Stop Killing Games

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Campaign Goals & Scope

  • Campaign targets “killing” games where servers are shut down, rendering purchased titles unplayable.
  • Goal is not to force companies to run servers forever, but to:
    • Patch games to run offline or on user-hosted servers.
    • Or release server binaries / protocols so communities can self-host.
  • Framed as “right to repair” for games and a reaction to games sold as goods but behaving like expiring services.

Single-Player vs Online-Only / DRM

  • Many commenters strongly distinguish:
    • Legitimate online-only games (MMOs, live-service titles).
    • Single-player or primarily single-player games that use always-online as DRM or for minor features.
  • Example focus: The Crew, sold with a full single-player campaign yet made completely unplayable after shutdown; claims that an offline mode exists in code but is locked by an encrypted key.
  • Some argue the campaign confuses two separate issues: online DRM for single-player vs true GaaS/multiplayer infrastructure.

Technical Feasibility & Complexity

  • Supporters:
    • Argue offline modes or self-hostable servers are feasible if designed for from the start.
    • Point to historic dedicated servers (Quake, CS, TF2) and modern examples where communities reimplemented backends (e.g., MMOs).
  • Skeptics:
    • Emphasize modern architectures: microservices, shared infrastructure, third‑party libraries, large databases, proprietary middleware, complex matchmaking, server-side data.
    • Say “just release the code/binaries” underestimates legal, security, and engineering challenges.

Legal / Regulatory Ideas & Concerns

  • Proposals:
    • Require EOL patches or server binaries at shutdown.
    • Mandate clear “this game will expire / online may cease” labeling.
    • Tie copyright or registration to escrowed server code, released when public servers end.
    • Legalize or clarify “abandonware” and allow preservation.
  • Objections:
    • Fear of higher costs, reduced number of multiplayer games, or impossible edge cases.
    • Doubts that law can cleanly cover complex shared systems.

Economics, Ownership & Consumer Expectations

  • Many argue it’s deceptive to sell a $60–$70 game that can be fully revoked later, especially when marketed like a permanent good.
  • Counterargument: players should understand online games can shut down; running servers, staff, and security has real ongoing costs.
  • Broader concern: precedent for software/media “ownership” vs de facto rentals, and cultural loss when games become unplayable.