In todays age sure, But just looking back at games pre monetization / MBA era, they still work. Sure there are some bugs/ glitches/ but not much that breaks the game.
You can pretty much play any game pre PS3 era still enjoy it to it's fullest.
Similarly there’s the feeling of DONE for games of that era. Burn that Gold Master, or mask those cartridge ROMs, and it’s done. Fini.
Whatever shenanigans were done late in the project, if it passed QA, that code base was effectively read only, with little concern for ongoing maintenance.
Firmware is also software and as far as I can estimate it never got updated after release in the vast majority of cases up until like a decade ago.
Think BIOS/vacuum cleaner/shaver/toothbrush/alarm clock/dumbphone/non-smart TV/airplane kitchen equipment/medical diagnostics devices/PLC's that control most of the entire world's infrastructure and so on.
It's entirely possible and very common to have an actual "final" software release and be just fine (at least up until recently before the whole "everything needs to have internet for telemetry" hype).
And that's a problem. Often there are full of issues which eventually are all known but never fixed.
Updateability is the defining advantage of software over pure hardware solutions. If you don't use the advantage then you are stuck with just all the disadvantages.
Nice theory, but it is overfitted to a broad category of all software and a product that is thriving shouldn't be conflated with a product that is improving.
Some products with software continue to "live on" successfully and thrive, without updates. Think of a digital alarm clock who's goal was to help typical users to wake up on time most of the time. If you ship a product that does that and it isn't being updated, is the product really dying or doomed to failure?
No alarm clock will ever wake everyone up on time, but we can always strive to get closer to that goal if we chose to set that goal. An unreasonable goal could cause unnecessary bike shedding, etc.
But a simple pacemaker for the heart, the goal is closer to the idea of helping as many people as possible, rather than most. Hopefully we write good software and we go 15 years without needing an update. I think that is better than bad software that has to receive more updates. Which software is more "alive" and "thriving". Is the good software with no updates for 15 years really "dying" since it isn't "improving"? Again, thriving and improving shouldn't be conflated.
So, a product setting appropriate goals helps determine how much maintenance is actually necessary and some goals can be met without requiring any future maintenance. Other goals may benefit from frequent maintenance. Some products can thrive without improving. A product's goals determine's the importance of improvements.
Software is a living organism, or it is dying. Just as a practical observed matter of how it actually works out.
There are a few exceptions, but few indeed.