Sometimes making core changes does make sense but having the option to play older versions would always be a plus. Mostly I'm missing that feature from multiplayer games however, where's my Overwatch 1.0 or non-timed Wrath of the Lich King server?

It should only happen if somehow a massive game-breaking bug is wreaking havoc. Otherwise, leave it alone.

I recently had to buy a second copy of OOT for my N64, because somehow, despite me being close to a scholar of the industry, I was unaware that even back in the day, companies would tinker with games post-launch. It's annoying, pointless, and borderline illegal, imo.

Yes. I mean, it's their work and their artistic vision.

I'd appreciate the possibility to play earlier versions, however.

Generally, no, but sometimes there are exceptions. GunGrave GORE received a bunch of needed gameplay changes that helped the game become from janky/frustrating to a genuinely fun callback to its PS2 roots, It's a simple arcadey  PS2-styled TPS. Whereas Ubisoft nerfing upgrades in AC Oddysseey to nudge people to buy MTX to upgrade shit is downright scummy. Technical fixes and better balance changes are ok IMO. Removing the funniest line from Xenoblade 2? I am still angry. "THINK YOU CAN TAKE ME! DON'T FORGET ME! "

It is definitely nowhere close to illegal, like it or not. 

That is, of course, because you don't own the game, you've just purchased the right to play the game for as long as the real owners let you.  For example, if you buy an e-book from Amazon, they can go in and make changes to that book or even remove it from your devices.  Hilariously enough, they removed Orwell's 1984 from the accounts and devices of customers.  That is how the corporate world wants it to work and politicians are just paid employees of the biggest corporations so that isn't going to change.

As far as games now, it does make sense on a certain level.  It's no longer a situation where they release simple code on a physical copy and forget about it.  It's now usually a long-term investment because of online distribution, often with DLC to consider.  Only one build is going to be supported and maintained--it would be far too expensive and time-intensive to produce patches and content for multiple branches of code.  That's just not going to happen.

There is actually some physical precedent.  Dungeons & Dragons changes their rule sets and says that the earlier stuff is dead and you have to buy everything over if you want new stuff.  Like how Drow and Orcs are no longer "monsters" and there are no more "half" races on a unique level.  Obviously they can't take your physical materials away from you but they would if they could and are now trying to turn the whole thing into another "service" based around an online subscription.

Role-playing video-games that use or mimic those systems often have the same "work in progress" philosophy but they also often support their releases for years, which people generally like, even if individual changes are sometimes less popular.  

The only valid question then becomes, should customers have the right to block automatic updates and still play older, unsupported versions?  You can do this on Steam.  In fact, I'm one of many, many people who turn automatic updates off for Bethesda releases because updates tend to break mods and their own games.  People have even made downgrade software for those that need it.  Fallout 4 on my PC is an older build because their "next gen update" is a complete mess.

Which, honestly, is yet another reason why I moved to PC gaming.

Either way, everyone should have the right to disable updates and still play the unsupported version already on their device but that probably isn't going to happen on closed platforms because none of the corporate entities involved want that in the slightest since it means potentially missing out on future monetization and surrendering control of "their" code.  It's likely only a thing on PC by the grace of Steam and because people would find a work-around anyway.

Jokes on the Khazan devs, I platinumed your game despite your repeated attempts to nerf me.

I don't see why politicians outside of communist China would want digital rights to be implemented the way they are. Anyway, the EU will step in here given enough time, they have stepped in for much, much less. It's just people are only now figuring out they are being wronged. Slowly but surely people are waking up to the reality here. Get enough people and the EU will regulate just about any industry in favour of the consumer. Already they have done what they can do quickly like having products clearly say they are licensed but anything further is a long battle and a ways down the road. 

The people as a whole really don't care. Streaming hits record numbers year after year while physical is going the way of the dodo.

Renting instead of owning a copy was the answer of the capitalist system to create artificial scarcity of digital media and increase value and revenue. It was a stroke of genius, really.

I played through a game called Gelly Break a few years ago on the Switch. Played it again years later, there was an update. I downloaded it and it was a completely different game. It was great to pretty much play a new game, but it was weird.

God I hope not. One corpo will over step, surely and cause a reaction. We're still in the early stages, people will not allow their newly created digital libraries to be left useless without a fight.