Being a game developer myself, I've been advocating for a more ethical industry. Last year I wrote a blog post to shine some light on predatory practices in live games and explain how it's much worse than just the lootboxes/gambling/battlepass aspects. You can read it here: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/predatory-tactics-in-gaming-are-worse-than-you-think
I'm glad to see the Stop Killing Games initiative gaining traction, though interestingly, it's not just about keeping access to unsupported games that appeals to me, but rather how having more transparency could expose a lot of hidden shady practices, or how supporting offline modes could indirectly give players more control to their data. And that's what big corpo is afraid of.
The main reason why more and more games that could be played solo have a mandatory online mode is because companies can then track every single of your actions, and use that data against you to change your game on the fly to increase engagement or spending opportunities, without your knowledge nor your consent. In a world where you could potentially have an offline mode or have more control over your game data, companies wouldn't be able to:
– Manipulate your game difficulty to frustrate you just enough so you feel the need to pay (or making it easier when their engagement algorithm detects you're less engaged)
– Manipulate the odds of 'random' rewards or lootboxes based on your inventory or spending history (Some gacha systems have hidden conditions for certain rewards, tricking whales into spend $1000s not knowing these rewards have 0% chances to drop)
– Have discriminatory / personalized offers (in F2P games, it's quite common that players who spent some money have offers that are 2x, 5x, 10x more expensive than non-spenders)
And that's just a few examples of how your data can be used, and losing control over that data or having these practices exposed is what big corpo is afraid of.