[Derelicte]

I don't know where you and other people in this thread are getting that idea from. That's not what the petition says, and that's definitely not what Ross Scott says in his videos.

The game that sparked this movement was shutdown 9 years after it came out, and had 3 months notice.

[blamestross]

Right the problem is that they didn't do that. 3 months notice isn't the same as "making it clear to the customer at purchase time how long this product might reasonably be supported"

I'd certainly encourage a more sustainable solution like a self runnable server, but I'd settle for replacing the word "buy" in marketing with "license" or "rent" with actual terms other than "until we decide to turn it off".

You don't get to make software a "license" but then not have any obligations to your licensee.

[Derelicte]

That might be "the problem" for you, but that's not the problem as far as stop killing games is concerned. This petition is asking for games to remain in a reasonable playable state after the servers shutdown. No if, ands, or buts. Adding a "playable through" disclaimer changes nothing as far as this movement is concerned.

I agree that clearer language about what you are actually "buying" would be good for consumers, but it's tangential to Stop Killing Games.

[blamestross]

Ross talks about disclaimers and honesty in advertising being reasonable solutions all the time. He kinda is the "Movement".