A hypothetical different angle to Ross' thoughts on an "Expiration Date" on the box.

First off, the primary goal is still enforcing end of life plans. This is kind of like a thought experiment in response to those who would say that it's utterly impossible the have end of life consideration for all games, and therefore unfair to mandate that. Okay, fine, let's pretend that it's impossible and unfair. Ross has mentioned that the only other thing he could see changing consumer habits is if there was a literal expiration date when games are sold saying "This game will shut down in 5 years". Well, the pro-publisher side rejects that too because they don't know how long their game is going to be successful for. Okay, but what if instead, you had to register with an EU agency and specify whether or not your game has an end of life commitment? Games that don't would be sold with big red notification saying "This online game does not have an end of life plan and will expire," and games that do could have a big green notification saying that they DO have an EOL plan. Companies going back on their commitment to provide an EOL solution would be enforceable, of course. Also, let's pretend for the sake of the thought experiment that this somehow extends worldwide, because if they were only labeled in the EU, I don't think it would have a significant enough impact to where companies wouldn't just ignore it.

Now, would publishers be okay with that as a solution? I can't see any good reason why not other than "Literally anything less than the status quo is unacceptable to us." Which is to say, "We want to still be allowed to mislead the consumer because not being able to do so would result in lost sales when the consumer decides not to buy the games with the big red labels."

Maybe I'm rambling a bit, but what I'm getting at is that I think this hypothetical framework corners a publisher or a developer into admitting that it really is just about wanting to continue to be able to mislead consumers for profits, because there's no other way to be against it other than for that reason. There's no mandated EOL, no "undue burden" on the developer/publisher, no "licensing issues" or "IP issues", you don't even have to forego the EU market. Just stop misleading consumers and accept the loss in revenue that would come with that.

As a separate thought, would this solution even work, even if it was worldwide? Even though I came up with it, I'm not at all convinced that it would actually stop a lot of games from being destroyed, which is all the more reason why if the consumer is going to actually be protected, mandated EOL is a must, regardless of any complaining from the publishers.