Even if I go back to the 1990s and boxed retail software, you were never actually buying the software, your purchase was for the license to use it.
The real issue here is the gamers being sold software whose functionality is tied to third-party servers and denied first sale doctrine (the ability to transfer/resell their license if they want to someone else).
Thats always been a gross simplification of the rights generally involved with a software sale. While yes, technically its a license to use software, rather than the software itself, license sales have always had a series of expectations associated with them in law, common law and in user expectations. And those expectations matter in a courtroom.
Most of the world consumer law is very clear that if you give a license to use something, and its sold as "buy" rather than "rent" or "time limited" , its not revokable and its subject to the same sort of consumer protection laws buying a toaster or a car has. Most importantly that it remains fit for purpose for the natural lifetime of the product, and that term "lifetime" is absolutely not "until we tire of letting you use that thing you paid for" but rather "How long would a reasonable consumer believe they can use this before its basically bitrot". To simplify that, assume it means "as long as the physical software is capable of running without a rewrite" and NOT "until we send the kill-command to the DRM".
The tension here is that software is attempting to move to a service model whilst trying to retain the language of a product model. You dont purchase a pool cleaning man, you hire a pool cleaning man. Well, unless your in a southern state during a terrible time in history, I suppose.
And thats where cases like this the complainant stands a good chance of winning. Because if California law has strong protections (A lot of america *doesnt* , but europe* and australia but apparently not canada for reasons that are mystifying to me, have strong protections) then if it can be shown that at the point of purchase it was not made clear that this product was time limited or was going to be made unavailable to people who purchased it, then the complainants have a strong case for deceptive advertising.
* I am aware europe just voted down a 'stop killing games' law. I am surprised by that, because honestly, it should have been the default anyway. I smell the acrid stench of industry lobbyists foul deeds