Stop Killing Games
An EU citizen initiative called “Stop Killing Games” seeks to require publishers to keep video games in a “reasonably playable” state after online support ends, for example by removing unnecessary DRM or releasing server software. Commenters broadly agree that consumers are being short‑changed when paid games become unplayable, citing cases like Ubisoft’s The Crew and concerns about digital preservation and basic property rights. Critics question whether such rules are technically and legally workable, worry about costs for smaller studios and unintended spillovers to other software and services, and doubt both the effectiveness of petitions and the willingness of lawmakers to regulate what some see as “just entertainment.”
Political mechanism and efficacy
- Petition uses the EU’s European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) process; some see it as meaningful (forces a formal Commission response; past ECIs led to changes around glyphosate and animal welfare).
- Others are highly skeptical: most ECIs fail, or yield only lip service; similar national petition systems (e.g., Denmark) rarely change law and may drain activist energy.
- Debate over whether it’s worth signing “even if odds are low” vs. seeing it as performative.
Consumer rights, ownership, and EULAs
- Strong sentiment that killing a purchased game (e.g., The Crew) is equivalent to theft or a “rug pull,” especially when there’s a big upfront price and no refund.
- Counter‑argument: many games are sold as access to a service; users “knew” servers might shut down; refunds and transparency, not forced longevity, are the right focus.
- Several note EU law already weakens EULA enforceability and defines “conformity” for digital goods; some think existing law might already support refunds or minimal continued usability.
Scope: DRM vs. MMOs and “reasonable playable state”
- Broad support for outlawing single‑player games that rely on “phone‑home” DRM and die when servers go offline; often framed as planned obsolescence.
- MMOs and complex live‑service games are seen as the hardest case: what does “playable” mean—local movement only, private servers, full server stacks?
- Many criticize the petition and FAQ as vague and technically naive, especially around multiplayer infrastructure and licensing.
Technical and licensing feasibility
- Supporters claim end‑of‑life obligations can be modest: release server binaries/configs or APIs, or at least stop blocking fan “server emulators.”
- Skeptics highlight: tightly coupled distributed backends, non‑redistributable third‑party middleware, cloud‑only services, and security concerns with shipping server code.
- Some suggest design‑for‑preservation from day one (modular architectures, standardized backends, escrowed VMs) but acknowledge this changes business practice.
Economic and market impacts
- Concerns: higher game prices, shift to subscriptions/F2P, fewer games launching in the EU, higher barriers for small studios.
- Others argue EU is too large a market to ignore and that costs are outweighed by consumer protection and cultural preservation; abusive models shouldn’t be protected.
Alternative or complementary approaches
- Ideas raised:
- Clear labeling (“rental” vs. perpetual; guaranteed support years).
- Legal protection for private servers and reverse engineering once support ends.
- Mandatory release of source/binaries or deposit with archives when services shut down, possibly tied to copyright or tax incentives.
- Broader reforms to copyright so works truly enter the commons after protection expires.
Broader questions
- Debate over whether games should be first step toward similar rules for other software, SaaS, streaming, and IoT, vs. fear of over‑regulation spilling into all software.