Seeing your comment, the base seems more corrupted than the elite. The corruption they suffer is to see everyone as being corrupted.

Think about it: how you would implement such directive and make it implementable... Now you see the problem.

What about the directive would be unimplementable? Please give specifics here. SKG has repeatedly hammered this point: They only pursue this for _new_ games, only care about non-live-service games (games where you have a subscriptions are obviously "rented", and so wouldn't count). What they want is for those games to have an EOL plan built into the game from the start if they want to rely on a server. This doesn't feel like an unreasonable ask, and I'd ask you to show me what exactly about this is complicated.

It's worth noting that they don't mandate a particular plan. A solution can take many forms - multiplayer games could have servers released, _or_ be given a "direct connection" method, or even have a local (no network) multiplayer option, and still be within what SKG was asking for. For singleplayer games, it's even easier, they can just have a killswitch for the "required server" components.

All of this is cheap to do, it just needs to be planned for so that when the time comes, all the tools are in place for the EOL plan to proceed.