The 2 reasons you provide are actually why games that offer an offline mode functionality (more specifically that the seller cannot revoke access to after the transaction, which includes making the digital good available at the time of purchase for permanent offline download to an external storage source to be used without a connection to the internet) are exempted from needing to follow this law.
I don’t think this is a preemption of the SKG campaign but actually one of the realistic goals of that campaign. I don’t think the ability to rent software for a limited time is an issue, but tricking people into thinking they can use something they purchased forever, to have it unilaterally taken away due to 3rd party licensing, decommissioning servers or other excuse is the problem.
I can’t deny that Steam has a large marketshare over the digital video game distribution market, and that it could abuse its position, and that the 30% distributor cut is steep. All true. Is it currently abusing its position? Arguably yes and no.
Looking through the evidence document provided in the video, the alleged link between decreased % of multihoming indicating the enforcement of a PMFN is weak IMO. Steam’s support for Linux, its own Steam Deck, good customer service, return policy, family sharing and remote play are major reasons to be a Valve patron, not always about price.
The evidence at 9:05 in the video that suggests Valve says they “stop selling them altogether” was in response to a Steam Key inquiry. The other quotes were related to removing it from the front page and sales feature pages (not delisting but not there unless you search for it). That’s not delisting but perhaps it is anti-competitively deranking it. I’m not sure what the rules are though, like a grocery store doesn’t have to put a product at the front of a store when a rival has a steeper sale for it, but they could ask for the same discount while offering to make it similarly visible. Overall it’s not nearly as serious as OOP makes it seem.