lordzhedd In a vacuum you are right and I understand your point but your movie example is a false equivalent.
Movies are single consumption products. Live Service games have a different obligation to consumers. Mainly sustained entertainment, and if entertainment isnt sustained requesting a refund could be justified. It is important to remember that these transactions are priced at a long term value not single use value.
There has been a ton of Live Service games that failed shortly after the first year and gave all of their customers full refunds and there are been a ton that hasn't. Live Service purchases have more in common memberships and additional benefits at a private club than movies. Lets say a member paid extra dues for access to the bowling alley...only for the club to later announce they can only use the bowling alley if they dress up as a clown. Are they not entitled to a refund because they bowled once or twice? Got some enjoyment?
In this case, they received refunds for 6 months, and their account will permanently banned by CG. They did not get a refund for their whole transaction history. In this situation, I personally feel like CG still comes out on top because imagine what would happen in the situation above if someone did that. They get their bowling dues back but lose all of their access to the club (that they paid for with no refund) and was banned. That would never be acceptable.
I am not saying there isn't a line where someone is being unreasonable however where the line is for what can be considered fulfilling that obligation of a Live Service game hasn't been thoroughly defined and I don't think this is a egregious example of someone abusing that line.
