Not true at all. I grew up in the age of dial up internet. When you bought software, you owned it. That media was yours to run on your hardware as you saw fit barring certain public/commercial uses, much like you're not allowed to buy a DVD to make copies and distribute it on your own.

However, the expectation of exchanging money for ownership is about as old as money itself. If we were talking about, say, a blacksmith and their craft that you paid solid gold for, you would therefore be okay with the blacksmith showing up one day to reclaim their iron because you only purchased a license to his materials and not the ownership of the product? I don't see that being acceptable to you. What makes software different, especially when it doesn't require internet connectivity to actually function? I don't need connectivity to access locally stored media, and fuck Sony for reaching into anyone's account and deleting access to something they bought, full stop.

It's unfortunate that anything less than demanding CEOs be shot in the head gets downvoted, but that's just online discussion today. I don't like restrictive licences either. It's why I use Linux and not Windows. Thankfully, people have a choice in the software they use and the games they play. I'm just not going to buy from Sony again. Problem solved.

Nobody is demanding Microsoft have a less restrictive licence for Windows. I don't understand why the games Microsoft publishes are treated differently than the rest of their software.