You can construct counterexamples too! For example, "on your turn, say a number. First player to say a number that is double a number the other player said, wins." Is a perfect (I think you mean perfect information) game.
If you want a middleweight solution, between "ask about this on developer forums" and "try to get a law passed," you could create a consumer organization that publishes a list of games that are doing all the right things. Publish a newsletter, create free distribution for companies that don't use DRM and have sunset support plans.
Reasonable, but the level of copyright protection for games is actually really small! It only actually covers the art and text, not the game mechanics. I don't think I'd support that trade overall but it seems better than the unilateral requirement on game companies.
This is how a lot of regulation happens! It can actually work better than having central funding for inspections - if there's a sudden glut of people who need, like, meat processing facilities inspected, but it'll take a year to get the government to triple the meat processing inspection budget, then you get a huge backlog of plants that can't run. If the inspector is funded by fees, they can hire right away.
What level of justification do you think should be required to skip consumer preference and go with a law?
In the case of seatbelts I think the case is quite strong. Even beyond consumer preference, there's a burden on public healthcare, and a cost in safety to others (if you get knocked out of your seat you could lose control of the vehicle, belt keeps you by the wheel). Parents can injure their kids by not using seatbelts.
I don't see any of that in games. As a consumer and as a bystander I don't really know whether I want the marginal dollar of game development spent on long term support or on performance improvements or something else. It certainly varies game to game. For big AAA games that depend on mtx, but could be played entirely offline, the studios have a legitimate interest in making playing them offline hard!
I'd also note that having any laws at all about how games work is going to make it more expensive to develop games, purely because you'll make people check if they're following the laws. Imagine a teenager shipping their first game, or a small studio deciding whether to release a hackathon project, or a small team at a big company spinning out a mini game into a standalone. I dread "no, don't launch that, I don't know if breaking the mid battle save system counts as reasonably playable"
What if, in stead of a requirement, we created an opt-in obligation for companies? If you promise "EOL support guaranteed" you register a plan with whatever agency and pay some fee and they check in every couple years and make sure you remember. And if you don't, then you don't get the badge, and we find out if consumers actually care.
As the amount of data tends to 0 (idk why the quote is using 1), if course your belief tends to whatever your belief was before you saw any data. What else could it possibly tend to? Of course it's very sad that we don't have any data, but that's no fault of Bayesian.
Cover letters that just say how much you love the company are pretty useless. Cover letters that provide additional information about why you're a good use of the company's interviewer's time are useful. I've submitted letters about, say, how I think one project on my resume is specifically applicable to a problem the company has. This both shows I researched the company, which is proof of investment from me, and provides some evidence that I should work at this particular company (or I could have done bad research and misunderstood the company and what it wants, in which case it will help them reject me and help me find my way to a company I'm more interested in)