For one, there is nothing wrong with a subscription model, in exchange for a service. How else is a continuous service supposed to be funded, if not continually? This is not encouraging bad behavior, it's a fair exchange. It's not anti-consumer at all. I don't see how it's different from my electricity bill, for example.
>all that is available for free.
The free opportunity does not mean that it's the best course of action automatically, same as how not every legal thing is moral or encouraged also. For example, computer games are also available to me for free, even legally, because in Hungary, I'm entitled to have my personal copy of an intellectual property, no matter how I got it. Going on with this, choosing to pirate all my games would be optimal, as it would require the least amount of resources from me. But then, I don't just want to maximize my own gains, I want to see a healthy gaming ecosystem, where the creators of the games are financially rewarded for their effort, so that they are enabled to create more or better games. So, I contribute to this ecosystem with my money. Even subscriptions, so to say, for example I always buy the "game pass" for my multiplayer game of choice, because while I bought the game also, they host the servers, do matchmaking and create in-game content continually - so I participate continually as well.
I kinda get the point that with these subscriptions, we don't get to own what we "buy". But I think that if one realizes this, and consciously goes into a transaction like this, then it is not a problem. In fact, I don't want to own many things, for example, the YouTube videos I watch I specifically don't want to own. What I enjoy is the access, and the experience, and I don't mind at all to pay for those.
In a way yes you are, because people pay subscription to a lot of services, but in another way, not really. Every time YT premium comes up, there is a lot of people who exhibit defiance paying the giant, for one reason or another. And there are Vanced users, etc.
I too have a pet revenge peeve like this though, and for me, it's Microsoft. I'm using Windows for my multiplayer games, and I refuse to ever pay a cent for the piece of shit. Right now I'm activating it with my own activation emulator, for example.
For one, there is nothing wrong with a subscription model, in exchange for a service. How else is a continuous service supposed to be funded, if not continually? This is not encouraging bad behavior, it's a fair exchange. It's not anti-consumer at all. I don't see how it's different from my electricity bill, for example.
>all that is available for free.
The free opportunity does not mean that it's the best course of action automatically, same as how not every legal thing is moral or encouraged also. For example, computer games are also available to me for free, even legally, because in Hungary, I'm entitled to have my personal copy of an intellectual property, no matter how I got it. Going on with this, choosing to pirate all my games would be optimal, as it would require the least amount of resources from me. But then, I don't just want to maximize my own gains, I want to see a healthy gaming ecosystem, where the creators of the games are financially rewarded for their effort, so that they are enabled to create more or better games. So, I contribute to this ecosystem with my money. Even subscriptions, so to say, for example I always buy the "game pass" for my multiplayer game of choice, because while I bought the game also, they host the servers, do matchmaking and create in-game content continually - so I participate continually as well.
I kinda get the point that with these subscriptions, we don't get to own what we "buy". But I think that if one realizes this, and consciously goes into a transaction like this, then it is not a problem. In fact, I don't want to own many things, for example, the YouTube videos I watch I specifically don't want to own. What I enjoy is the access, and the experience, and I don't mind at all to pay for those.