That's fine, but when I pay for a videogame I personally am not paying for the physical game, I'm paying for the experience. My experience isn't lost once the game is over, or even if my ownership of the property is lost if ecosystems crash or change. It isn't about "owning" something for me.
I understand the frustration of having to purchase a game again to play it, but that isn't an issue unique to digital properties, the gaming industry has been doing that forever.
The frustration of having to buy the game again isn't remotely the issue being discussed, though.
It isn't NECESSARILY about ownership of the asset for me either-- ownership is just the most practical and straightforward method I can think of for getting what I ideally would appreciate and find just. Where I would differ from what you're saying is that the experience that I want to be paying for isn't a single-serving experience that's only available for a limited time, but rather a cumulative lifetime experience that can be revisited and refined and fully appreciated as needed. That single-serving experience isn't lost once the game is over, but it's certainly incomplete and is only a fraction of the thing's overall worth, IMO (a huge chunk of which WOULD be lost if it's only available when it's hot).
If, hypothetically, there were a non-profit-motivated public library that reliably and permanently preserved every videogame in existence forever-- one that had the right intentions in mind, that could be trusted, and that I had direct access to, I probably wouldn't see any value in owning anything and this would all be moot. But that's not the case. Instead, I find the principle behind merely having the privilege to access/rent something as long as it still financially benefits the companies that own them to be a completely gross idea that is not at all satisfactory to me. If the ideal hypothetical case isn't possible (it's only barely manageable in the form of emulation, which isn't going to continue to be a thing if companies have complete control and restrictions on their games), then the next best thing would be to let me manage my own library (which requires owning it), as I trust myself more than I trust the company (or the demands of the masses, which don't align with my preferences) to actually value the things that I find most valuable.
That's basically where I'm coming from. Don't get me wrong, like anyone else, I'll often find myself going along with the system, but in principle, I absolutely don't support it, feel good about that, or find the direction to be a positive. I'd be willing to pay more to do it the other way, personally.
Edit: Just as another example, if, hypothetically, the current/upcoming system is how things always worked from the start, a fantastic game like Mother 3 would probably be completely inaccessible to anyone who didn't purchase it when it came out, there's a chance that it wouldn't be playable due to controls and restrictions to even the people who did own it, and the chances of it never being emulated (without open, physical copies existing) would also be significantly greater. It would probably just be tragically lost in time, and that's with a game that virtually everyone agrees is great, let alone truly obscure gems or things that companies like Nintendo decide they no longer want to associate their branding with (whether due to subject matter or politics in the case of PT).
