What about making it a requirement after some time. What about, after the warranty runs out. And hey, that could also incentivize longer warranties!
> [1] "Typically, when a new games console launches its price point is below the actual cost of manufacturing. But over time, through a combination of bulk component orders and the refining of the hardware design, the cost falls below the retail price. The PS3 was sold at a loss for nearly four years, the PS4 was profitable within six months of its launch, and the PS5 has taken eight months. Considering the novel new design and global chip shortages, that's quite impressive." https://uk.pcmag.com/gaming-systems/134885/sony-says-499-ps5...
Or we could say that product tying is illegal, which it already is. Why do we care about specific monopolistic manufacturers' business strategies for mid tier commodity computers? It should be plainly illegal for Nintendo to try to stop people from running a Nintendo game on a Sony or a Dell computer, or to stop Sony from writing a game for a Nintendo computer. Or for Sony to stop Nintendo from doing those things. There's literally no reason to support this "you need a special X brand computer to run X games." If they can't sell hardware on their own merits, it's because they're not good at hardware, and you were being forced to buy it for the software you wanted.
Your code becoming open source after 10 years should be treated as the cost of doing business, same as a copyright or patent expiring.