I still support this law. If they move to subscriptions to “dodge” this law, that’s fine in a way. At least consumers won’t be under the false impression they own something in the rare case they’re paying a subscription to play a game.
As others have echoed, I think a subscription model is FINE for a game IF you are upfront about that being the cost. I suspect many customers are frustrated when they purchase something and then it is simply not able to be used when the developer feels like it.
It already is a subscription based model. The difference between they're lying by charging once and pretending like they don't know they're going to stop providing the minimum requirements to play the game.
You're describing the reality, and the difference after adding these additional rule, they'd have to be honest about what you're paying for and for how long you are allowed to use it.
Additional, if it is a subscription, it's more likely ongoing revenue could possibly fund providing the service indefinitely. Will that always happen, obviously not, but then game studios won't be as likely to do the same exact thing that catalysed the stop killing games project.
Evidence is strong that people follow the content they want, and then secondarily choose the least friction delivery model.