>>896
They are not forced to support the game, they shall be forced to come up with a way for players to be able to set up the infrastructure to continue playing the game.
We all know we're talking about online games that are sold at a premium but integrally depend on the publisher's servers to function, because we're long past the client side servers era and these fuckers got what they wanted, wherein you pay a good as if it were ownable, because it's presented as a good and not a service which usually requires a subscription but would also be described as a one off, yet don't own.
The issue is on the definition.
Publishers treat your business exchange, the buying act, as the equivalent of buying a right to use the game as a service as long as it's kept available by the publisher.
It's like buying n years of service, except there it's virtually infinite as long as the online infrastructure remains available.
But people think they "buy a game" because it's shown like that, it's duplicitous. The American law made it clear that users only enjoy a limited licensed use of a product they don't even really own. European law decided to give more power to the users, thereby making them owners of copies of games they bought.
Although this concerned premium games, it's easy to see how the American logic paved the way for GaaS.
But if a game is definitely and transparently presented as a service, which it should when