I also read the ESA's brief, and I think the reason the EFF didn't mention many of these arguments is that explaining and then rebutting each of these arguments

I also read the ESA's brief, and I think the reason the EFF didn't mention many of these arguments is that explaining and then rebutting each of these arguments, many of them utterly specious, and some mutually exclusive, would result in an article too long for a casual reader, so they had to pick what they perceive as the core argument and the actual reason game studios oppose this change. Someone interested in the detail can always do what you've done, and read the actual briefs. Some of these points are obvious grasping at straws. First, there is denying the problem exists: - no irreparable harm to consumers - games aren’t abandoned when they have thriving communities, so benefits are minimal - turning off online services doesn’t abandon game The farcical: - exempts modifications on non-gaming platforms (by which they mean computers, both desktop and mobile) - copyright owner entitled to benefits/revenue from online services And the remaining arguments are mostly technical legal arguments about copyright holder rights and time durations, which may have legal merits, but don't address fairness concerns. If someone sold an e-book, then came back years later and removed half the chapters while simultaneously claiming that no one should be able to archive or distribute those redacted chapters, AND that the seller is entitled to benefits from those chapters they redacted, AND that there was no harm to consumers, we would rightly ridicule the incoherency of those mutually exclusive arguments.