Stop Killing Games lost its biggest battle despite 1.3 million signatures, but the fight isn't over

[Daniel Sims]

TL;DR: The Stop Killing Games initiative has spent two years pushing legislators across multiple countries to consider laws that would prevent publishers from rendering full-priced games unplayable. After the European Commission declined the group's core demand following a closed-door industry meeting, SKG says other avenues remain open.

The European Commission has rejected a petition bearing 1,294,188 verified signatures to propose legislation against making end-of-life premium games permanently unplayable.

The decision is a significant setback for Stop Killing Games, which formally submitted its European Citizens' Initiative – titled "Stop Destroying Videogames" – to the Commission in January, but the group says it will pursue other routes to strengthen consumer protections in the games industry.

SKG emerged after Ubisoft deactivated the servers for The Crew, leaving the game unplayable for the 12 million players who had accessed it, including some who bought physical copies shortly before they became useless. Ubisoft is currently facing legal action over the shutdown in both California and France.

– Stop Killing Games Official (@StopKilingGames) June 16, 2026

In response to the shutdown, the consumer initiative gathered over 1.3 million verified signatures from European citizens, obligating the Commission to formally consider complaints about planned obsolescence in video games. Lobbying group Video Games Europe, alongside Ubisoft, has strongly opposed SKG, fueling a broader debate over whether a game purchase conveys a product or merely a license to access a service.

Ubisoft, VGE, and the Entertainment Software Association argue that developers should not be required to maintain servers indefinitely and that customers purchase only licenses. SKG accuses the industry of misrepresenting its goal, saying it is only demanding full-priced games remain playable in some form, be it offline modes or privately hosted servers. Furthermore, while Ubisoft believes gamers should "get used to not owning games," the initiative argues that the debate actually hinges on how long someone who buys a license can expect to retain access.

Despite outspoken support from multiple European politicians, the Commission announced that it would not propose new laws at this time. SKG and other observers noted that Ubisoft and VGE met with the Commission behind closed doors two weeks before the ruling, raising questions about whether industry lobbying shaped the outcome.

– Stop Killing Games Official (@StopKilingGames) June 17, 2026

In its official response, the Commission said it could not propose laws to keep games playable after they are pulled from sale – something SKG says it never demanded – citing existing intellectual property rights, publisher costs, and potential cybersecurity concerns.

Instead, the Commission plans to convene industry and consumer representatives to work toward a voluntary, non-binding code of conduct for end-of-life products by the end of 2026. Possible measures include warnings on store pages for games requiring internet connections and engagement with preservation groups.

SKG remains undeterred. In a press conference, the group explained that it has other paths to appeal to the European Parliament. Some have suggested amending the Digital Fairness Act, a package of consumer protection laws that the EU is currently discussing. It already includes rules against dark patterns, addictive design, misleading pricing, and hard-to-cancel subscriptions.

Meanwhile, in the US, SKG is backing California's Protect Our Games Act, which has already passed the state Assembly and now heads to the Senate. The bill would require publishers to give 60 days' notice before shutting down an online game and to either keep it playable through an offline mode or community server support, or issue a full refund.

Permalink to story:

Stop Killing Games lost its biggest battle despite 1.3 million signatures, but the fight isn't over

 

[Theinsanegamer]

It is on consumers to fix this. Just refuse to buy games that have online requirements, or from companies that take away functionality. This is the only way they will learn.

Governments are too corrupt to care, and have been for a very long time.

 

[bviktor]

Wow, just wow

 

[Squid Surprise]

It is on consumers to fix this. Just refuse to buy games that have online requirements, or from companies that take away functionality. This is the only way they will learn.

Governments are too corrupt to care, and have been for a very long time.

Except lots of people like multiplayer… and the internet is really the only viable way to do this…

 

[Vixiy]

I think the best solution is to require games to have clear labelling for components of the game that are live service dependant.

For full priced live service games, require language like "buy access" Instead of "purchase game".

Then the consumer can make an informed choice and if a game becomes unplayable despite not having live service labelling, there can be legal action.

 

[human7]

It is on consumers to fix this. Just refuse to buy games that have online requirements, or from companies that take away functionality. This is the only way they will learn.

Governments are too corrupt to care, and have been for a very long time.

Except lots of people like multiplayer… and the internet is really the only viable way to do this…

Yeah, and that's the crux of the problem. Single player games can be voted on by consumer dollars, but anything relying on servers as a fundamental arbiter of game state (let alone the other functions servers have) gives consumers no choice but to either fork over dollars, forgo the experience, or hope there's a free to play model, and honestly, it shouldn't matter what the billing model is: consumers should be given sensible heads up that "hey, this is going down in a few months". That's not a difficult ask for a company with the resources to field the servers in the first place.

 

[human7]

I think the best solution is to require games to have clear labelling for components of the game that are live service dependant.

For full priced live service games, require language like "buy access" Instead of "purchase game".

Then the consumer can make an informed choice and if a game becomes unplayable despite not having live service labelling, there can be legal action.

I think it requires a bit more than "buy access". For how long? A day? A month? A year? And if the purchase guarantees "a day" but the history of the service suggests years of uptime and support, and then it goes down the next day, is a reasonable consumer deceived? The letter of the agreement says not, but the reality is, they were. Minimum guarantees on uptime from the point of purchase is a sensible requirement.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Except lots of people like multiplayer… and the internet is really the only viable way to do this…

So refuse to buy a multiplayer game unless they allow you to host your own servers. We have hundreds of great FPS games that allow this.

You're telling me that if millions of people went back to the good old games like battlefront 2 (the original), team fortress 2, battlefield 2/2142, ece ece that companies wouldnt take notice?

Ultimately, the reason things like microtransactions and always online DRM exist is because consumers are willing to bend or break their views to purchase them even though they hate them. If consumers boycotted this tech, it would disappear.

 

[scavengerspc]

It is on consumers to fix this. Just refuse to buy games that have online requirements, or from companies that take away functionality. This is the only way they will learn.

A few months ago, while I would have whole heartedly agreed,
I would have basically thought, good luck with that.

But after millions of gamers cancelled Game Pass after that *****ic 50% price increase, forcing a reversal, I have hope that gamers can still muster up a sack or two when needed.
The price is still up 2-3 dollars over the old, but it was still quite an accomplishment.
Solidarity is a very powerful thing.

 

[The Talking Tech]

The government met with a corporation and they sided with the corporation?

So outrageously predictable.....

And here we thought that perhaps governments were trying to be a tiny bit more transparent in and era where they are hold more accountable.....but obviously corruption never changes no matter the generation.

 

[Endymio]

The government met with a corporation and they sided with the corporation?

So outrageously predictable.....

And here we thought that perhaps governments were trying to be a tiny bit more transparent in and era where they are hold more accountable.....

I lack the ability to express how ridiculously absurd this is. You want to rework the entire basis of Western contract law, and have governments tellling game studios how they must design their products ... so you can keep playing your favorite videogame?

A studio either offers a guarantee of servers for a length of time, or it doesn't. If it doesn't and that concerns you -- don't buy the product in the first place. End of problem. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Vixiy]

I think it requires a bit more than "buy access". For how long? A day? A month? A year? And if the purchase guarantees "a day" but the history of the service suggests years of uptime and support, and then it goes down the next day, is a reasonable consumer deceived? The letter of the agreement says not, but the reality is, they were. Minimum guarantees on uptime from the point of purchase is a sensible requirement.

If it guarantees a day then it's a day pass
If it guarantees until the servers go down then it's lifetime access and they should clearly state that it's as long as the game servers are live.

 

[rmcrys]

The government met with a corporation and they sided with the corporation?

So outrageously predictable.....

And here we thought that perhaps governments were trying to be a tiny bit more transparent in and era where they are hold more accountable.....but obviously corruption never changes no matter the generation.

Unfortunately the EU, long time somewhat neutral and very different from the US, now it's a bunch of lobbies with partnerships. So sad that no EU president changes that. Ursula seems at every step to be on the lobbies's side.

 

[demonicmaniac]

Unfortunately the EU, long time somewhat neutral and very different from the US, now it's a bunch of lobbies with partnerships. So sad that no EU president changes that. Ursula seems at every step to be on the lobbies's side.

Ursula von der Leyen was sent away to the EU by our german CDU because she was embroiled in many lobby affairs about mckinsey and friends. The conservatives effectively pressured everybody to put von der Leyen there so she couldn't stand trial or appear before parliament regarding the corruption affairs.

 

[Burty117]

Ubisoft, VGE, and the Entertainment Software Association argue that developers should not be required to maintain servers indefinitely and that customers purchase only licenses.

This right here, SKG has never asked for this, at no point have they asked for servers to be up indefinitely, they're asking for games to have a built-in plan for when the servers go offline, patch the game to turn off the reliance and still be able to play the game offline, or package the server code up so it can be carried on by the community.

What's funny is that some game devs, even today, but throughout gaming history, have been able to package up the servers to be run by the community, if you want an example of a big game that recently did this, Dune:Awakening recently released private servers anyone can run.

It's not impossible and it's not expensive, they just want to sell you that same game in 10 years time as a remaster.

 

[Endymio]

SKG has never asked for this, at no point have they asked for servers to be up indefinitely, they're asking for games to have a built-in plan for when the servers go offline, patch the game to turn off the reliance and still be able to play the game offline, or package the server code up so it can be carried on by the community.

That's far worse. For most server-based games, an offline mode is an utterly impractical complete ground-up redesign, and "package the server code up" means releasing invaluable proprietary code that a major studio will certainly reuse in future games.

What's funny is that some game devs, even today, but throughout gaming history, have been able to package up the servers to be run by the community ... Dune:Awakening recently released private servers anyone can run.

What's even funnier is the much larger list of games for which fans have themselves written replacement servers for, with zero support from the publisher. If there's a will, there's a way.

It's also absurd to use 'Dune:Awakening' as some sort of touchstone for all multi-player games. According to the link below, there are curerntly 2900 players using 227 different servers ... a grand total of 12 players per server. You can't compare that code to a highly-concurrent server capable of serving thousands -- or tens of thousands -- of players simultaneously.

Still, your example proves how unnecessary any government action is here. If the market demands private servers and offline play, games will be designed from that in mind. Let the videogamers vote with their wallets for the optimal solution here.

 

[MasterAce]

Kind of ironic seeing the AAA gaming scene collapse on itself and they just keep lobbying for more of the poison that is killing them

 

[demonicmaniac]

It's truly fascinating how nobody apparently reads and how many people still suck on piratesoftwares and industry teats here.
1.) there is no demand for source code - not server source code, not game sourcecode, nothing.
2.) private servers are illegal, reverse engineering a server even if official servers are down is circumventing protections. what skg asks is that it becomes legal and private servers are protected from takedowns and that publishers allow it - they'd greatly appreciate it if publishers would just make server binaries available to self host but it's ok if they only allow for peer to peer hosting and making private servers legal not requiring circumvention of protective measures which again are currently not legal.
3.) keeping it in a playable state means disabling phoning home/drm or mandatory online for games that are mostly offline and generally single player. While you can crack games that again is ILLEGAL and circumventing drm and protective measures is ILLEGAL.

It's not like ross hasn't made a hundred responses to all the FUD spread around but apparently even the commission just takes verbatim what ubisoft told them behind closed doors that never was part of the demands.

 

[Taroo]

Ok so actually my wallet will vote by itself. By never opening again for their games.

 

[Endymio]

It's truly fascinating how nobody apparently reads and how many people still suck on piratesoftwares and industry teats here.
1.) there is no demand for source code

Studios would need either provide source code, or verified, validated binaries -- along with permanent, long-term support for them. Else they open themselves up to a lawsuit or penalties for "breaking the law" the first time that server fails to perform perfectly.

2.) private servers are illegal, reverse engineering a server even if official servers are down is circumventing protections.

Who told you something so absurd? Reverse-engineering *anything* is legal, including game servers. Illegality only arises when you do so using stolen code or copyrighted material from the original game ... including logos and/or artwork when advertising that server.

I've seen some ill-informed individuals claim this would be a violation of the DMCA, but the plain language of 17 U.S. Code § 1201 says something entirely different.

 

[TheBigT42]

Except lots of people like multiplayer… and the internet is really the only viable way to do this…

You missed the point completely

 

[Squid Surprise]

You missed the point completely

I think YOU did… if you decide to not buy any game that has “connectivity”, you are sacrificing multiplayer …. Many don’t want to do this.

 

[demonicmaniac]

Studios would need either provide source code, or verified, validated binaries -- along with permanent, long-term support for them. Else they open themselves up to a lawsuit or penalties for "breaking the law" the first time that server fails to perform perfectly.


Who told you something so absurd? Reverse-engineering *anything* is legal, including game servers. Illegality only arises when you do so using stolen code or copyrighted material from the original game ... including logos and/or artwork when advertising that server.

I've seen some ill-informed individuals claim this would be a violation of the DMCA, but the plain language of 17 U.S. Code § 1201 says something entirely different.

your first part is not part of the demands.
your second part: fair.
Clean room reverse engineering is not illegal. I was simplifying greatly - also remember you are not just talking US jurisdictions here. Modifying game files violates eula and copyright potentially. Private servers can be taken down because of copyright law and trademark infringment even if you do a complete cleanroom reverse engineering.

 

[Endymio]

your first part is not part of the demands.
your second part: fair.

I listed all possible ways studios could fill the demands: none are really feasible.

Clean room reverse engineering is not illegal. I was simplifying greatly - also remember you are not just talking US jurisdictions here. Modifying game files violates eula and copyright potentially. Private servers can be taken down because of copyright law and trademark infringment even if you do a complete cleanroom reverse engineering.

You confusing several things here. First, there is no nation on earth where clean-room engineering violates IP law: be it patent, copyright, or trademark. Period. Nor does modifying game files violate copyright law.

It might potentially violate a EULA -- but a EULA is a sales agreement: it doesn't apply to someone operating a server, but rather to those who purchased the game. Nor do I know of any EULA that bars a purchaser from connecting their game to a private server, once the official servers go down ... do you ?

 

[jbright]

The industry's argument is basically: you paid $60 for a license that we can revoke at any time for any reason. And their proposed solution to that is a warning label on the store page. A warning label. For a $60 purchase that might stop working.