I don't get why you keep pointing out that the crux of anything I'm saying or from this mindset is reliant on a comparison between actual, tangible goods. I'm not even arguing the idea that it's a shitty situation when things get pulled, it's just an obvious given. But the actual implications of what they mean to a medium are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Where is the onus actually supposed to go when things disappear? The publishers? The platform holders?
The platform holders ARE in a position I'd think to if not mandate an announcement then at least something on the store front or whatever listing games that will go soon, similar to PS+'s "expiring soon" list. I'd assume they'd have advance notice to know to pull the stuff off and can require they're allowed to broadcast that info, similar to how I imagine Sony mandates a digital release be an option on Vita/PS4 titles unless there's a necessary physical component that keeps it from working out like Skylanders.
... Though I guess companies like Activision could just issue the notice at the last minute anyway, as the Steam vote implied yesterday, or they don't even know until a week or two out that they won't renew. Something to at least cover the ones known about in advance would be nice though.
That game just came out like 3 months ago, it'll be fine for at least another 3 months.
Actually I suspect what's more important is that likely WB/Traveller's Tales handle licensing differently from, say, Activision. Activision has been extraordinarly eager to up and drop anything they deem as not profitable enough, and with barely a fuck given. I can't fully blame them admittedly, a lot of the time this isn't even niche stuff we really enjoyed and would like to see stick around (the one example of THAT they have is still there, Vampire Bloodlines), but it still sort of gives the impression of not giving too much of a shit about their games once they've been out a few months, or that people may care in the long term.
