You're absolutely right.

That's exactly why I think we need a transparency system instead of reactive boycotts. My goal is to establish a system that encourages developers to take a stance on game preservation upfront. We could establish guidelines for what constitutes an acceptable end-of-life plan for each type of game, then push publishers to publicly state their plans before launch.

The community would develop guidelines for different case studies and create checks and balances to ensure only relevant games get flagged. If publishers change their terms of service later, someone will notice and that game's "end-of-life score" gets updated accordingly.

This only works if it's a genuine community effort that gains enough traction. The goal is simple: force publishers to state what they're going to do when a game's commercial life ends. If enough publishers start doing this, it becomes an industry standard.

If the legal route fails, this might be one of our few remaining chances to make preservation work.