It's not theft to provide software as a service. Nor is it a con of any sort.
So we might ask - dude where are the publics property rights regarding game software? But that might be too sticky an argument, the world is run by a lawless corporate oligarchy that rubber stamps the laws it wants passed. Given infinite IP law extension.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act#/...
Customers pay for access to a client and limited term access to the service it requires.
It is not fraud because there is no deception.
This would be fraud if the deal turned out to be misrepresented: they promised to give you you "all of the software" and you got something "incomplete."
I'm willing to bet the Terms of Service for whichever piece of theoretical SaaS you're voluntarily opting to purchase a license for clearly outlines your rights and relationship with the vendor.
It's not "fraud" just because you think it ought to be.
The game industry and microsoft are well ware of the publics lack of understanding of how computers and computer networking work. Two pre-requisites you would need to have a functioning market. The information asymmetry between game buyer and game maker is off the charts.
I who do not want DRM and spyware in windows 10 are now forced along because ignorant parents buying computers don't understand or don't care about such an issue. Meaning I lose control of my rights to own my own files and not be spied on because the worlds global public is computer stupid.
From my experience on HN over the however many years I’ve been here, the way HN commenters use the word “fraud” is predominately centred around the legal definition of fraud (as in “what legally constitutes fraud”) [0]. The way you use the word “fraud” reminds me of how my dad used the word once, and it is closer in my mind to the word “cheated”, even that might be a little strong.
I understand the frustration of DRM and having software be split between into client and server when it is arguably unnecessary. I’ve never thought about it has “holding parts of the games files back” given that the company never agreed to give the files in the first place. At the same time, on a longer time-scale, the behaviour is indeed different from before (the Diablo 2 to Diablo 3 example). The one contrived example that I can think of is selling fruit like apples: before you were sold the entire tree, and now you are sold just apple slices, so you don’t even get the seeds, but they were and are being sold under the same packaging of “apples”.
I took the time to respond to you because you made good points, the other commenters genuinely seemed to sympathize with you arguments, and you seem to be new here. The wording of your comments taken literally can appear factually inaccurate or exaggerated. However, I remember the same transition period in gaming and I recognize the timeline and the events in your narrative despite not sharing the harshness in your perspective.
The personal attacks you made were definitely uncalled for and unnecessary: in your position, I would just say, “What am I missing?” to indicate that there is something about another commenter’s point of view that you are confused about. You will get farther here if you assume positive intent and focus points of confusion at yourself instead of others e.g. instead of saying “you must be delusional to assume X”, say “it doesn’t make sense to me: why assume X?”. Both statements indicate the existence of confusion, but the second one allows for dialog without judging the other commenter.
Enjoy HN!
Nobody forced you to click the "play game" button. If microtransactions or whatever make a game not fun for you, then you are free not to purchase, or play, that game.