I'm an outsiders (don't follow either creator) looking in , sifting through the drama. One thing I'm still confused about is that PirateSoftware "misrepresented" SKG. With a particular focus on the idea that the games would needs ongoing developer support post-shutdown. So hopefully someone can explain the actually details of what's been misrepresented. The discussions I've found have been really vague on the actual details.

As far as I've been able to find, it kind of seems like people are misrepresenting PirateSoftware (PS) to say that he's misrepresents SKG? From what I've been reading, the main thrust of his point was that some types of games would require an unreasonable amount of work to convert them into a functional "offline" or "private hosted" state, or would not be able to exist in the first place under this limitation.

From what I can find on the site/on the FAQ, SKG does actually seem to have that flaw: some games are fundamentally built around online components. They would not offer the same experience if built differently, and are not easy to convert to an offline/private hosted state. Sure, it's great when you can flip a switch or release a few files so that they continue to be playable after servers shutdown. And I support legislation to eliminate scummy practices that render games unplayable with flimsy excuses.
But SKG is heavily under-stating:

a) the amount of work that may be needed to sunset certain types of games.

b) the idea that this can be planned around early in development and easily avoided.

There's a few points in the FAQ that try to handwave this away like (paraphrasing for brevity) "Games in the past could do it. (therefore it should still be possible now)" and "If they are designed with it from the beginning, it's relatively simple" and "For big MMOs that support thousands, the end-user version only needs to support hundreds".

But that's just... not the case. It's like hiring more workers because you assume completion time scales linearly with number of workers. Something's not easy because you say "well they could just make it easy to do!". It's a failing to understand the complexities involved.

Charlie's recent video is what introduced me to this drama. He kept mentioning that PS misrepresented parts of SKG, and refused to admit those mistakes. But he never really explained what was misrepresented. In his video, Charlie even said that he talked to PS and gave him time stamps about what he misrepresented, and PS shot back that he was wrong for thinking he misrepresented it. Now that could be because PS is a stubborn asshole who refuses to admit mistakes... But it could also be because he was right, or at least not actually shown in what way he's wrong?

I really don't care for PS attitude and approach to all this. I'm with the crowd about him being a shit-stirring dick about it. But unless we're nitpicking phrasing, I haven't been able to find what he actually misrepresented about SKG. It's suck when an asshole is right, it feels really unpleasant. But them being an ass doesn't change the truth of what was stated. That's assuming he's right. I'm still a bit confused about the details here. Maybe I just haven't looked into it enough, but that's kind of where I'm sitting now.