​

2025 UPDATE: Threshold passed, KEEP SIGNING AND SPREADING THE WORD . One month remains, more signatures means more protection against invalid signatures. Original post below:

A European Citizens Initiative has been launched by the Stop Killing Games campaign, as one of multiple methods being pursued to challenge planned obsolescence in videogames. As summarized by the initiative itself:

This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state.

Specifically, the initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by the publishers, before providing reasonable means to continue functioning of said videogames without the involvement from the side of the publisher.

If the Citizens Initiative reaches the signature requirement, the European Comission is required to issue a formal reply and explain its decision on if it will or will not propose new EU legislation based on the initiative. The initiative runs for one year, by which time it must have surpassed one million valid signatures.

In order to be eligible for the petition, participants must be:

1. A citizen of a EU country
2. Of voting age

Those wishing to sign can find the Initiative on the ECI website, as well as further information and guides on StopKillingGames's website. The form only requires basic information, but if a mistake is made the signature is invalidated and that individual cannot try again.

The Stop Killing Games campaign was launched by Ross Scott based on the shutdown of Ubisoft's The Crew, a primarily single-player game that nonetheless required an online connection to Ubisoft's servers. Support for the game was dropped in March 2024, rendering it entirely unplayable to those who had purchased it possibly three months prior - despite indications that an offline mode already existed to some degree within the game's code.

If the campaign is successful, publishers could be required to have end-of-life plans for their games: such as a patch to remove connection requirements in cases similar to The Crew, or allowing players to host their own servers for multiplayer games that significantly rely on them. The campaign explicitly does not require anything while support continues.

​

Scott has published numerous videos detailing the different stages and justifications for the campaign, one of which is shown above. Although there is a full year to reach the target, he emphasizes the need for others, especially multilingual and non-English EU citizens, to reach out to those with audiences within the EU.

Source

 

[eyeliner]

they can just patch the games to be played offline or release the server side code to the public so fans can make their own servers when they are at EOS,its not that hard really, most games that require online at all times is not because they actually need it but because they use it for DRM.Also the ones that do need it they can just share the server code so ppl can host their servers, it takes them literately zero work to share the server code.

Post automatically merged: Aug 1, 2024

how many online only nintendo games are there...

Tetris 99, the new F-Zero thing, for example, are online multi-player only.

Also, despite being able to be played offline, you can't share Mario Builder 3DS maps anymore.

 

[Daggot]

While I fundamentally agree with what this is setting out to achieve, I can't help but think that it is somewhat short-sighted.
If it is put into action it may steer developers future projects into avoiding online functionality entirely. And while I'm not against this, it could mean that the types of games that we are used to just don't get made anymore.

You gotta break a couple of eggs to make an omelet. Either devs do it right or not at all.

 

[Axido]

I signed the petition and shared it with a few friends that might as well.

The Crew won't be the only game that gets hit this hard. Take a look at what the Gran Turismo series has become lately. GT Sport did get a last patch to enable singleplayer content for offline players. However, some day the physical copies out there will basically become demo discs, not being able to download that patch anymore. When that happens, it would be nice to have dedicated servers running that could verify the unpatched version and make it playable again.

 

[CoolMe]

The Stop Killing Games campaign was launched by Ross Scott based on the shutdown of Ubisoft's The Crew

Lmao, Ubisoft probably the worst contender here, without even mentioning the performance/technical issues & the copy-paste gameplay experience with each new sequel (iirc they also treat their userbase like garbage).. Atleast Nintendo release their games polished!

If it is put into action it may steer developers future projects into avoiding online functionality entirely

That's a positive in my book. Not every AAA IP has to have a gigantic online world, built to extract more money out of its users (not speaking about every game obv, but you know the ones)..

Brexit has killed gaming

You could say they "Breaksit"

 

[scoobydude51]

I signed the petition and shared it with a few friends that might as well.

The Crew won't be the only game that gets hit this hard. Take a look at what the Gran Turismo series has become lately. GT Sport did get a last patch to enable singleplayer content for offline players. However, some day the physical copies out there will basically become demo discs, not being able to download that patch anymore. When that happens, it would be nice to have dedicated servers running that could verify the unpatched version and make it playable again.

DriveClub is another example

 

[NinStar]

I'm going to say something that may sound controversial, but making developers/publishers responsible for preserving their own stuff until the end of times has a potential to do more harm to everyone than anything else, not all of them have the resources or interest to do this (and in my opinion that is perfectly fine), this also has the potential to discourage them from making certain type of games just because they can't guarantee it will last forever.

I think It's better to leave media preservation the way it currently is, let the individuals interested on the matter do the work if they want, we should focus on making this less of a gray area for these people than trying to shift responsibility to the original authors.

 

[ZeroFX]

As a half European (with citizenship) I say: stop DEI first, desu! Then ask me to sign anything. This Stop Killing Games looks like something made to obfuscate the real issue right now.

 

[linuxares]

I'm going to say something that may sound controversial, but making developers/publishers responsible for preserving their own stuff until the end of times has a potential to do more harm to everyone than anything else, not all of them have the resources or interest to do this (and in my opinion that is perfectly fine), this also has the potential to discourage them from making certain type of games just because they can't guarantee it will last forever.

I think It's better to leave media preservation the way it currently is, let the individuals interested on the matter do the work if they want, we should focus on making this less of a gray area for these people than trying to shift responsibility to the original authors.

Look at the video, since thats not what this is about.
Live service games only benefit the dev/publisher, not us consumers.

 

[NinStar]

Look at the video, since thats not what this is about.

I already watched it and almost all other videos that guy made about the subject since it all started, this IS my stance on the whole thing.

Live service games only benefit the dev/publisher, not us consumers.

I also don't like a lot of them, but I'm not against them existing and operating the way they operate.

 

[Xzi]

I also don't like a lot of them, but I'm not against them existing and operating the way they operate.

In which case the vast majority of them will continue to fail within months and be pulled from service, likely causing layoffs in the process. Not only is the current live service model awful for consumers, its impact is awful for publishers and developers who chase that trend too. Only executives with golden parachutes remain unaffected, even though they're usually the ones giving orders on what to develop next.

Fact of the matter is that if you truly believe that it's the individual's job to preserve games, then it's still the responsibility of the publisher/developer to give individuals the tools and resources they need to facilitate that preservation.

 

[KingVamp]

Would be pretty funny, if Nintendo had to bring back their Virtual Console after trying so hard to destroy preservation and gate keep games with their online service.

As for EU, I also don't want to rely on them, but until we remove all this corporatism nonsense, this is the best thing we got.

 

[SylverReZ]

1. A citizen of a EU country

*Checks British passport and proceeds to cry*

That's the most stupid part of all of this. The bill doesn't even apply to the UK frankly.

Would be pretty funny, if Nintendo had to bring back their Virtual Console after trying so hard to destroy preservation and gate keep games with their online service.

As for EU, I also don't want to rely on them, but until we remove all this corporatism nonsense, this is the best thing we got.

After all, this is Nintendo. They don't care about preservation or the fanbase that they've built up.

 

[Xzi]

That's the most stupid part of all of this. The bill doesn't even apply to the UK frankly.


After all, this is Nintendo. They don't care about preservation or the fanbase that they've built up.

It's not like there are borders on the internet, though. If a game or its server-side software is preserved online, everybody will have access to it.

 

[NinStar]

Fact of the matter is that if you truly believe that it's the individual's job to preserve games, then it's still the responsibility of the publisher/developer to give individuals the tools and resources they need to facilitate that preservation.

Kinda, I do believe companies should be incentivized to take this route if they are not interested in maintaining their own products, I would prefer it all to always be like this.

However I don't think companies (or anyone for the matter) should be forced to this even if they don't want (at least when it comes to entertainment media specifically), in a situation like this I also believe companies should not be allowed to pursue individuals taking their own initiatives to preserve stuff on their own, even if it is being done without their assistance or approval.

And to be honest, the reason I have this opinion is mainly because I see copyright law in general as a joke, so this is the more nuanced take I can have about this subject.

 

[Handburger]

Let's see if this amounts to anything. If the EU could make Apple bend its knee for usb-c, maybe they'll do the same to devs.

 

[Axido]

I'm going to say something that may sound controversial, but making developers/publishers responsible for preserving their own stuff until the end of times has a potential to do more harm to everyone than anything else, not all of them have the resources or interest to do this (and in my opinion that is perfectly fine), this also has the potential to discourage them from making certain type of games just because they can't guarantee it will last forever.

I think It's better to leave media preservation the way it currently is, let the individuals interested on the matter do the work if they want, we should focus on making this less of a gray area for these people than trying to shift responsibility to the original authors.

Any examples that fill your bold claim with facts? I can't seem to find one that fits. I can't remember any indie game where the creator tied the majority of its functionality to a server connection, especially to the point at which the game would become unplayable without an official server connection. I do know of indie games, though, which do let you host your own dedicated server (Palworld, ARC, even the Minecraft alpha). That might be the exact opposite of the picture you paint.

So, what possible harm do you expect? You might be misinterpreting something, but nobody is forced to distribute games until the end of time or churn out updates constantly. Devs just have to make sure to do the bare minimum so that their games can live on without them. Or do you think this entails stuff like recompiling the game once a new OS comes out? That's not at all what this petition is about.

The way it currently is, as you said yourself, is pretty suboptimal. community-based solutions are not 100 per cent legal (can be fixed), take a lot of time (will not be fixed unless you force game developers to help) and might not even fully restore the functionality of the game, while the company that wants to axe server support already has working code available. Have you ever worked on such a project, so that you can safely say it's a good thing to shift the work to the user and make it exponentially harder?

 

[NinStar]

Any examples that fill your bold claim with facts? I can't seem to find one that fits. I can't remember any indie game where the creator tied the majority of its functionality to a server connection, especially to the point at which the game would become unplayable without an official server connection.

What do you mean "bold claim"? nowhere in my post I mentioned indie developers.

So, what possible harm do you expect? You might be misinterpreting something, but nobody is forced to distribute games until the end of time or churn out updates constantly. Devs just have to make sure to do the bare minimum so that their games can live on without them. Or do you think this entails stuff like recompiling the game once a new OS comes out? That's not at all what this petition is about.

No? What I meant is that I don't think every single game has to include some kind of "offline mode", personally I'm fine with game as service working they way the do, I made it very clear in my second post.

The way it currently is, as you said yourself, is pretty suboptimal. community-based solutions are not 100 per cent legal (can be fixed), take a lot of time (will not be fixed unless you force game developers to help) and might not even fully restore the functionality of the game, while the company that wants to axe server support already has working code available. Have you ever worked on such a project, so that you can safely say it's a good thing to shift the work to the user and make it exponentially harder?

I literally said I'm in favor of companies providing the resources for products they have no interest in maintaining, I just don't think it is black/white thing or that it should be enforced by law.

 

[Tofu_mommy]

While I fundamentally agree with what this is setting out to achieve, I can't help but think that it is somewhat short-sighted.
If it is put into action it may steer developers future projects into avoiding online functionality entirely. And while I'm not against this, it could mean that the types of games that we are used to just don't get made anymore.

If a game uses online features for no good reason, like some free to play mobile games that would connect to a server just to check if you're not time traveling, then it's nudging them in the right direction. Giving developers pause might also prevent them from running emerging trends into the ground by over-saturating the market with games that are just gambling on becoming the biggest one in their genre. Just look at all the recent failed live services (Babylon's Fall, Suicide Squad, Anthem and so on), or older trend chasing games like Battleborn. I assume that being forced to commit to some level of support or be honest with your plans might end up reducing the amount of games that get released, but they will not take unnecessary risks of going all or nothing, putting developers at risk of getting laid off and games getting shut down shortly after launch, and even improve things for shareholders.

 

[kanuki]

It will have a knock on effect to every type of game from a financial point of view... if all servers have to remain up for eternity, that overhead will need to be covered from more than just the sale of the title using those servers. Imagine if Sega still had to pay for the upkeep of Dreamcasts online functionality - by law they'd be required to, but haven't made any money from the Dreamcast in over twenty years.

If an old game is less popular, the publisher can probably scale back the servers to a pretty manageable size because of the smaller playerbase than when the game was first launched. Not every game will have ff14 size mmo server at launch, even less decades after release.

 

[Tofu_mommy]

I know that server costs can be quite insane. HiRez mentioned a figure of $10k a month for keeping servers around in a single region for Realm Royale, and they decided to shut down Australian ones just to hire a developer to attempt to revive the game. There's a possibility that they haven't optimized server code to use less resources and need smaller instances, or are running empty lobbies when nobody is in a game.

I assume scaling game servers is pretty normal given the developer is using a cloud provider with some kind of flexible scaling system to spin up more server instances when the player count spikes.

As for replacing servers with community ones, establishing legal grounds for reverse engineering would help, which is why I'm not keen on developers using copyright laws to shut down cheaters for tampering with games. DMCA truly sucks.