Based solely on the premise of what Ross wants, Ubisoft can just ditch support here because the game remains playable in both single player and multiplayer.
One thing that makes Rainbow Six Vegas an interesting example is that while the game remains playable in single player and a form of multiplayer - R6V online actually had more gametypes for larger team sizes which aren't able to be recreated in a local multiplayer environment.
If it was a game like Halo 1 for example, I could see them maybe getting away with killing online with no server browser since everything you can do online in Halo 1, you can do in local multiplayer, and you can always get more Xboxes and play locally with more players. So in that case, technically yes the game does remain playable in single and multiplayer. In the case of R6V though, it remains "playable" in multiplayer, but not to the same way as when online worked. No matter how many Xbox360s or PCs you have on LAN, you cannot make the game play 4v4 versus modes, for example. Those gametypes died with the online play.
You're right though, if this gets passed then that gives the movement a foot in the door to then press further if game companies try slimy shit like Ubisoft trying to say "well technically we have already presented what you outlined" as you said. So this getting passed at this first stage is the important part and asking too many questions now might be jumping the gun.
-------------------------------------------------------
Another question I've thought about while typing is, how this would effect re-branding of games? Lets say we live in a world where this initiative is passed already and then Blizzard releases Overwatch. Years later, they release Overwatch 2 and you can no longer play Overwatch 1 anymore. This initiative would say "this is not allowed, you must allow people to have ways to play Overwatch 1". But, Overwatch 2 could just be argued is not a new game, but rather a "balance patch". Nothing Overwatch 2 does is something you could not have just patched into Overwatch 1. The game literally could have just been a really big and game changing patch for the original game, but because you call it Overwatch 2, does this mean you're required to allow people to keep playing Overwatch 1, or could you try to legally get away with removing Overwatch 1 by claiming 2 is the same game, just re-branded for a patch, yet in the exact same engine and everything.
It'll be interesting if this passes to see how scummy companies will try to circumvent it in the future.
