas of content, or perhaps they will let you get some skills (any) to a certain point, but then if you want to go further, or access elements of the skills that they develop later, it might cost a very small, nominal fee.
He doesn't want the paying to be a surprise, but they have nothing set in stone. It might be free at release, or an impulse purchase price, like a buck or two. They may sell things like Cloth Maps for added revenue. But what you can be sure of is that it will be F2P or practically free, because he sees that low barrier of entry as a way to draw in more people.
I hope this addresses your concerns.