Note that most (if not all, as I only scanned the list) of these games do not depend on an online connection to play the game like Sim City V. They have an offline single-player component and it is the multiplayer functionality that has been shut down.
There are also a good amount of mobile/Facebook apps in the list.
If you are being critical of EA then the worst examples are games that were only released 2-3 years ago, such as many of the sports games like FIFA and Madden. Although these have had at least a couple of new iterations since then because of the yearly release schedule for their sports franchises. The majority of the player base tends to move over to the new version very promptly, much like the COD series.
On the whole this list looks far worse than it actually is. I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to shut down the multiplayer component of games that were released 8 years ago.
I think the larger point is that when EA decides it is no longer profitable to pay for Sim City servers, the game (singleplayer experience and all) will simply cease to exist. There will be no searching through old boxes to find that install CD and take a trip down memory lane. There will be no reinstalling from Steam to show your friend this cool game mechanic. The game will die a full and permanent death, the equivalent of which would be a self-destruct timer on your physical game disc. This list is a list of games that EA has already decided to kill the multiplayer capacity, but I think the point the OP was trying to make was "What if all of these games had the same DRM Sim City does today?", they wouldn't just be a lessened gaming experience because no multiplayer, they would be gone forever.
We have the expectation with an MMO (where we pay a monthly fee to keep playing in an online persistent world) that it won't last forever, but Sim City has traditionally been a single player game. There are ostensibly reasons to have an online component for the new Sim City that is outside of the realm of DRM, but if you think about it, those reasons (players control other cities in your region) could easily be duplicated with simple AI or local multiplayer. Instead of going that route, EA decided that this game would live as long as it decided it was profitable and no longer.
I took away a different message from that post. The games referenced all have multiplayer components, but did not require the game servers to play single player. It's an 'apples and oranges' kind of situation. Especially as, if EA were to shut down the Simcity servers, it would have to stop selling the game. If the multiplayer is only a part of the games revenue, it's easier to shut down.
Well, the online multiplayer element anyway. I am not a PC gamer as such and so I have never played the games you mention, but even I know that there are no games in the list that are even moderately comparable to Diablo II and Starcraft in terms of longevity. Those two games are iconic PC titles with a huge fanbase/following even today.
While I have many complaints about Diablo III, I was never afraid of Blizzard shutting down the servers, and that definitely factored into my purchasing decision. As you note, they have been running the Diablo II and Starcraft servers for well over a decade.
There are also a good amount of mobile/Facebook apps in the list.
If you are being critical of EA then the worst examples are games that were only released 2-3 years ago, such as many of the sports games like FIFA and Madden. Although these have had at least a couple of new iterations since then because of the yearly release schedule for their sports franchises. The majority of the player base tends to move over to the new version very promptly, much like the COD series.
On the whole this list looks far worse than it actually is. I don't think it is entirely unreasonable to shut down the multiplayer component of games that were released 8 years ago.