These days it seems journalists do more psychological warfare than journalism. So I think maybe they report on dying games with sad acceptance to try and normalize just sadly accepting it and doing nothing else whenever it happens. It's not like you can socially engineer "being upset about not being able to do something anymore" out from the human condition. That's an extension of a survival instinct. So when Ubisoft wants to shut something down (because if people don't stop playing old online game they won't buy new online game), they pay the journalists to deaden the impact as much as is possible without looking like Ubisoft is paying them. They know they can't make you not care. They can however keep you feeling as if it might be socially unacceptable to care any more than that. If this one's getting more exposure than the others, it's because Google's datamining (or something) told them too many were starting to wish this practice would stop and they need to be reminded of the normality of sad acceptance. People who work in media these days also tend to be postmodernists who think that history and truth is open to the strongest bidder and might makes right and you'd better join with whoever appears to be the strongest side in any issue even if it means holding contradictory principles, like acting this way and also hating capitalism. Is this the road to madness? Absolutely, but that's no reason to think someone in the media wouldn't be this way. If madness pays the bills they'll be crazy all day.