I'm sure it's been said several times in the thread, but just to clarify one of Ross's points:
Several games require a central server to operate. Without the central server, key pieces of data cannot function in any playable state without a ridiculous amount of work on the part of some turbo-autist (several years at times). Ross is
not arguing that companies should provide the servers themselves; Ross is arguing that publishers should be required to have an End of Life plan that would include documentation and relevant source code so these turbo-autists can fix these games within a reasonable timeframe, ala the "
Right to Repair."
Sure, some games will require a lot of work and resources to function (MMOs being a prime example). Nonetheless, someone will often be able to run these servers if given the proper motivation, whether through pay or personal investment. Ross is
not arguing that multiplayer games should be forced to have a single player version. He's arguing for the ability to run our own server once the company stops caring for a game, partly for enjoyment and partly for the artistic merit many games have on some level. Furthermore, the majority of games do not require massive resources to upkeep. Something like Hearthstone could easily be fixed by a group of autists and ran locally.
Also, I'm sure some games are just lost to time and cannot be repaired easily. That's fine under SKG as far as I know. It's less about ensuring old games can be repaired and more about preventing the practice in the future.