I did. I just didn't give you the clean yes-or-no you're prepared to posture about.

If I ask you a yes-or-no question, and you say 'nuh-uh', you did not answer the question. In fact, you haven't answered a single question I've ever tried to ask you over the course of this conversation.

Do you play competitive fighting games at all? Do you know anything at all of this world?

Do you seriously think having to pay for every edition of SF2 and SF4 separately is somehow better than being able to continue playing against anyone even with the base game?

Should the games I know and love be able to exist in the form that made them the games I know and love?

You forgot your own examples include games that did not have this business model, but still plainly got made, and had major updates, and took a shitload of your money.

No, I gave you an example of a game that broke compatibility and was widely criticized for doing so. It is not a model that we should ever go back to, no one else in the world besides you likes that. The new model is better because it preserves compatibility. Do you understand the point I am making here?

I know you understand charging money for things inside a game can be abusive.

Yes, sometimes some things can be. But you're arguing that everything is, and that is what I disagree with. And I feel that by being so aggressive towards things that are perfectly reasonable, you only end up making it harder to talk about real problems.