After for than a year since its inception back in March 2024, the European initiative titled "Stop Killing Games" has not only met the desired goal of 1 million signatures, but it has even surpassed it and its still growing.

The "Stop Killing Games" initiative aims to challenge gaming companies legally to provide an end-of-life plan for videogames where the game effectively becomes unplayable once the publisher stops supporting said game. This might include live-service games, but is not exclusive to them, as we have seen many games throughout the years met their end just because the publisher has decided to shut down the servers for said games, with the famous case of games like "The Crew" as a clear example of this.

Now with the initiative's goal met, it's very likely that the European Union will see this as a topic worth considering in terms of consumer rights, as this kind of practice where the publisher determines the end of the product, or rather, planned obsolescence as it is called, is seen as abusive by the vast majority of consumers.

As expected, as soon as the million European signatures goal was met, the European lobbying board for video games, Video Games Europe, released a statement regarding this news, claiming that the decision to discontinue online games is never taken lightly and that "it must be an option for companies when an online experience is no longer viable", and that the companies will "give fair notice" to players before their discontinuation, claiming that "private servers are not always viable."

The lobbying board consists of people representing many giants in the gaming industry, like Electronic Arts, Activision, Microsoft, Epic Games, Nintendo, Sony, Ubisoft, Square Enix, and more.

Aside from the released statement, Video Games Europe released a detailed Position Paper where they go into detail about why such an initiative would be detrimental to the gaming companies, explaining "why an obligation on video game companies to provide only a limited type of end-of-life plan is disproportionate".

It's still unknown what will come out of this, and/or when this initiative will be properly discussed in a proper legal manner by corresponding entities, but we'll make sure to follow the situation as it continues to evolve.

Stop Killing Games website
Video Games Europe statement
Video Games Europe Position paper

 

[HalfScoper]

The easiest way to combat the issue is simply not buy games that are unplayable when the server goes offline. But that will never never ever happen, because people are selfish and want to play the games more than they want to own the things they buy.

The single sane comment in this thread.

 

[DeadSkullzJr]

The games already dead from gameplay I don't get the whoplah everyone is trying to make against my opinion. Lol

Besides, it's pretty hard to sympathize with a consumer who at this point, knows a game is literally strapped to the online environment, knows that it won't last forever, yet still proceeds to buy into it anyways, only to turn around one day and complain about the very thing they already realized before they made the purchase. Could have avoided spending the money in the first place. I get the point of the movement for these games, but at the same time, I think the willful ignorance (general stupidity most of the time) of a consumer is also a talking point.

 

[K3Nv4]

Besides, it's pretty hard to sympathize with a consumer who at this point, knows a game is literally strapped to the online environment, knows that it won't last forever, yet still proceeds to buy into it anyways, only to turn around one day and complain about the very thing they already realized before they made the purchase. Could have avoided spending the money in the first place. I get the point of the movement for these games, but at the same time, I think the willful ignorance of a consumer is also a talking point.

So gamers shouldn't have rights to play the game they already own if a studio turns it off. Okay.

 

[DeadSkullzJr]

So gamers shouldn't have rights to play the game they already own if a studio turns it off. Okay.

Never said that, but keep trying to twist the knife there mister. I literally said I get the movement, but consumers are also pretty dumb when it comes to purchases. I think there's some faults on both sides, not just one.

 

[K3Nv4]

Never said that, but keep trying to twist the knife there mister. I literally said I get the movement, but consumers are also pretty dumb when it comes to purchases. I think there's some faults on both sides, not just one.

I buy something expecting to have fun with something that'll last longer than and when it doesn't I'm dumb. Okay.

 

[LightBeam]

If game studio plans to shut off server based games then they could simply pass a law they must make the code open source and leave it for the community to decide on how to host if they don't want to pay for server status anymore. Simple fix.

It's not THAT easy to implement, especially for bigger games

If they depend on proprietary software, then we would need people to work on replacing those, and the goal is for the devs to release a functioning software

Best examples I have in mind are Spellbreak and Rising Thunder. They had to work on some stuff before releasing those, but if small teams can do that (and Spellbreak is a battle royale), then big companies shouldn't have any problem doing that. But they hate the fact that they could be forced to actually work for something they won't directly make money from, they don't care about what's right.


In short : open source code isn't enough. In fact, any Community Edition/EOL Edition can be closed source and it'd be enough.

 

[DeadSkullzJr]

I buy something expecting to have fun with something that'll last longer than nger and when it doesn't I'm dumb. Okay.

If you literally look at a page for a game, see that it's an online only experience, and you know that it could literally be pulled at any given point in time... Pretty sure you make a choice right then and there, "spend the $80 knowing it may die sooner or later." or "spend the $80 on another game I know isn't going to suffer the same fate."

 

[K3Nv4]

If you literally look at a page for a game, see that it's an online only experience, and you know that it could literally be pulled at any given point in time... Pretty sure you make a choice right then and there, "spend the $80 knowing it may die sooner or later." or "spend the $80 on another game I know isn't going to suffer the same fate."

Yes and having a way to fall back with community support would be nice.

 

[Ondrashek06]

Comments based on the notion of "this would not happen if everyone just..." are just dumb.

The combination of brand loyalty, strong marketing, and other stuff is strong and attracts way more people than boycotts repel.

These kinds of boycotts against anti-consumer bullshit have been tried over and over again to no avail. This initiative is legally binding and requires EU lawmakers to discuss it.

Why do certain people here not understand that.

 

[SecureBoot]

If you literally look at a page for a game, see that it's an online only experience, and you know that it could literally be pulled at any given point in time... Pretty sure you make a choice right then and there, "spend the $80 knowing it may die sooner or later." or "spend the $80 on another game I know isn't going to suffer the same fate."

I agree with the sentiment, but it's not necessarily advertised on store pages that the game doesn't work without an Internet connection. I can't fault the average gamer for buying something with the assumption it will stay online.

 

[MikaDubbz]

While I like the spirit of the initiative, what happens when a dev goes completely under and not only do their servers get shut down, but they cease to exist as a company entirely due to going bankrupt. Are they still to be forced to indefinitely continue to pay for severs for their dead games despite the fact that they themselves no longer have any money as it is?

I feel like if this initiative is forced to be enacted, that devs may kill many future online games and modes entirely before release, not wanting to risk it if the game does more poorly than hoped/expected.

 

[SecureBoot]

While I like the spirit of the initiative, what happens when a dev goes completely under and not only do their servers get shut down, but they cease to exist as a company entirely due to going bankrupt. Are they still to be forced to indefinitely continue to pay for severs for their dead games despite the fact that they themselves no longer have any money as it is?

I feel like if this initiative is forced to be enacted, that devs may kill many future online games and modes entirely before release, not wanting to risk it if the game does more poorly than hoped/expected.

The initiative does not require games to keep servers running forever. Only that EoL plans are created and communicated on release of the game. Essentially, there should be a big "End service" button built into games moving forward (not retroactively applied to existing games) that will make sure the game is playable after servers are taken offline

 

[DeadSkullzJr]

Yes and having a way to fall back with community support would be nice.

You are completely avoiding what I'm saying. At this point, I'm looking at your comments as indirect admittance that you are a consumer that likely dumped, or still dumps, a ton of money on online only games, probably in a lot of micro-transactions too. Basically you are compensating your losses that you very well clearly knew about BEFORE your purchases. You can't realize something bad, still buy into anyways, then turn around and complain. You lost the battle, and the war, dare I say your right when despite that knowledge, you still proceeded anyways. You can't have it both ways, you either do it, or you don't, there's no in between. I get the roadmap logic, but again, consumers are just as guilty if they literally know what they are buying into, but literally chucks money into the pool anyways. You knew better then, you know better now, there's no real excuse. If it's the whole "fear of missing out" thing. Get over it, you are shooting yourself in the foot with that mindset.

Is it a good thing if these games are given a single player experience towards the end of their life? Sure, but again, you as the consumer literally hold the cards here, you have to decide wisely which card you plan to play next. Getting reckless, then complaining because you were reckless, makes no sense. You have other game options as it is, you can find your fun with one that isn't going to suffer a bad fate.

 

[yankii]

As sad as it sounds, this petition is going to achieve absolutely nothing. Do people really think lawmakers can be swayed by a crowd of gamers harder than they can by lobbyists?

The onus is on us to not support online-only games and spread the word about game preservation techniques.

 

[MikaDubbz]

The initiative does not require games to keep servers running forever. Only that EoL plans are created and communicated on release of the game. Essentially, there should be a big "End service" button built into games moving forward (not retroactively applied to existing games) that will make sure the game is playable after servers are taken offline

For so many games where the online experience is literally the entire point, this eol server-less experience would ultimately be a boring pointless experience that no one would even have interest touching anymore as it is. Like this would just become something that still can be 'played' only to appease this new rule, but the end result would be the same of people no longer playing the game regardless.

But i guess if we want to create the illusion that there is still something there at that point worth booting into, then have at it I guess.

 

[DeadSkullzJr]

I agree with the sentiment, but it's not necessarily advertised on store pages that the game doesn't work without an Internet connection. I can't fault the average gamer for buying something with the assumption it will stay online.

As a gamer myself, I always do research about the games I want to play next. If I can research, I don't see what stops anyone else. Plus, I can't agree with this since places like Steam use tags to define what games are (they aren't always 100% accurate, but majority of the time, they aren't wrong). Looking at just one source for information, is still the fault of the end user. That's like a user buying a cable or something, and only looking at one to two reviews about the product, or just looking at one online article about said product. You are doing yourself dirty by literally compromising your knowledge on what you are buying into.

 

[BakerMan]

I honestly think it's such a shame that it's only in europe, i'd sign it in a heartbeat, don't let them win, even if a somewhat popular streamer/game dev is all like

(you know who i'm talkin about, actually lemme just...

that's better)

 

[DeadSkullzJr]

For so many games where the online experience is literally the entire point, this eol server-less experience would ultimately be a boring pointless experience that no one would even have interest touching anymore as it is. Like this would just become something that still can be 'played' only to appease this new rule, but the end result would be the same of people no longer playing the game regardless.

But i guess if we want to create the illusion that there is still something there at that point worth booting into, then have at it I guess.

The point of having a game be playable even after support is dropped isn't a bad thing though, it's still better than losing the game entirely. We still have reverse engineering efforts as it is if we really are inclined, to bring back the multiplayer experience. We've added multiplayer to games that never had it before already in the past, we can do something similar for things like this. The whole objective is to basically NOT lose the game entirely. Sure it won't be the exact same experience, but you can't be ultra picky here.

 

[BakerMan]

I'm not surprised to not see valve on that list, capcom on the other hand is someone i am surprised to not be there.
then again if that were the case they woulda pulled the plug on mvc3 by now :/

 

[SecureBoot]

As a gamer myself, I always do research about the games I want to play next. If I can research, I don't see what stops anyone else. Plus, I can't agree with this since places like Steam use tags to define what games are (they aren't always 100% accurate, but majority of the time, they aren't wrong). Looking at just one source for information, is still the fault of the end user. That's like a user buying a cable or something, and only looking at one to two reviews about the product, or just looking at one online article about said product. You are doing yourself dirty by literally compromising your knowledge on what you are buying into.

Nah you lost me. Just because you do something doesn't mean you can reasonably expect everyone to. There's only so many hours in a day and people don't know what they don't know. Joe average just wants to play the not new game with his friends.

For so many games where the online experience is literally the entire point, this eol server-less experience would ultimately be a boring pointless experience that no one would even have interest touching anymore as it is. Like this would just become something that still can be 'played' only to appease this new rule, but the end result would be the same of people no longer playing the game regardless.

But i guess if we want to create the illusion that there is still something there at that point worth booting into, then have at it I guess.

That may be the case but at least the content is available. One potential EoL plan is releasing server binaries which would maintain both the spirit and content of the game