It's messy. Making a balanced law around it is sketchy. Consumers deserve to own the games they buy, straight up. Businesses deserve to be able to sell their assets when they fold and have them continue to be worth something so they can live on to make new games and their old games can go to new companies to keep development rolling.

There's obviously low-hanging fruit. If your game is single-player and you're just doing an online piracy check, and you go out of business, you leave the check servers running in a trust for like five years with the code to remove the check from escrow. Tick Tock, you either relight the game in time somewhere, or it becomes free to play.

But when you have something like Clash of Clans, where you need battle servers. Those assets are useless once you open that code and 100% support a community-run game. The game could otherwise be passed to another studio, and development could continue. Selling and moving games to other companies and publishers with breaks in the middle happens a lot. How long after a game collapses should they wait for it to become worthless to the market? The obvious answer to the consumer is immediately, because they bought it, they own it. Maybe you have to keep a certain amount of money from the proceeds and use it to refund the users. It still sucks for the you don't own it anymore concept.

Developers and publishers aren't fair to consumers without guardrails (and there are none), but those rails should also be reasonable to companies.

If the commission does nothing, it'll probably be wrapped around this clusterfuck.

I do have a worry that the studios will just stop selling games and everything will go subscription if they are required to provide servers and source on game shutdown. It'll just push more piracy, less sales, less games and everyone loses.

I really wish companies would just have pride in their stuff and be fair to their users and users could just bear a fair price for good games.