Remember back in the day when, if you chose to be frugal, you'd buy a video game used... and not have to feel bad about it? Or when you'd buy a game, and have access to the full game by purchasing it? Or when you weren't required to be online, or run third-party software, just to play a video game you paid for?

It's not that, on principle alone, some of these are bad ideas (developers most certainly need to be compensating for their work), but when, for years and year and years (especially on the PC) these things were all there or free for users, it's a tough pill to swallow. I know I'm probably just being an old fuddy-duddy who doesn't wanna get with the times, but I grew up where buying used games wasn't a big deal, and games' multiplayer stayed online for years and years (Hell, I still play Quake 1/3 online from time-to-time). Right or wrong, if you've been given something for so long, it's tough to adjust to that not being the way anymore, just my two cents.

I remember those days, it's when internet was on it's babyfeet (or before) and the only way to get a good selection of games was through pirated DvD's and the like.

Basically an environment where games were rarer, more difficult to get, and secondhand games were much rarer to find/sell (no ebay etc), let alone have a 'digital' version.

It's because we have a more transparent world both physically and digitally now that secondhand is more of an issue. Not to mention places like Gamestop capitalizing on it massively.

Indeed. If used game sales and trades were done purely on the user level I doubt anyone would have a problem. The real issue is Gamestop basically shoving used games down people's throats and redbox giving away your entire campaign experience for a dollar that piss publishers off, and honestly I can't blame them.

There is a difference between consumer rights and systematic abuse of the first sale doctrine to circumvent publisher profit.

All that said I do think the first sale doctrine should apply to software, but online features are well within their right to keep behind a service.

Not to nitpick or anything, but do you not mean 3.5 inch floppy disk? ;)
Now those where the days.
Games where expensive and overpriced, Multiplayer was thru Coaxial cable, and you had to put endplugs to make the network work.

(And piracy rampant whit exchanging floppies whit friends).

And 28 floppies later... it's installed. Sweet. :)

I remember all the way back to the cartridge I put in the back of my C64 and the tapedeck I used after that, and then the 5.25 frisbees and then after that the 3.5's although I think I had an Amiga by then.

No, see my answer to hedwards, they "turned" multiplayer into a service that only they could provide. It doesn't have to be that way so I don't feel sorry for them at all. It's a lame excuse for those of us who've played a shit ton of PC gaming multiplayer over the years.
Piracy is their problem and really making it official servers only doesn't stop pirates, they just go play on Hamachi (or whatever it's called). As for cheating, the community, likewise, had it handled. You can still find excellent UT2004 servers around hosted by third parties that don't have a bunch of cheating. I'm also reminded of the bullshit that went on in Left for Dead 2 (with the Smoker tongue attack, drop turns into auto death) or Double Shotgun Dude in whatever game that was, these are just recent examples where people cheated like fucking crazy. On a private server, even without patches, admins can kick douche bags off. When you have "official" servers everyone gets to wallow in the same shit until the devs/publisher get around to fixing their cock up.

So really, no, official servers haven't made anything better really and in some ways have made stuff a lot worse.

Makes sense I guess, but only if they offer little to no support for multi outside of essential patches.

That's really always been kind of up to the developer. Big companies like Epic used to be really good about this, because they wanted the community to be strong and buy into their next game. Some did less support or made less maps for free (relying instead on the community for this).

Really, the level of multiplayer patching support has always varied just as wildly as singleplayer patching support, with some companies releasing broken games and literally never fixing them, the communities often did this instead, but not always. Either way it's extra cost to the developers beyond the game release, some devs see it as a way to cultivate a loyal following, the kind that choose what their entire circle of friends will play at LAN parties, etc.

Sadly this has all but disappeared, and it's not just nostalgia talking, it was extremely fun.

had to buy a online pass to play need for speed hot pursuit, which was a waste as the game is dead online