Stop Killing Games – European Citizens' Initiative

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Support for the initiative

  • Many commenters support the ECI and report signing it, seeing it as:
    • Consumer protection for paid digital goods.
    • Cultural and historical preservation of games and game communities.
    • A legal backstop against “remote kill switches” and shutdowns of purchased games.
  • Some note it could set a precedent for wider software regulation, even though it’s currently limited to games.

Scope, wording, and “supported” status

  • Several find the petition text and FAQ poorly written or ambiguous.
  • “Not interfere while a game is supported” is read as “only regulates end‑of‑life,” not day‑to‑day operations.
  • “Supported” is debated:
    • Some propose: for DRM games, when the authentication servers are gone; for online games, when official servers are shut down.
    • Others say edge cases and non-game software make the boundaries unclear.

Preservation, copyright, and piracy

  • Strong concern about cultural loss from online‑only and “games as a service” titles that vanish when servers close.
  • Some argue piracy is currently the only reliable preservation mechanism, but it fails for server‑side code.
  • The initiative is seen as a route to:
    • Mandatory patches to make games offline.
    • Release of server binaries, source code, or at least protocol specs.
    • Legal protection for reverse engineering once support ends.
  • Broader calls to shorten copyright terms; some suggest tying copyright benefits to obligations to eventually release code.

Business models and unintended consequences

  • Critics worry this will:
    • Favor large companies that can absorb compliance costs.
    • Push publishers harder toward F2P or subscription models where expectations of permanence are weaker.
  • Others counter that:
    • Clearer disclosure of support lifetimes and service levels would be a win.
    • If companies switch to explicit subscriptions, that at least makes the deal more honest.

Implementation and practical challenges

  • Concerns include:
    • Games using commercial third‑party libraries or engines that complicate source/code release.
    • Limited reverse‑engineering capacity vs. the volume of games.
    • Cheating in multiplayer if server or anti‑cheat code is opened.
  • Some argue small devs likely aren’t the main offenders and that self‑hostable designs often reduce complexity.