I think it's totally fine for a company to shut down the servers for a game...

...as long as they have a public tool to host your own server, free of any restrictions. They can also stop selling the game, but they can't shut down the distribution for people who already paid for it, unless they straight up host it somewhere public and call it shareware from that point onwards.

Any other alternative is crazy. Imagine you buy a music vinyl, then 5 years later some Sony executive knocks on your door and says "hey you know we are shutting down, so imma need that disc you've bought I'm going to shatter it right now thanks"

I'd settle for the EU to start enforcement on use of the words buy and purchase. If a game requires online connection or only gives you a license, then they must use the words rent or license at point of sale.

Let's call it for what it is:

Planned obsolescence.

Vote Pirate Party, y'all! 🏴‍☠️

Anything closed-source (designs, code, documentation, ...) should be forced to be opensourced after either obsoletion/deprecation or a fixed time period, whichever happens first.

So glad this is gaining traction. I like playing older games from time to time and I am NOT down with capricious companies killing games just because they decided it doesn't make financial sense to patch out their DRM. The Crew was sold as a good, not a service. They should either patch out the online requirement or give users their money back.

I can imagine the prospect not being attractive to Ubisoft, but who cares about Ubisoft anyway.

Honestly I doubt this is going to change how games are made, I've seen this one opinion floating around that if this thing goes forward only the wording on the marketing will change and knowing these companies I agree. Products will become services, ownership to leasing, buying to subscribing and so on.