I agree, it's all stemming from the "need" for everything to be a games as a service model now. What was previously expected only in free-to-play games has bled into the "one time purchase" market and is unfortunately becoming the norm for both things that require online and those that probably don't.
I kind of get that for ongoing development there needs to be some ongoing income, but there are many ways to do that without shady backend stuff. Pinball FX is a particularly weird one, as they are constantly releasing new tables as a way to make income. I guess the always online thing is license checking? Not cool in any case.
Tarkov is kind of a different beast. It's basically an early access title that has been in EA for 7 years and there's no clear road roadmap on where it is going to end. The current discussion is all about how certain versions should contain all DLC and what constitutes a DLC. Personally, I find the whole DLC argument odd. I would argue any of these features and game modes added before leaving "Closed Beta" are just base game features. They should be available to even the lowest tier of purchase as they are being added to the game before "release".
But then Battlestate have been shady from the start.
They've really pulled a Cities: Skylines with the timing of their release. I wonder if it would have been so popular if Tarkov hadn't decided to machine-gun its own foot right before.
I'm still following the game with much interest, but the amount of mixed reviews and talk of poor performance has given me pause so far.