What happens to the game you bought when the servers shut down?
When a publisher shuts down the servers, you lose access to the game you purchased. Space Marine 2 becomes unplayable when Saber Interactive closes the servers. The Crew disappeared from Ubisoft libraries without refunds when the servers shut down. Multiplayer-only games become expensive coasters when companies decide supporting them isn’t profitable. Single-player games with always-online requirements stop working when authentication servers close. Your purchase meant nothing because you never owned the product—you rented access until the publisher decided to stop providing it.
What Stop Killing Games Actually Requires
The EU initiative achieved enough signatures to reach the European Parliament for debate and potential legislation. The requirement is simple: releasing a game means ensuring permanent access. Publishers must either maintain servers indefinitely or provide offline functionality when shutting down. The legislation would establish that purchases confer ownership rights rather than revocable licenses, forcing companies to respect transactions by ensuring products remain usable after the sale.
The precedent exists through Steam’s refund policy. An EU ruling forced Valve to implement a two-week refund window with limited playtime restrictions. Steam initially resisted, claiming digital distribution made refunds impossible. EU legislation mandated refunds anyway. Steam implemented the policy in the EU, then rolled it out globally because maintaining separate regional policies was impractical. The extraterritorial effect means EU consumer protection benefits worldwide users even outside EU jurisdiction.
Stop Killing Games would follow the same pattern. Forcing publishers to ensure permanent access in the EU would likely extend globally through the same practical considerations. Maintaining separate server structures for EU versus non-EU regions whilst ensuring EU users have offline options creates more work than just providing offline functionality universally. Legislation in a single major market would effectively set the worldwide standard through compliance being easier than fragmentation.
The Technical Objections Are Bullshit
Publishers claim that providing offline functionality or releasing server software is technically impossible. This is a lie. Community-run servers exist for numerous games where fans reverse-engineered server code after official shutdowns. The technical capability obviously exists because amateurs accomplished it without source code access or developer resources. Publishers claiming impossibility are lying about technical constraints to avoid work they simply don’t want to do.
The minimal work required is removing authentication checks and either providing server binaries or documenting protocols enabling community servers. Games already have offline components for single-player or local multiplayer. Extending this to function without authentication servers requires removing checks rather than building new functionality. The authentication exists to control access, not because games technically require it. Removing control mechanisms is simpler than publishers claim when defending their right to render purchased products useless.
The preservation argument also applies. Gaming history disappears when games become unplayable through server shutdowns. The Crew is gone. Dozens of MMOs are gone. Multiplayer-focused games from the 2000s are gone. The cultural loss accelerates as live-service models proliferate, creating games designed for impermanence. Stop Killing Games would preserve access, ensuring future generations can experience games rather than just reading about them in historical documentation.
Why Publishers Oppose This
Ubisoft’s CEO stated that consumers should “get comfortable” not owning games, revealing the industry position. Publishers want subscription-style recurring revenue rather than one-time purchases. Ensuring permanent access undermines this by making purchases actually function as purchases rather than extended rentals. The opposition isn’t about technical limitations but business model protection, where maintaining control over access enables monetization strategies that ownership would prevent.
The live-service model particularly depends on controlled access. Games designed around ongoing purchases of battle passes, cosmetics, and seasonal content require active server operation and player engagement. Providing offline functionality would eliminate ongoing revenue whilst preserving base game access. Publishers resist because their business models require preventing permanent access to maximize revenue extraction over a product’s lifetime.
The timing also matters. Publishers opposing Stop Killing Games whilst simultaneously pushing subscription services reveals a coordinated strategy. Game Pass, PlayStation Plus, and Ubisoft+ represent industry movement toward rental models where permanent ownership becomes obsolete. Legislation forcing permanent access threatens this transition by establishing that purchases mean ownership regardless of distribution method or service integration.
The Ownership vs Licensing Distinction
The legal framework treats digital purchases as licenses rather than sales. This classification enables publishers to revoke access, shut down servers, and render products unusable whilst facing no obligation to provide refunds or alternatives. Stop Killing Games would legally establish that purchasing a game—regardless of distribution method—creates an ownership right to permanent access rather than a revocable license to temporary use.
The distinction matters for inheritance, resale, and preservation. Physical products can be willed to heirs, sold secondhand, or kept permanently. Digital licenses typically prohibit transfer and terminate rather than transferring ownership. Establishing purchases as conferring ownership would enable these rights in digital space, fundamentally changing the relationship between consumers and publishers from an ongoing service relationship to a completed transaction.
The enforcement mechanisms remain unclear. Legislation could impose fines for non-compliance or enable class-action lawsuits when publishers violate permanent access requirements. The specifics matter less than establishing the legal principle that purchases mean ownership with corresponding rights rather than revocable licenses companies control indefinitely.
Why This Matters Beyond Games
The digital ownership crisis extends far beyond gaming. Music, movies, books, and software all face the same problems where purchases are really licenses revocable at company discretion. Amazon deleted purchased Kindle books from devices. Apple removed purchased movies from iTunes libraries. Spotify controls access to music libraries you’ve “purchased” through subscriptions. The pattern is consistent across digital media where companies maintain control preventing genuine ownership.
Stop Killing Games could establish a precedent extending beyond gaming. Successfully legislating permanent access for games creates a template for similar protections across digital media. The principle that purchases confer ownership rights transfers directly to other contexts where companies currently control access through licensing rather than selling products. Gaming legislation could drive broader digital ownership reform.
The alternative is accepting that purchasing increasingly means nothing. Companies sell licenses whilst using purchase language, collect full product prices whilst providing revocable access, and face no consequences when rendering products useless through shutdowns or access revocation. Without legislation forcing respect for purchases, the trend toward everything being temporary access controlled by sellers continues unchecked.
What You Can Do
Support Stop Killing Games wherever you see it. Upvote petitions. Share information. Contact representatives if you’re in the EU. The initiative needs visibility and political pressure to pass from petition to actual legislation. Industry lobbying will oppose it heavily because permanent access threatens business models depending on controlled impermanence. Consumer support must counter industry opposition.
The support matters regardless of your location. EU legislation affects global markets through compliance becoming easier than fragmentation. Supporting the EU initiative benefits worldwide consumers through extraterritorial application of standards. The Steam refund precedent demonstrates this—a single market’s consumer protection extends globally through practical implementation considerations.
The principle also matters beyond individual benefit. Gaming preservation requires a legal framework preventing corporate decisions from erasing cultural history. The games disappearing through server shutdowns represent artistic works and cultural artifacts being destroyed through neglect. Preservation through ensuring permanent access protects cultural heritage beyond individual consumer interests.
The Bottom Line
Stop Killing Games is the only legislative protection against publishers stealing your library through server shutdowns and access revocation. Industry opposition reveals that permanent access threatens business models depending on controlled impermanence. Ubisoft’s statement about getting comfortable not owning things shows where publishers want to take the industry—subscription rentals replacing purchases whilst maintaining purchase pricing.
The technical objections are lies. Community servers prove offline functionality is achievable. Publishers claiming impossibility are protecting business models rather than describing actual limitations. The opposition is financial, not technical, because permanent access undermines strategies requiring ongoing control over access to maximize revenue extraction.
Does EU legislation forcing permanent access represent necessary consumer protection against predatory business practices, or does industry opposition reveal that modern games genuinely require ongoing service making offline functionality impractical?
Either way, without Stop Killing Games or similar legislation, your purchases mean nothing. Publishers will continue shutting down servers, rendering products useless, and facing no consequences. The only protection is a legal requirement that purchases mean ownership with the corresponding right to permanent access.
Support Stop Killing Games. Upvote it. Share it. Contact representatives. Because without legislative protection, publishers will absolutely steal your library the moment supporting it stops being profitable.
Fuck Ubisoft.
