No. They can’t prey on people with “micro”-transactions and then ask for money to get a game that should have been playable offline anyway. That’s abusing the live service, free-to-play model for as long as it benefits them and then also asking for the price of a game afterwards. Let’s not let them set a precedent here.
The precedent is that their live service game is now preserved in a way few others are doing. Buying the game shows that there’s money to be made doing this, meaning others might have an incentive to preserve their shuttered live services, too.
No. They can’t prey on people with “micro”-transactions and then ask for money to get a game that should have been playable offline anyway. That’s abusing the live service, free-to-play model for as long as it benefits them and then also asking for the price of a game afterwards. Let’s not let them set a precedent here.
The precedent is that their live service game is now preserved in a way few others are doing. Buying the game shows that there’s money to be made doing this, meaning others might have an incentive to preserve their shuttered live services, too.
It’s a 8 years old game, asking some extra for an offline version doesn’t sound abusive for me. You clearly disagree, that’s fine.