For once, there is a law that actually dictates the responsibilities that a developer has to the customer, and all that responsibility states is that the developer can not revoke the use of software that a customer has already fully paid for under certain narrow circumstances; somehow this is what you find to be unreasonable?
1. Developer A writes some software.
2. Developer B licenses that software from Developer A, under the terms that (for instance) it only be used internally by Developer B and not disclosed.
3. Developer B makes modifications to that software and uses it as part of the implementation of a video game server.
4. Developer B goes bankrupt.
Under this proposed law, Developer B would be obligated to release the modified software, breaching their agreement with Developer A and potentially causing them financial harm.
If the law passed after the game was released, then it doesn’t apply.
It’s no different from mandating that the software can’t be malware that puts a ransom on your data, contain other people’s copyrighted content without permission, or just not work despite you claiming that it does when you sold it
And it’s not mandating that anything is structured in a particular way, just that the game works as the buyer would expect and how they achieve that is up to them