Surely it'd be Star Wars: Scoundrels

Not really (semantics that is). They were using that as a simple comparative statement of content quantity, no more no less. People just took that to mean something it actually doesn't mean at all. In the end, it may not matter, if they do see the MMO as the future of all Old Republic era games. However, if that is not the case and LA is open to making other kinds of Old Republic era games (just as they are obviously open to making different kinds of trilogy era games), then the correct meaning of the statement is very important, since it does mean that an actual single player KotOR 3 is a possibility... though I admit, it is a possibility that is becoming more remote every day.

You know, if they just made a single player edition that had no online component, I'd probably be quite happy with it

From most of BioWare's descriptions of the gameplay, it basically is a single player game, or at least can be played like one... except you have to pay a monthly fee for it and put up with the occasional MMO douchebag interrupting your fun.

Yeah the monthly fee is the real problem I have. Might have a look when I can find it cheap, I know I have a month free and try to knock it all out in that time

That's my only real problem with it as well. It wouldn't really matter to me that they made another Old Republic game other than KotOR 3, but to make it a monthly fee MMO... that's just infuriating.

Monthly fees can totally be worth it if the developer supports the game well. Personally, its not the monthly fee that turns me off of mmorpgs, its the grind. So much repetition gets boring really fast. Still, Bioware is a great developer so I'm really curious to see how they pull it off.
The best thing about TOR? It has a good chance to be the WoW-killer we've all been waiting for. Even if I never play the game, I'm still going to be watching the numbers.

I honestly expect that that the future of MMOs will be a non-subscription model, with development costs supported by microtransactions (as with DDO and countless Korean MMOs) and/or a pick-and-mix per-chapter purchase price (as with Guild Wars). Such a model will inevitably draw in people who would not normally commit to the significant cost of a traditional MMO. Newer MMOs have tried to overhaul gameplay conventions, but by sticking to traditional pricing they don't have a strong case against WoW; if such a game was also tied to a flexible pricing model it would stand the best chance of utterly obliterating WoW. Even if you don't mind paying a subscription, would you still pour money down the drain if you could get that same level of content quality by buying an episode or two and playing for free forever, paying for new content only when and if you really want it?

Honestly, that episodic-style pricing model does sound completely reasonable to me, but the overwhelming success of WoW has pretty much eliminated any chances of a major American publisher ever trying anything other than the monthly fee model (IMO, of course).

True. I heard rumors they may use a DLC model though I thought? Perhaps I was mistaken.
I have never been interested in MMOs because I am not into multiplayer games in any form other than Left 4 Dead for some reason. I am getting Star Trek Online though, already have it preordered, solely because I am a massive fan of that property. I plan to play it as solo as possible and it irritates me I will pay for server access I couldn't care less about.
I want TOR as a Bioware fanboy, not a Star Wars one. I might be a large enough Bioware fanboy to relent on that title as well, but will not be happy about it. A DLC model would thrill me.

MMOs are meant to be played with other people. Their invasion by people who would rather play alone, and who often resent other people interrupting their hard work, is one reason they have become such lonely and miserable experiences lately.
Server upkeep costs are considerable, although I understand some of your fees go toward development of expansions. There are plenty of games where the expansions are free and some where the subscription price is low or nothing. To make a blanket statement about all of them, suggesting the money is pissed away rather than spent in reasonable amounts on necessary things, is not realistic. To see this, one need only compare the amount of new content in the expansions for different games. It might also be helpful to look at the number of MMOs that fail or are de facto failures on life support. An MMO is anything but a guaranteed cash cow.

Perhaps, and this is why I avoid MMOs 99% of the time, but when putting these two highly adored properties in an MMO you have to acknowledge that people not normally in multiplayer gaming will want to play them. Also Bioware have always been singleplayer focused and are pimping TOR as a very story-focused singleplayer experience in an MMO.
So it seems to me that expecting more solo gamers to avoid STO and TOR is almost asking for the moon.

This is where there is actually some benefit in being social. Getting a small team of like minded gamers together to play the game as a team rather than as a grind against the AI punctuated by dipshits. Take the star trek online option, you could have a small team playing it in character like a proper starfleet crew and only occasionally have to deal with the retarded crew of the IKV N00BPWN3R.

I think that's why I can play Left 4 Dead, just me and a few close forum friends play through a campaign against AI. I did not like Borderlands online because I had to play with random people.
So if some forum friends are down your idea is probably a good one. I'll have to post about it on my main forum. I don't know who all is buying STO though, it seems Cryptic have built up a lot of ill will.