Asking for a refund after a decade for a 30$ game, while most came have a playtime of 30-40 hours.

Yeah, it matters. Asking for a refund is obviously an overreaction.

"What 'agreement' did you made with them?" That Microsoft was not allowed to buy them?

/s

That I could play indefinitely without agreeing to new contracts with new companies.

Show me the agreement.

You want my receipt?

Or is your goal to find some kind of TOS gotcha where I gave up any rights to anything? Because the enforcement of that would be no better than a scam.

Having to agree to whatever new rules an arbitrary new company puts on accounts was never part of any proper communication they made around selling me minecraft, I assure you.

Show me a case where a receipt of buying a game for 30 $, means it's an agreement that a company may not be bought.

> but I don't see how it isn't breaking the agreement I made with mojang in the first place

Should be common logic though, but perhaps it's just me.

I didn't say anything about the company being bought being a problem.

The problem is that I have to agree to a brand new TOS, one that is 99% unrelated to minecraft and also very extensive.

They got bought years ago, and there was no problem until now.

Licenses change all the time.

> We may, at any time, and at our sole discretion, modify these Terms and Conditions of Use, including our Privacy Policy, with or without notice to the User. Any such modification will be effective immediately upon public posting. Your continued use of our Service and this Site following any such modification constitutes your acceptance of these modified Terms.

I literally don't see why Microsoft would be the big bad wolf for a typical business practise in changing circumstances.

I could make a fuzz while the ToS that changed, is only the owner's name ( just mentioning a harmless but required example that triggers the same complaint).

Your average TOS says they can change it completely arbitrarily and capriciously. Which is so ridiculous that it's pretty questionable how valid they would be in court. So just being able to quote a clause like that doesn't mean any particular change is okay.

> I literally don't see why Microsoft would be the big bad wolf for a typical business practise in changing circumstances.

The problem is that the new TOS is enormous and wide-reaching. The scope is hundreds to thousands of times bigger, and it makes so many demands of me. Just to skip around at random, it looks like I have to agree not to use Bing map images for governmental use, and I have to waive class actions for basically anything involving Microsoft.