Okay. The idea that games need to be solely service-based, because the idea is faulty. No other form of entertainment is a service; they're all products. Why should games be any different?
If a publishing house--let's say, Random House--starting charging people a monthly (or, worse, a page-by-page) subscription in order for them to read their books, people would boycott RH until they either changed their strategy or went out of business. Same with movies: if we were suddenly charged on a strict pay-per-minute basis, rather than a pay-per-view, we would see an outrage.
While it's true that television is largely service-based, it's only a service on the provider's end--companies like Turner and Viacom produce products in which to cushion commercials that provide the bulk of revenue. But why are large publishers trying to change the game? The games are, first and foremost, a product--developers create a product, and individual licenses for that product are distributed for consumer use, and the consumer should be able to do what they want with that license (within legal bounds) and not risk losing it on the grounds of "service denied."
Of course, games can be both a product and a service--servers aren't free. That's the unique aspect of games that other forms of media don't have, but to change the game from "product" to "service" solely on this single, unique aspect is foolhardy at best, fatal at worst.
