What cough my eye especially was:
"Adjusting the model by which games are distributed and played to a more obvious service model would help to clarify what videogames are, and avoid some of these problems inherent in EULAs. With this explicit service model, there's no need for an EULA because it's made clear for both sides that gamers don't own the game. This model can have advantages for gamers too, because they only pay according to how much they use the service. Sometimes the core game is completely free, with publishers relying on micro-transactions or advertising revenue for profits."
"Yet if we judge videogame services differently to other services, this presents us with similar problems of videogames evading specific legal classification. Therefore, perhaps the answer is not for publishers to make their games more obviously services, but for the law to pin down precisely what games are. Jas suggests a couple of potential alternatives. "Some people have argued that software and games either need to be legally classified as a special kind of service with special rules, or possibly be given a new classification altogether which sits somewhere between goods and services but isn't either." "
Maybe it is time for a clear legal classification on what computer games are or are not. Would solve a lot of arguments.