Maybe for a few minutes. I like to think I'm good at analysing game mechanics, as a long time gamer and sometimes amateur game designer. So I mostly avoid F2P games. The tactics are repulsive to my tastes, and I can smell them from a mile away. When there's a choice between struggling to meet a challenge by improving my skill, or paying my way though, my inclination is to take a 3rd choice: stop playing this and do something else. So I much prefer paying up front for a game. I'm old-school that way.
Maybe this option is viable, as a 'serious' gaming hobbyist, only temporarily. But right now, the best games (in my genres of choice) are sold on the traditional purchase model. They are PC and console games.
Generally, I don't like 'endless' games; I prefer a game to have an ending: I play it, experience it 'fully', finish it, then move on to something else.
(But... just to undermine everything I've stated above, I am playing Pac Man 256. It has good gamefeel. I'll play it until I get all the powerups, perhaps. No interest in high-scores...)
tl;dr: IMO F2P games are inferior instances of the artform. Be cool like me and play superior PC and console games.
Also, Jonathan Blow has some interesting points to make on how the payment form of games (and entertainment in general) affects their structure/quality. This is the one where he talks about addictive mobile Skinner box games [x]