Nah, this take it just conflating unrelated historical talking points about Microsoft without regard to how specific things actually happen. A better question is: what incentive does Microsoft have to alienate its playerbase this way?
The answer is much more mundane corporate decision making dynamics: an online game played by children is ripe for abuse by predators, and someone representing PR or Legal won the argument that this functionality is necessary. It would have been great if someone representing Community, UX or Engineering could have won the argument, but sadly those arguments are harder to make in today's political climate, so that's where they landed.
> A better question is: what incentive does Microsoft have to alienate its playerbase this way?
It does continue to condition the peasant-consumer class, especially the young ones, that the products they pay for can be taken from them on the whims of their corporate overlords. That they should expect to censor themselves and each other to appease their betters. Xbox users learned this already (https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/03/27/microsoft-can-now-ba...), now minecraft users will lean their lesson, and tomorrow it will be Windows users (and therefore 80% of the worlds computer users) who will learn to obey Microsoft's will. Software is a Service and no matter what you paid or how long you've used it, that Service is still only a privilege. Displease your masters and that privilege can and will be taken from you.
Okay, that is an exaggeration, but not nearly as much of one as I'd like.
I'm not endorsing the decision, I'm just saying this is how things happen in the corporate world. It has nothing to do with embrace/extend strategy, and it's not a product of Microsoft acquisition per se, it's just the way corporate decisions are made.
Keep in mind the people involved are no less smart than you or me, but they are responsible for single concerns, and the winning concern will be the one with the best narrative and metrics to back it up, because the tie-breaking executive will not have bandwidth to understand either side deeply. If we want to effect change, we first must understand this dynamic.
The answer is much more mundane corporate decision making dynamics: an online game played by children is ripe for abuse by predators, and someone representing PR or Legal won the argument that this functionality is necessary. It would have been great if someone representing Community, UX or Engineering could have won the argument, but sadly those arguments are harder to make in today's political climate, so that's where they landed.