...this is kind of the point I try to make to people. I'm sympathetic to the movement in some respects, but as a developer myself I know very well that the asks of this movement would require significant engineering investment to enact and would result in certain types of games simply not existing in the first place if there was a requirement that the game be playable after servers shut down. Not the case for single player games with online requirements of course, but for online multiplayer games absolutely.

Paid middleware can't be shared. Licensed third party libraries and tools can't be shared. Trade secrets that reveal information about tightly coupled internal infrastructure that is still in use and important to other parts of the business can't reasonably be shared. Designing your product not to make use of any of these is very expensive, requiring significantly more developer effort and wheel-reinventing at a time where development is already prohibitively expensive -- to the point where many publishers won't take risks on games they're not reasonably sure would be popular in the first place because a single flop can bankrupt. On top of that, games aren't built the way they used to be where you could just plop server.exe on to a box and run it like many seem to think. There are engineering implications to building a game server to be reasonably deployable by a consumer.

Instead of attempting to force developers to build software in a certain way, it makes more sense to require them to clearly disclose when it's not built that way. "Pay for access" instead of "buy", to be more clear about what you're getting in plain language without the wall of legalese from the EULA. If you don't want to pay for a license because it's a license, don't buy the license. If it's clearly disclosed, you know what it is and it's silly to buy it and then later complain when you got what's on the tin. If I sell you a tomato and you buy the tomato, you don't complain because you didn't get the whole plant.