It is not an idea, do you think I'm pulling that out of my ass?? That's how it was actually done in the past, and everybody was happy, companies and consumers. See, you're just proving my point, you are already conditioned into thinking it's normal to dish out more than $60 every year, just for the right to use, what often is basically the same game, the problem is by your logic all the devs from the 80s and 90s have all starved to death then, so don't go ad hominem on me Mr.
People argue that $60 is not enough for people to eat, must be they don't realize that these days, the price for base game+season pass hovers around $100, 100 for blops 2.
The real problem with this kind of conditioned behavior is that it makes companies feel they can get away with anything they want.
You're right... I am the blind consumer, lining up to BUY BUY BUY!
You can keep looking at the "good old days" with rose tinted glasses where every game was Baldur's Gate and all multiplayer experiences/communities had the longevity of Starcraft and everybody was just out to enjoy games, damnit! with none of this money mumbo jumbo screwing things up, but if you think publishers haven't been throwing out shit to gamers since the beginning of video games, you have a horrible memory. (And that
is an ad hominem attack, or at the very least something closer to one than suggesting your argument was exaggerated.)
There is far less utter trash on the market now in mainstream games than there has been probably ever. We complain about having to wait a few days for a patch on a game's release (as we rightfully should), but fifteen years ago that was a patch you might have never gotten, and if you did, it would have been months. Compatibility is rarely an issue with PC games anymore. Contrastingly, when I was a kid I spent four years over three different computers trying to get Dark Forces to run. It never did.
Games are at a great place at the moment, and you're making this bizarre argument that EA has a gun to your head forcing you to buy every new Madden game and that in the golden days this would never have happened. But I don't know what you're talking about. In the old days of gaming there were some great games put out that I still play, just as there are great games put out now that in 10 or 15 years you'll still be able to play. (If you make the argument that in 10 or 15 years you will be unable to play SimCity, you're being ridiculous. When those servers get shut down they'll patch out the always online restriction, just as every publisher has promised they'll do since the beginning of using always online DRM.) There was also a lot of total shit released that you still had to pay for and you now never touch. A lot of the same publishers were putting out both, and they still wanted your money back then. They were probably even getting better margins on it, as their dev team was 1/10 the size and adjusted for inflation they were charging you the same thing they are now.
I'm not condoning always-online DRM, and I don't think EA shouldn't be held accountable for launch day server issues and that you shouldn't be annoyed by the current aggressive DLC plans many publishers have, but I think the view you're taking on the past is a bit more nostalgic than it ought to be.