>>509293743
Imagine you're a company who makes yearly releases of, for example a sports game, let's call it Badminton '20 for brevity.
You make it every year and also pump it full of microtransactions and other psychological tricks too so customers spend as much money as possible. Then you make Badminton '21 that isn't actually different from the previous one, but now you have to buy all those microtransactions again to be "competitive" in its online modes, besides buying the $60+ box price. Then you wait a year and make Badminton '22 and so on. Meanwhile you kill the servers for Badminton '21 and '20 after two-three years of its release so players who want to play online can only play the latest version.

Suddenly, you catch wind of an initiative with the possibility of government regulation that would force you to make games that can be played indefinitely in some form after you end support and shut down the official servers.
Out of the blue, you get an existential risk as customers may not move on from Badminton '27 to '28 because it's a better game than '28 and they already have all the microtransactions in that game so they'll just play that.
Uh oh, do we actually have to put in effort to make BETTER GAMES?
Do you bow and submit to a danger that will cut into your (arguably evil) money making scheme or do you just tell your interns to oppose and sabotage this initiative at no additional cost?

I think the answer speaks for itself.