To preface this, I am a supporter of SKG, my main issue with things like 'The Crew' was an unclear end date and it being terminated without reason. I think that the EU should only allow companies three models of selling products, a product, where when you buy something, it can run offline off the bat. A regulated service, where you SPECIFY clear MINIMUM end dates (the game can be terminated after this date, not HAS to be terminated, to avoid guessing, but can be), and a live service game which has its software turned over to people upon EOL.

I think that second option is where me and alot of SKG people diverge in viewpoints, I dont care about big AAA studios mainly, but games cannot be unique in how it handles services, the whole "can be EOL'ed" at any time for any reason is something which I would not like for ANY service gaming or not, but the whole idea of services which can be taken away is not as much as a issue for me if done responsibly, (minimum date specified clearly, not just in contract, and proper reasons among other things).

The reasoning for this is because, it seems weird to set a entirely new direction for video games, things like, a gym membership, or pieces of software or just something where you have x time with a service. For the most part, they will disclose when it ends, and usually clearly, unlike games, the issue with games might come with guessing the end date, but this can be better solved by just, having a minimum date where after that point, it can, but does not have to be taken down, and any time before that date, I do not care if its difficult for upkeep of the game, even in bankruptcy, there was a contract made and it should be followed.

Exceptions will be if you bought a item from that game which could be revoked upon EOL of that date, so the game should either offer refunds, or just give the software out, (going to what I think should be the third model of how games can be sold), or maybe offer terms on how long you get to retain that item. The reasons I state things like this is because, there isnt that much difficulty in architecting games going forward to be able to be handed off to the community at EOL. But there will be some difficulties and things that need to be maybe dropped when it comes to game development (i am not confident about this point, as maybe anything could be made differently in a way that aligns with how SKG wants it to be). You could say games are not services, but it could be that the thing you purchase is like a service to access that product (like steam, but i might be wrong on this)

I hope that the second way to offer games (regulated services), would be used infrequently, for like niche games, and not abused by AAA companies, and I dont know if it would be. I do not say this for their sake but rather because games cannot be unique in how it offers/forbids live-service games without a EOL plan to send it over to the community but should make sure it is handled responsibly through adding what they would like companies to do, but also the acceptable middleground.

If I am misunderstanding something, please correct me.