Now, as someone who is an avid retro gamer, I play plenty of those old games you're talking about. In the very old days, games were definitely shorter, but by the 5th and 6th gen, the gap isn't quite as big. If anything, they're often too large now, but that's neither here nor there. Budgets are bigger, teams are bigger, and most importantly, the consumer base is bigger. So size of games and expansions needs to be looked at relatively.

Regardless, for non-early access (of which NMS is an example of in all but name) and non-live service games, there mostly isn't an expectation that content will be added, only that updates will be made that improve and fix what's there. The exceptions are mostly when there's a pattern of content uodates happening before, or when something is clearly incomplete compared to what's usual for a series. See the Monster Hunter series as an example for both the latter ones.

Overall, it's natural for customers to want things that are at least as good or better than before when technology improves. It's the opposite that should not be happening.

Were it an early access game, you would in fact be purchasing expecting updates. Not guaranteed updates, but certainly expecting them. This game was an amazing early access release in all but name.

I'm not saying you should word it as updates you paid for, you just don't word them as if they're an act of generosity. Just call them "updates", not "free updates" like you did right before the reply that put "free updates" in quotes.

Not that they wouldn't mess up all the time, but the punishment for messing up was severe.

And paid expansions were often the size of a whole game by themselves. Those are a lot of value, and there's nothing wrong with them. They even still exist today, though rarer.

Maybe the NMS's updates did amount to one or two expansions throughout the 10 years of updates, but they were done piecemeal. Were it not a game that massively under delivered on release, they could've gone that route.

Not that they're bad, but wording them like they're some huge act of generosity from the studio instead of a reasonable expectation pushes the baseline away from where it should be.

Without any requirement for verification, it'll be completely up to the parents to decide what their child will see, while the services will only get the minimum information needed. It'll basically make parental control easy, but still in the parent's control.

No, reading is not just about getting the idea from the author. It's an experience in and of itself, and the lack of something makes the experience just as much as the presence of something.

It's almost like saying a comic and an animation are the same thing, or that an animation is better, since it has more possibilities.

There's this tendency to treat things as if they're the same, otherwise one is inferior. But that's just not the case. Two things can be both different and valuable in their own way.

The issues you mentioned are, in the vast majority of cases, caused by the lack of peaceful coexistence to begin with, because as long as me and everyone else is coexisting peacefully, getting more for myself isn't taking anything away from those in the situations you mentioned. Resources might be scarce, but that doesn't mean they're zero sum.

You wanting people to have that doesn't mean that people deserve to have that. Fundamentally, no one deserves anything. We, as a species, lived for a hundred thousand years with absolutely nothing except what we could carve off the world by ourselves or with the help of small groups that chose to work with us. Everything else since then is a bonus (or sometimes a malus, but on average a bonus).

Also, as much as it sounds nice to declare such things as goals, deserved or not, it is indeed impossible, and probably not desirable, since, for starters, you can't even define what those things would be like. Those aren't actionable, they're at most occasional consequences of a system that is working to alleviate scarcity of resources.

Unfortunately, we're nowhere near that replicator.

That's the part of the argument in favor of copyright that is inherently flawed.

Doing some amount of work doesn't entitle you to anything besides whatever you've agreed to get for that work, or possession of the output, in case you did it for yourself. But that's all you're entitled to get.

Work itself doesn't have any intrinsic value, only output does. The scarcity of output is what dictates what is actually valuable.

Creative work has the characteristic of its marginal cost being very high for the first copy, but nearly zero for additional copies. That's true simply because of the nature of such work, it isn't something that is unfairly imposed upon creative workers. Whenever you choose to engage in creative work, you know that, or at least you should. And if you choose to give away the first copy for free, or very cheap, that's your prerrogative, but it doesn't inherently entitle you to anything else besides the value of that first copy.

Yes, there are laws such as copyright laws that exist to artificially inflate the value of additional copies, but they go against how things work naturally, so you shouldn't rely on them, and you certainly shouldn't base your moral compass on them.

Now, I do still prefer copyleft licenses over permissive ones for the work I choose to give away for free, but only to stop corporations from taking that work and then using copyright laws to keep it exclusive to them. Once copyright is no longer an issue, they won't be necessary anymore.