It seems like it should be legal for your end of life plan for the game to be “it is over and no one gets to play it anymore”.
If the game can be taken away from you st any time then "buying" is definitely inaccurate too then. "Licensing for a limited time" might be the most accurate, but something like "Lease for X years" might be more concise and accurate enough.
You are buying a license for 2 weeks sounds a lot less appealing than just "buying", but that would have been the reality for Concord had they not issued refunds. Is a year that much better? Maybe, but have it in writing.
These "we sell you a license we may terminate at any point for any reason" terms are absolute bullshit.
If not, then buying is not owning and piracy is not stealing.
If you buy something, that will be yours, you can use it as long as you want, you can sold it or it can be inherited from you. (In copyright terms that's a perpetual, irrevocable license.)
If there is only a limited duration you can use something, that's called renting and the duration must be known before you enter into a contract.
The terms of the purchase of an online game that might shut down are quite clear and known ahead of time. It's just not a fixed amount of time.
There is a different valid business model, where you subscribe for eg. a monthly / yearly fee and can watch movies form a catalog or play games from a catalog as long as you keep paying and the service is working.
> The terms of the purchase of an online game that might shut down are quite clear and known ahead of time.
On a ticket or a pass there is a clear date or deadline printed on them. Do the same for games (buy thins game 10 EUR for 1 year) and that would be fine, too, (it is the same subscription model just with yearly duration).
I think bankruptcy is clearly its own category here. This is targeted at companies who release something then shutter it because they didn't sell enough copies.