Even if Adobe were that generous, I'd argue the situation is different. All Adobe product releases are just evolutions of the same fundamental products, meaning making a previous version free diminishes the value of the newest version. For game developers, removing DRM can drive sales for the sequel since most games have a story and players want to see what happens next.
Removing DRM does not make it free. It simply means that customers will have fewer concerns about the product ceasing to function in the future.
I also doubt that piracy of older versions would affect sales. The pricing means it is pretty much only accessible to enthusiasts and professionals, who would be inclined to use more recent versions anyhow.
Knowing that they will stop working in a couple of years also devalues them. Seriously, a patch to remove DRM for those who are unable or unwilling to upgrade.
A company that can be trusted to deliver that patch will have a more valuable product because customers know they will not lose access to it.
Yeah that's a fair point in the other direction. But I guess to some extent when you have a de-facto monopoly on a market it doesn't matter what you do to your customers, most of them will buy your new subscription model anyway out of necessity.
That's probably why there are suddenly a lot of Photoshop competitors. A monopolist abusing their market creates an incentive for competition. Of course some monopolised markets can be very hard to impossible to enter for competitors, but that's apparently not the case here.
But that wouldn't achieve the ultimate goal though. How else will you get the few leftover customers that has resisted switching to a subscription based model to switch ?
Adobe is business, and it's all about revenue. "Dead" products don't make any money, so there's no business case in keeping them around.
