Stop Killing Games
Petition momentum and public framing
- Commenters note live trackers for signatures and how framing it as a “competition” between EU countries seems to boost participation.
- Some see the campaign as a needed pushback against increasingly anti-consumer practices in games.
Ownership, labeling, and expiration dates
- Strong sentiment that “buy” is misleading when access can be revoked at any time; several argue storefronts should use “rent,” “license,” or clearly state a guaranteed play-until date.
- Others propose legal minimum support periods or warranties, pointing out EU consumer and CRA rules already constrain ultra-short guarantees.
- Some insist that if there is a hard EOL, it must be clearly disclosed up front.
End-of-life (EOL) plans and technical options
- Core ask (as many interpret it):
- Not to keep servers up forever, but to ensure games remain “reasonably playable” after official shutdown.
- Options: self-hostable dedicated servers, server binaries, protocol specs, or at least non-networked/LAN modes.
- Many point out this used to be standard (LAN play, dedicated servers) and that private servers already exist for big MMOs.
- Others stress practical barriers: interwoven proprietary middleware, old engines, and messy, non-distributable server stacks.
Legal and enforcement concerns
- Questions about bankruptcy: you can’t compel a dead company to run servers; proposals include:
- Escrow of server binaries or EOL plans as transferrable assets.
- Legal permission to reverse engineer once servers are shut down.
- Disagreement on whether simply putting an expiration date is enough; some quote the initiative text as requiring “reasonable means to continue functioning,” not just disclosure.
Impact on business models and developers
- One camp argues this is mostly a design/legal problem, not an economic one: build for eventual self-hosting or offline modes from day one.
- Another warns of heavy burdens on small/indie teams, especially for complex online games or spaghetti backends; predicts higher costs, fewer releases, or skipping the EU.
- Counterpoint: most indies already avoid heavy server lock-in; the real losers would be large publishers relying on centralized control and obsolescence.
Cultural value and “is this important?”
- Many frame games as art and cultural artifacts that should not be casually destroyed.
- Pushback that this is “rich people’s entertainment” is widely answered as whataboutism; people argue tech obsolescence and preservation are broader consumer-rights issues.