Game publishers push back as "Stop Killing Games" campaign surges past 1 million signatures

[Daniel Sims]

Cutting corners: Petitioners have been trying to alert European regulators to the issue of deactivated online games for over a year, and game publishers have started responding. As consumer rights activists and game companies debate the viability of preserving online titles, recent analysis highlights just how stringent some End User License Agreements (EULAs) are on the subject.

Video Games Europe, a group representing European game publishers, has come out against the Stop Killing Games campaign, which advocates for government regulation to prevent online games from becoming permanently unplayable. The group outlined several arguments in defense of the current practices, but not everyone is convinced.

After Ubisoft shut down the servers for The Crew last year, YouTuber Ross Scott of Accursed Farms launched Stop Killing Games. Because the game required a constant internet connection, deactivating the servers rendered it inaccessible to around 12 million paying customers, sparking a lawsuit.

Although Stop Killing Games had amassed less than 500,000 signatures by late June – half the minimum required for consideration by European Union regulators by its July deadline – the petition has since surged past 1.2 million.

If over one million signatures are deemed valid, it could prompt authorities to assess whether publishers can legally revoke access to online games. While guidelines are clearer in the United States, the issue remains a legal gray area in Europe.

In a statement, Video Games Europe claims that keeping online games active indefinitely is cost-prohibitive. In a recent video responding to the press release, Scott clarified that the petition doesn't ask for official servers to remain online forever, but for developers to ensure that games remain accessible after ending official support.

As an example, he pointed to the original Tribes, which remains playable 21 years after Sierra decommissioned the game, thanks to user-hosted private servers. Ubisoft has also pledged to release offline modes for The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest when they reach end-of-life.

However, Video Games Europe warns that private servers could expose players to privacy breaches and unsafe content. Although Scott acknowledges he isn't a lawyer, he suggested that simple legal disclaimers could absolve publishers of liability for legacy titles. He also argued that many existing games demonstrate players are willing to accept that risk.

Responding to the group's claim that customers are given adequate notice before games are decommissioned, Scott cited a legal argument asserting that Ubisoft broke the law by delisting The Crew with only a few months' notice. German lawyer Christian Solmecke claims the law should have guaranteed around two years of availability.

"...observers have pointed out that Ubisoft's EULA demands players to uninstall and destroy all copies of a game after license termination."

Since the debate was reignited, observers have pointed out that Ubisoft's EULA demands players to uninstall and destroy all copies of a game after license termination. While some believe the company recently updated this clause, the same language appears in archived versions on the Wayback Machine as far back as April – and it's not unique to Ubisoft.

For example, EA's user agreement states that the company can revoke access to games at any time after termination. EA plans to deactivate the servers for BioWare's unsuccessful online RPG Anthem on January 12, 2026.

Permalink to story:

Game publishers push back as "Stop Killing Games" campaign surges past 1 million signatures

 

[Squid Surprise]

Good article

 

[toooooot]

It would be a good thing to do. What big companies do with games currently is literally killing them, killing with one clear purpose, to force people to buy the next game.
This is not right. And if they do not realize it, they should
be forced to.

 

[Axiarus]

Make servers hostable. Legal disclaimer. Issue fixed. Except they want money for the next game, so.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Only reason it looks tough right now is because games are built with the expectation that they will eventually be killed.

With the appropriate laws in place, it would really be a pretty minor inconvenience to simply build games out of the gate that would continue to function after the publisher ended support.

Frankly the law should go a bit further and essentially transfer the game to the public domain when a publisher officially ends support, allowing people to mod to their hearts content without risk of cease and desist notices etc.

 

[Jim Lahey]

Every so often so fire up Unreal Tournament, just for the nostalgia. Seems like a relatively easy fix, whether private server patch or some kind of minor hosting arrangement.

 

[Liranan]

It's almost shocking that it's always the legally paying customer who is always penalised for paying.

 

[Eldrach]

The worst cases here are the ones that has a single player mode that requires you to be online. Assassin’s creed for instance - the only reason for being online there is for Ubisoft to make sure you don’t manage to get any of their precious in-game shop items elsewhere.
Good old Games - the shop run by Cd Project Red is an awesome initiative, and I’m quite surprised people don’t use it more as it’s the only shop that allows you to download copies and play them with no DRM at all.
We are seeing a shift in the market though. The previously untouchable and unbeatable behemots like Blizzard, EA and Ubisoft have been beaten to a pulp by independant studios like Larian Studios that advocates for player freedom. The future will be interesting indeed

 

[yRaz]

I remember when private/dedicated servers were expected and a standard feature of every game. And you know what, things were FINE

 

[MasterAce]

It’s pretty stiff, how the next game has to be atleast as good as the previous, if not better. Unless they go and erase the previous game…

I wonder when Microsoft decides to erase windows 10

 

[GeoffreyA]

Good old Games - the shop run by Cd Project Red is an awesome initiative, and I’m quite surprised people don’t use it more as it’s the only shop that allows you to download copies and play them with no DRM at all.

More should support GOG when possible. It's the closest thing to the old days when games came on physical media and worked like normal.

 

[brucek]

Video Games Europe claims that keeping online games active indefinitely is cost-prohibitive.

That's great, so they'd have to go back to making games that did not require internet connections and supported multiplayer via LAN or player hosted servers, just like they successfully did for long before household internet became commonplace. Think of all the costs they'd save by not having to pay for all that hosting themselves.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Wait til it's too late - then start making attempts to reverse decisions that were in the making the whole time.

Rinse and repeat...

 

[The Talking Tech]

I would like to know which studios specifically are pushing back so I can stop supporting them.

Unbelievable that we the consumer are allowing these publishers to dictate what to do with our purchases while limiting and cutting short the product's value.

 

[lonetac]

This doesnt actually solve the problem. I listened someone break this down and cannot describe as eloquently as they did but forcing companies to keep online games online isnt possible.

For single player offline games, sure, it has value but say WoW goes out of business. Forcing them to keep servers up isnt sustainable. What that means is you just wont have online games anymore.

Careful what you wish for. There is a world where both can exist.

 

[GhostLegion]

This doesnt actually solve the problem. I listened someone break this down and cannot describe as eloquently as they did but forcing companies to keep online games online isnt possible.

For single player offline games, sure, it has value but say WoW goes out of business. Forcing them to keep servers up isnt sustainable. What that means is you just wont have online games anymore.

Careful what you wish for. There is a world where both can exist.

Pirate Software is wrong. He just is. Even this article mentions that nobody is advocating to force companies to keep servers alive. Just to make it possible to host private servers. It’s not an unreasonable ask.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

This doesnt actually solve the problem. I listened someone break this down and cannot describe as eloquently as they did but forcing companies to keep online games online isnt possible.

For single player offline games, sure, it has value but say WoW goes out of business. Forcing them to keep servers up isnt sustainable. What that means is you just wont have online games anymore.

Careful what you wish for. There is a world where both can exist.

-Not reason WOW can't have a "private server" mode that supports 32 or 64 players so you can still hop on smaller servers and play even if some of the more macro elements of the game don't function.

Hell when the game gets shut down there is no reason not to allow a wealthy individual or super fan to host a proper server that can manager 1000 players if they're willing to pay for it.

It's more that Blizzard never considered those options when designing the game rather than some sort of show stopper that would kill mmorpgs forever or something.

 

[m4a4]

Concerning how they could be made offline, they absolutely test their online games with offline test tools/environments. Which means, they're more than halfway there.

 

[lonetac]

-Not reason WOW can't have a "private server" mode that supports 32 or 64 players so you can still hop on smaller servers and play even if some of the more macro elements of the game don't function.

Thats simply not true and I dont think companies should be forced to do that for online games. There is a lot of overhead running servers like that and propietary code, settings, copyright, people making profit, etc.


Especially governments mandating how a game should be developed. How any of you are ok with that is odd to me.

The all games need to be in a functional state just isnt feasible and is a terrible idea for the gaming industry. It will curtail creativity and bloat budgets even more.

Ya'all freaking the f out about a $70 switch title, that could easily double.

While there is a problem in the industry, this movement doesnt address it appropriately or in a legally fair way to developers.

 

[lonetac]

Pirate Software is wrong. He just is. Even this article mentions that nobody is advocating to force companies to keep servers alive. Just to make it possible to host private servers. It’s not an unreasonable ask.

The movement is after online only games as well. I dont care what the article says, go to the FAQ from the Stop Killing Games website and understand what its calling for actually. Please educate yourself before saying things like this. So many folks are being mislead.

Coming Soon | Stop Killing Games

Something big is coming. Stop Killing Games — a global initiative demanding legislation to stop publishers from permanently destroying video games.

www.stopkillinggames.com

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Thats simply not true and I dont think companies should be forced to do that for online games. There is a lot of overhead running servers like that and propietary code, settings, copyright, people making profit, etc.


Especially governments mandating how a game should be developed. How any of you are ok with that is odd to me.

The all games need to be in a functional state just isnt feasible and is a terrible idea for the gaming industry. It will curtail creativity and bloat budgets even more.

Ya'all freaking the f out about a $70 switch title, that could easily double.

While there is a problem in the industry, this movement doesnt address it appropriately or in a legally fair way to developers.

-What part of what I said is not true. You can already run cracked versions of WOW on a private server... The argument is just bring it above board when a game is discontinued.

Why are you running interference for a multi billion dollar international corpo that is being asked to do super basic game preservation?

 

[lonetac]

-What part of what I said is not true. You can already run cracked versions of WOW on a private server... The argument is just bring it above board when a game is discontinued.

Why are you running interference for a multi billion dollar international corpo that is being asked to do super basic game preservation?

Im not running interference. You just lack reading comprehension. Try to read my words.

I admitted there was a problem. Did you read that? Read it again just for good measure. I want to make sure its sinking in. Stop saying stupid assumptions because you want to straw man me.

And its not just big companies, this impacts little guys too so while the industry might be multi billion, you are also expecting this out of indie devs and other small developers. You cant just sit here and pretend its about defending billionaires... thats a ridiculously shortsighted comment.

I said this petition doesnt really solve the problem and is actually bad for gamers and gaming. Demanding every game remain available after end of life is unrealistic. Have you put any consideration into the ramifications for this in terms of MMO's and indie games? I fully support titles that are not online only being preserved. I think its absolutely crazy to expect that with MMO's and every game made.

If you want your own private game, go develop one.

Its like demanding a car company or appliance manufacturer keep parts for every model they have ever released in case something needs to be fixed 20 years down the road.

No other industry works this way. There is certainly things we can do, I dont think this movement addresses it realistically.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Im not running interference. You just lack reading comprehension. Try to read my words.

I admitted there was a problem. Did you read that? Read it again just for good measure. I want to make sure its sinking in. Stop saying stupid assumptions because you want to straw man me.

And its not just big companies, this impacts little guys too so while the industry might be multi billion, you are also expecting this out of indie devs and other small developers. You cant just sit here and pretend its about defending billionaires... thats a ridiculously shortsighted comment.

-Wait are you saying indie devs are demanding always online connections and paying to host massive server farms and stuff?

If they can afford that, they can afford a few lines of code that let folks run their game in offline mode/ with private servers.

I said this petition doesnt really solve the problem and is actually bad for gamers and gaming. Demanding every game remain available after end of life is unrealistic. Have you put any consideration into the ramifications for this in terms of MMO's and indie games? I fully support titles that are not online only being preserved. I think its absolutely crazy to expect that with MMO's and every game made.

- It's perfectly achievable and totally realistic. You seem to be arguing against something no one is actually asking for. No one expects a fully online MMO to just remain fully online and totally playable in perpetuity. The expectation is that there should still be some way to access and engage with the game's content. This is trivially simple.

If you want your own private game, go develop one.

Its like demanding a car company or appliance manufacturer keep parts for every model they have ever released in case something needs to be fixed 20 years down the road.

- I appreciate the example above, because it demonstrates that you're not understanding the core of the issue.

Car analogies and computer stuff is always questionable, but to stay in the spirit of things people are asking car companies not to remotely deactivate the car they purchased just because the car company no longer wants to service the car and wants people to buy a new one.

No other industry works this way. There is certainly things we can do, I dont think this movement addresses it realistically.

- Ok, lay out your alternative, realistic vision then.

 

[brucek]

Thats simply not true and I dont think companies should be forced to do that for online games. There is a lot of overhead running servers like that and propietary code, settings, copyright, people making profit, etc.

Your first sentence combines one flat assertion and one personal opinion. The flat assertion, that it is "simply not true" that games can have a private server mode, appears provably false on its face. If you think you can defend that you'll need to give us a little more than 4 words. My counter argument is that I personally lived through many years where a first party centralized server was uncommon while third party private servers were the default. And as others have mentioned, reverse-engineered private servers exist.

As to the opinion part. I consider myself a proponent of free markets and free people and to be pro business. But none of that means marketplaces shouldn't have reasonable rules; in fact, those reasonable rules are essential for reduced friction. Requiring that food be fit for consumption, or that cars be safe on the road, has not hurt markets. There is no reason that we can not require that games not have a unilateral kill switch.

In fact there is a unique property of games that makes this requirement even more fair. Unlike food and cars, which are protected by the natural law that there is no known way to duplicate them at no cost, games are protected by man-made copyright law. Copyright is explicitly not a property right, it is a measured balance between artists and consumer justified solely on its benefit of bringing more progress to the people. Crafting this measured balance such that artists are protected while WITHDRAWING works from the public is the exact opposite of its intent. At a bare minimum the copyright period for any work should expire the day it is withdrawn from the market.

 

[lonetac]

At a bare minimum the copyright period for any work should expire the day it is withdrawn from the market.

You also assert an opinion. Its great we both have one.

When a music artist stops making music, does their music stop earning royalties? Does everyone now get to play it wherever without fear of legal repercussion?