In the Netflix scenario, you know that you are purchasing a subscription service that lets you access content owned/distributed/licensed by Netflix. They aren't advertising that you can own Stranger Things, for example. They advertise that you can watch Stranger Things on-demand. I don't know of anyone who has purchased a Netflix subscription and thought that they own copies of everything on Netflix.
In the game scenario, you believe that you are purchasing the game. That's how they market it. The expectation is that once you've made that transaction, you now own that copy of that game to do with as you more or less please. Play it offline, run a local server, put it away and pick it up 10 years from now and still be able to play it, etc.
It's increasingly apparent that in many cases, even when you buy something from a game store (MS, Sony, etc.) that you aren't actually purchasing the game, you're purchasing the rights to access it through a particular service. But that's not how the advertise it. And no, I don't think burying this fact behind a few thousand words of legalese is really addressing the issue at all.
If you don't understand why that distinction might upset people, I don't know what to say.