Game publishers respond to Stop Killing Games claim it curtails developer choice

Developer choice vs consumer rights

• Many commenters dismiss “curtailing developer choice” as a weak argument; the point of the initiative is precisely to remove the option to remotely kill purchased games.
• Several argue that if developers want that power they should sell time-limited access clearly as a rental/subscription, not as a “purchase.”

Private servers, safety, and liability

• Industry claims about illegal content, unsafe communities, and liability on private servers are widely seen as pretexts; responsibility would shift to whoever runs the server.
• Others note there can still be PR and legal costs (e.g., brand/trademark confusion, “court of public opinion”), but this is distinct from strict liability.

Licensing and IP constraints

• A long subthread covers licensed cars, logos, music, textures, and middleware. Some devs say licenses often forbid sublicensing or asset extraction, making EOL releases hard.
• Critics respond that:
  • These constraints apply to a minority of games.
  • Licenses and contracts are human-made and can be renegotiated if law changes.
  • At EOL, licensed assets can be stripped or replaced while keeping the game “reasonably playable.”
• Disagreement persists over whether SKG would force more expensive, more permissive licenses and whether that’s acceptable.

Online-only design and end-of-life options

• Commenters emphasize cases like The Crew: effectively single‑player games made always‑online for DRM, then fully bricked.
• SKG’s FAQ (quoted in the thread) is cited to clarify: no demand for perpetual sales, source release, or live servers—only an EOL build that remains playable (e.g., offline mode, or client configurable to community servers).

Impact on small studios and MMOs

• Some fear mandatory EOL builds or server binaries would disproportionately burden indies and make small-budget MMOs unviable.
• Others counter that:
  • Designing for EOL from the start is just another requirement, not inherently huge cost.
  • Bankruptcy and true subscription MMOs could be carved out explicitly.

Subscriptions, labelling, and market dynamics

• Strong support for forcing accurate language: if access is time‑limited, call it a subscription/lease with a stated minimum support window.
• Some predict publishers will relabel everything as “lifetime subscription”; many still see that transparency itself as a win and a market signal.

Preservation, art, and regulation vs wallets

• Games are framed as cultural works; killing them is compared to destroying books or films before they reach the public domain.
• “Vote with your wallet” is widely criticized as ineffective given network effects and uninformed buyers; regulation is seen as necessary to rebalance power.
• Others worry about poorly written EU law, regulatory capture, and unintended pushes toward streaming/F2P, arguing any regulation must be narrow, clear, and focused on disclosure and minimal post‑sale functionality.