>>714262445
Sure, but I don't consider the (long-standing) existence of temporary online-only games to be theft or dishonesty. I'm not against this movement, but I think most of the backlash comes from it's disingenuous framing

>>713978776
Yes, but it's been widely understood since the early 2000s that any game that relies on online servers is at the full mercy of the developers' choice to maintain said servers. So long as the developer does advertise otherwise, they're fine