Stop Destroying Videogames – European Citizens' Initiative
An EU citizens’ initiative seeks to stop publishers from remotely disabling videogames after sale, by requiring that titles remain playable — for example by removing online DRM from single‑player games or enabling self‑hosted servers for multiplayer — once official support ends. Supporters frame this as restoring basic consumer and property rights in the digital realm and curbing “buy” buttons that effectively mean “rent until we decide otherwise.” Critics warn that such rules could impose costly engineering and legal work, threaten smaller studios, and complicate server‑based games and proprietary backend technologies, though some argue these costs should simply be treated as part of doing business.
Scope of the Initiative (Games vs All Software/Devices)
- Many argue the principle should extend beyond videogames to all software and even IoT/appliances: devices should perform basic functions without servers, apps, or permanent connectivity.
- Others see the petition as a tactical “toe in the door” using games as a politically easier starting point that could set precedent for broader software rights.
Ownership, Licensing, and the Meaning of “Buy”
- Strong theme: buyers feel they “own” games and should retain use even if servers shut down; comparing current practice to selling a self‑destructing disc.
- Opposing view: you only ever buy a license or access to a service, especially for online games; server shutdown is part of the deal.
- Some propose forcing honest labeling: call it “rent/subscribe” instead of “buy/purchase” when access is revocable.
Mandated Labor, Cost, and Feasibility
- Critics say the initiative effectively mandates unpaid work: rewriting code to remove online checks, exposing server binaries/APIs, dealing with proprietary tooling and security reviews.
- Supporters reply this is just normal regulation: like warranties, safety, or right‑to‑repair; costs should be built into pricing and architecture from day one.
- One developer offers a detailed example where making a self‑hostable version would have taken roughly a year of work and conflicted with third‑party licenses.
Single‑Player DRM vs Online/Multiplayer Games
- Broad support for requiring single‑player games to remain playable offline by removing phone‑home/DRM when support ends. Examples: NFS Underground, Shadow of War, The Crew, Minecraft account migration, always‑online consoles.
- Much more contention around online‑only and MMOs (WoW, FFXIV, GW2):
- Some say these should expose dedicated server binaries or at least server protocols when official servers close.
- Others argue MMOs fundamentally rely on central control, shared data, and reused proprietary tech, so mandating self‑hosting is unrealistic.
Market and Regulatory Effects (Especially in the EU)
- Some fear this will chill server‑backed or live‑service development, hit small studios hardest, and push more games to free‑to‑play or subscriptions.
- Others welcome that: any company unwilling to comply “good riddance,” creating space for DRM‑free, preservation‑friendly alternatives.
- There’s debate over whether EU‑style regulation historically deters innovation or successfully protects consumers.
Ambiguities and Open Questions
- Unclear boundaries: subscription games, free‑to‑play titles, and games that are replaced by sequels/overhauls.
- Disagreement over how widespread the “killed games” problem really is and whether the petition text sufficiently distinguishes “phoning home” DRM from inherently online games.