I used to think like this too, but I've since changed my mind and understand why they do this -- and it can even be beneficial for users. There's a few big problems with the old model:
First, you have to define the difference between "major" and "minor" version. Users expect major versions to have some significant improvements or new features. What this means is as a developer, you have incentive not to release minor features regularly, but instead batch them together so you can do a "major" release.
Second, the sales team now dictates the release cycle. More major releases means more money, but do it too frequently and the user base revolts. In many companies sales dictates the releases, but now if development is late it's messing with the company's cash flow and ability to continue to exist.
Third, the software can never be "done", because that means no more major releases. As a result, unless there is a sustainable stream of new users, you get feature and scope creep.
Subscriptions mean predictable revenue, and make the developer's incentive align with users: keeping users happy. This means keeping the product stable, making incremental improvements, and evolving with features that make sense.
Of course the beauty of the market is you should be able to find products sold both ways, and you can choose.