While I was gaming a lot, before the turn of the century, it usually seemed like when you bought a game you owned it.
WoW was to me one of the earliest salient examples of a game you didn't really own, but only were permitted to rent. Even though the community has apparently overcome the challenges of getting a working, large scale server running and maintain a community, that spirit of "not really yours" seems to shine through here.
Poor form, Blizzard! Adding to a design that was better off without additions to sell it all over again is one thing, but smashing the original for those who loved it that way and don't want the extra cruft is just mean.
You're correct in that software (including games) is almost always licensed, but I think you're also being a little pedantic. There were certainly fewer games that required "phoning home" for verification and fewer games that had required content served remotely from servers that could be shut down. The (obvious) spirit of the post was that when you purchased a license/the game the developer would typically not mess with your copy and you were free to do what you wanted with it.
Maybe not in the literal sense, but I can still play my copy of the original Panzer General 22 years after it was released, because there are no technical impediments to doing so and because the license permits it. (And because of DOSbox.)
While I was gaming a lot, before the turn of the century, it usually seemed like when you bought a game you owned it. WoW was to me one of the earliest salient examples of a game you didn't really own, but only were permitted to rent. Even though the community has apparently overcome the challenges of getting a working, large scale server running and maintain a community, that spirit of "not really yours" seems to shine through here.
Poor form, Blizzard! Adding to a design that was better off without additions to sell it all over again is one thing, but smashing the original for those who loved it that way and don't want the extra cruft is just mean.