The implication that “games as a service” is somehow a positive for game preservation is its own kind of illiteracy.

so far the only legit critique I've seen is the uncertainty of what this will mean to indie devs - will they be forced to sign with publishers who can assist with compliance etc., what will compliance actually look like to small shops, etc.

I will say this: the vast majority of game devs feel the same way and want to be able to play the games we paid for as well. there's just a bit of fear of the unknown for small devs.

There are a handful of concerns from insiders are that somewhat valid, more or less things to be careful about when trying to sort out how to make this fair and reasonable to both sides.

You can ponder how long from shutdown of an online server until the companies IP is no longer worth anything because they have to give up keys to playing it without subs. Same goes for anti-piracy. If A goes under and is bought up by B, how long is that timer before the assets aren't worth anything anymore.

But all those concepts get thrown the hell out the window when CEOS stick their fingers in their ears and start stamping their feet and shouting "nothing is written in stone" "at some point the service may be discontinued" "Nothing is eternal" when in fact all those problems can be solved. Fucking tone-deaf asshats. Costs you money, sorry nothing is eternal. Costs them money, ohhh noooo can't do that it might cost money.

When you launch a title with online requirements, you have to escrow or insure the servers for X months and escrow code. When you sell or fold, you then have X months to work out a new buyer or maintainer. At the end of X months. you either keep the game online through other means (sales) or provide server binaries, serverless binaries, or details/code to keep the game running indefinitely.