As a solo indie who's done freelance on live-service games, I say "bring it on."

I understand and fully sympathize with the worry. I hate bureaucracy and administrative crap. But that is what it's like to work in any other industry. The games industry generates more money than music and films combined. It shouldn't be this irresponsible when it comes to something like ownership.

I commend you for it.
As a dev myself, it sucks having to abide by yet more regulations. But again if the initiative results in less games, that would mean less games that wouldn't have been preserved anyways, except people aren't suckered into buying them + a lot of games get preserved.

Would it result in less games being made? It would result in games like Battleforge, Concord and The Crew still being available to study and learn from and to inspire future generations of developers with their lessons. A video or text reporting a game's existence is not a game being preserved.

Here's the thing; If a game doesn't fulfill the requirements that SKG asks for (you buy it = you get to install it regardless of what the publisher says), that is a game that would have not been preserved anyways. (Graph made by Ross Scott, games marked as dead couldn't be preserved through piracy)

And things have been made, indeed.

There's this idea in many arts, including game dev, which is that "ideas" by themselves are worthless and what actually matters is how you execute them because that's when they become valuable in a number of ways.
The preservation of games that exist is more important than that of games that don't.

The law isn't retro-active. Having an End-of-Life plan will only be a requirement for games made in the future. Games will have to be designed with this in mind from the beginning.

Can this bankrupt companies? So can getting sued because you deleted personal files on the player's device.

You can also, alternatively de-list the game, that is perfectly acceptable if the developer chooses to do so (and it's not a case where Apple forces it like in your example).

But people who bought the game should be able to still play it.

You can release a patch that removes the licensed content in a similar way to how Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker replaces Doritos for generic textures, what SKG opposes is disabling the possibility of installing and playing the game.

I can still boot up PS2 games that have licensed cars and firearms.
SKG is not against live-service games or games with licensed content existing, they're against what happened with The Crew, where the game was taken away from players' libraries after they purchased it.

Game preservation is important to people who care about game preservation. Apple delisting this game is a problem. Ubisoft taking away people's copies of The Crew is a problem. But these problems need to be tackled one at a time and the latter has been a bigger issue for longer.

"SKG person" here (as in I've been following Ross Scott since 2014 because I love Half-Life and Chet's work in it).
Yes, this is a bad thing and something SKG is against. The focus of the initiative right now is on legislation against companies taking away games you bought because it's theft.

I'd be the guy you call at the end when they ask you to pick your opponent

Mind you, it is correct in Spanish to call Americans "estadounidenses" but it's silly to start demanding the Japanese to stop calling them Amerikajin. All this does is make us South Americans seem whiney.