I feel like game companies should have to disclose the minimum length they're going to keep the servers running for a game before release. Be it 12 months, 3 years, 10 years, but the consumer should have that knowledge before making a purchase.
Because it literally isn't saying that! It is hinting at it.
Having an internet connection is a subset of the requirement to access to the developer-hosted server. If the actual requirement is "Must have access via the internet to a service that we run but may shut down whenever we feel like it won't harm our reputation too much" then that is what they should write.
If it is internet facing how long will it receive security updates for?
If it uses online services how long will they be maintained for and what functionality will be lost when they shut down?
If these promises are broken the user should get a full refund (or even more compensation).
An even bigger issue is discontinued servers for hardware that winds up in the landfill. I have three perfectly good "smart plugs" that went dark about a month ago. Supposedly Matter will solve this, but I see no reason why better consumer protections shouldn't be in place.
But if I were to mandate some sort of "IoT Facts" label I would keep it simple. How long can some consumer with little to no technical knowledge keep using this device? If after 5 years they need to hack it to use a third-party server which may or may not be run by some third-party, they may have to pay extra for or run their own then I don't think they get to write ∞ on the "IoT Facts" label.
They can say 5 years + open source server code afterwards. But that is a different promise than running the server for 10, 20 or 100 years.
I run Acme Inc making IOT devices. I say 10 year guaranteed support. I go bankrupt next week, the company doesn't exist. Who is keeping the servers running exactly?
Feels like your opening up a can of hurt if they're relying on licensed services from someone else, not like they can open source that as well.
Again though given the sub licensing potential I can't see it being very effective. Maybe just a slight improvement.
When selling anything that relies on network services, companies should be forced to provide server and client source code to an authority, which will keep it in escrow indefinitely. The company is then required to renew their "IP lock" every X weeks/months; if they fail to do so, the code is made publicly available (maybe for a small fee, to cover operational costs).
Extra red tape? Maybe. A perfect system? Probably not, as companies would likely fail to upload updates after the initial market debut; and probably someone would occasionally forget to renew locks on products they still sell. Still better than the terrible status quo? For sure.
This does give some advantage to established companies but I don't think that is a major problem. If anything it gives companies a reason to build a reputation, which is something that we see a major lack of these days.
And it doesn't make the situation worse. Right now if you buy some Internet of Shit light switch from some effectively anonymous online seller that depends on their HTTP API there is a good chance that it does stop working within a few years. At least now reputable companies that don't go out of businesses do have to start behaving properly.
E.g. Pebble was sold to Fitbit due to insolvency. And the cloud services continued to run for a year.
Bankruptcy does not necessarily mean everything is gone. Deleting everything is actually the _worst_ outcome as it destroys value.
Not having any promise means it will pretty sure be gone. Having a support promise increases the chances of future support, even in case of bankruptcy.
Even in the case where it does trigger a public domain release, when the company is shutting and staff are trying to find new jobs, are they going to spend the time auditing they are able to release it?
I all seems like wishful thinking by gamers where their 'skin in the game' might be $60, or less if they got it on sale or a free to play title, or a trail of microtransactions that presumably they want to keep online but wasn't enough to keep the game going.