What happens when you “purchase” a game but the publisher can revoke access whenever they want?
You didn’t purchase anything. You licensed temporary access that publisher controls completely. This arrangement benefits publishers who can shut down servers, revoke licences, and eliminate products from your library without compensation or recourse. The asymmetric relationship where you pay full price for temporary access rather than permanent ownership represents fundamental consumer rights problem that the EU’s Stop Killing Games initiative directly addresses. The legislation that passed required signature thresholds and heads to European Parliament will force publishers to ensure that purchased games remain accessible either through maintained servers or through providing offline functionality when servers shut down. The law establishes that “purchasing” games means actually owning them rather than renting indefinite access that publishers can revoke unilaterally.
What the Law Actually Does
Stop Killing Games requires publishers to ensure continued access to purchased games after official support ends. The implementation offers two paths: maintain server infrastructure indefinitely or provide tools enabling offline play when servers shut down. Publishers choosing to end server support must release server software, remove online authentication requirements, or patch games to function without central servers. The requirement prevents situations where single-player games with unnecessary always-online requirements become unplayable when publishers decide support is no longer profitable.
The law also establishes that consumers purchasing games receive ownership rights rather than just access licences. The distinction matters because ownership implies permanence whilst licences can be revoked. Current terms of service claim consumers receive licences that publishers can revoke for any reason including business decisions having nothing to do with consumer behaviour. Stop Killing Games challenges this arrangement by establishing that purchases confer ownership rights that publishers must respect through ensuring continued access.
The legislation targets particularly egregious cases where publishers shut down games that players purchased at full price without providing refunds or alternative access. The crew became catalyst for Stop Killing Games after Ubisoft shut down servers rendering purchased game completely unplayable. The shutdown without compensation or offline functionality demonstrated how current licensing models allow publishers to take money for products they later make unavailable without legal consequences. Stop Killing Games creates those consequences by requiring publishers to maintain access or face regulatory penalties.
The Publisher Opposition
Ubisoft’s CEO previously stated that consumers need to get comfortable not owning games, revealing publisher preference for licensing models over traditional ownership. The statement generated backlash but accurately reflected industry trajectory toward access-based models that benefit publishers through increased control. Stop Killing Games directly contradicts this vision by establishing legal requirement that purchases confer ownership rights rather than temporary licences that publishers prefer.
Major publishers rallied against Stop Killing Games through industry lobbying groups claiming the requirements would be technically impossible or prohibitively expensive. The arguments don’t withstand scrutiny because publishers already implement regional server shutdowns and offline modes for markets with unreliable internet connectivity. The technical capability exists. Publishers oppose regulation not because compliance is impossible but because licensing models are more profitable than ownership models that limit publisher control over products after purchase.
The cost argument also fails because preservation requirements are minimal compared to development budgets. Releasing server software or patching games to remove online authentication requirements costs far less than initial development. The expenses are manageable for studios spending hundreds of millions on game development. The opposition stems from preferring business model where publishers control product access indefinitely rather than genuine inability to comply with ownership requirements.
The Valve Precedent
Steam’s refund policy came from EU consumer protection regulations requiring refunds for defective digital products. Valve initially resisted refunds claiming digital distribution made returns impossible. However, EU regulations forced implementation and Valve extended refund policy globally rather than maintaining different policies by region. The global extension meant European consumer advocacy benefited worldwide gaming audiences even when other regions lacked equivalent regulations.
Stop Killing Games follows similar pattern where EU regulation will likely be implemented globally because maintaining separate preservation systems by region is more expensive than universal compliance. Publishers will choose to preserve games globally rather than tracking which versions were sold in EU and implementing region-specific preservation. The extraterritorial effect means European legislative success protects gaming consumers worldwide regardless of their local regulatory environments.
The precedent also demonstrates that industry opposition to consumer protection regulations evaporates after implementation when compliance proves less burdensome than predicted. Valve’s refund policy didn’t destroy digital distribution despite initial claims that refunds were impossible. The policy became standard feature that consumers expect whilst Valve continues making enormous profits. Stop Killing Games will likely follow similar trajectory where initial opposition proves overblown and preservation requirements become standard practice without harming industry viability.
What Preservation Actually Requires
Most games already contain offline functionality that online requirements artificially disable. Single-player campaigns requiring server authentication for no gameplay reason can be preserved by removing authentication checks. The technical work is minimal because offline functionality exists but is disabled through design choices prioritising control over player experience. Preservation requires reversing these choices through simple patches rather than rebuilding games from scratch.
Multiplayer games present more complex preservation challenges but solutions exist through releasing server software enabling community-hosted servers. Dedicated gaming communities have demonstrated willingness to host servers for games they love decades after official support ended. Publishers providing server software enables these communities to maintain games indefinitely without requiring ongoing publisher investment. The community preservation model works when publishers cooperate rather than using legal threats to prevent fan-hosted servers.
The preservation requirement also benefits publishers through extended product lifecycles where games remain playable and potentially generate ongoing sales years after official support ends. Classic games remaining playable introduces new players who might not have purchased when games were current but become interested through positive word-of-mouth from preserved communities. The long-tail sales from preserved games can offset preservation costs whilst building goodwill that benefits publisher reputation.
The Ownership Question
Current digital distribution terms claim consumers don’t own purchased games but instead license access that publishers can revoke. The licensing model emerged without consumer input through unilateral terms of service that consumers must accept to access digital storefronts. The one-sided arrangement gives publishers complete control whilst consumers have no rights beyond what publishers voluntarily provide. Stop Killing Games challenges this arrangement by establishing legal ownership rights that publishers must respect regardless of terms of service attempting to override consumer protections.
The distinction between ownership and licensing matters for estate planning, resale rights, and preservation. Owned products can be inherited, sold, or preserved. Licensed access terminates when account holder dies and can’t be transferred or resold. Current licensing models mean gaming libraries represent sunk costs that provide zero value beyond original purchaser’s lifetime. Ownership models would enable treating game collections as assets with ongoing value that can be transferred to heirs or sold when no longer wanted.
The consumer confusion about ownership also deserves addressing because marketing materials use “buy,” “purchase,” and “own” whilst legal terms claim these transactions are actually limited licences. The semantic deception where purchase language is used for licence transactions violates basic consumer protection principles that transactions should be clearly described. Stop Killing Games helps address this deception by establishing that purchase language requires actual ownership rights rather than just access licences.
The Technical Objections
Publishers claimed Stop Killing Games requirements are technically impossible for games with complex server infrastructure. However, games like World of Warcraft demonstrate that complex multiplayer infrastructure can be preserved through community servers once publishers release server software. The private server scene for WoW shows community capability to maintain complex games when given access to necessary tools. The existence of successful community preservation proves technical objections are excuses rather than genuine limitations.
The games-as-a-service model also doesn’t exempt publishers from preservation requirements because service elements can be separated from core game access. A live service game that receives ongoing content updates can be preserved by ensuring base game remains playable when service ends whilst acknowledging that new content won’t be developed. The preservation requirement doesn’t mandate indefinite development but does require ensuring purchased content remains accessible.
The authentication server dependency also represents deliberate choice rather than technical necessity. Games designed to function offline with authentication required only for online features can easily be preserved by removing authentication. Games designed to authenticate every action create preservation challenges but these challenges stem from design choices prioritising control over player experience rather than technical requirements. Publishers chose to make preservation difficult and can choose to make it easy through different design decisions.
What This Means Globally
European Union regulations routinely become global standards because multinational corporations implement EU requirements worldwide rather than maintaining different products by region. The California effect describes how strict regulations in large markets influence global corporate behaviour because compliance costs less than segmentation. Stop Killing Games will likely follow this pattern where preservation requirements implemented for EU consumers extend globally because developing separate preserved and non-preserved versions costs more than universal preservation.
The global extension particularly benefits regions lacking robust consumer protection regulations. American consumers receive no domestic regulatory protections ensuring game preservation. However, they benefit from EU regulations through global implementation of preservation requirements. The indirect benefit demonstrates value of strong consumer protection regulations even for consumers outside jurisdictions implementing them. The global reach also means supporting EU consumer advocacy benefits worldwide gaming audiences.
The precedent also encourages advocacy in other regions by demonstrating that consumer protection regulations can successfully pass despite industry opposition. The Stop Killing Games success provides template for consumer advocacy groups in other jurisdictions to pursue similar regulations. The precedent shows that organised consumer advocacy can overcome publisher lobbying when building political coalitions supporting consumer rights. The success multiplies through inspiring advocacy beyond Europe.
The Limitations
Stop Killing Games doesn’t address all game preservation challenges. Games depending on third-party licences for music, sports leagues, or other intellectual property face preservation barriers when licences expire. Publishers can’t maintain games using unlicenced content without violating third-party rights. The preservation requirement doesn’t override copyright or licensing agreements limiting what publishers can preserve. The limitation means some games will remain unpre-servable regardless of Stop Killing Games.
The enforcement mechanism also remains unclear until final legislation passes. Regulations without meaningful penalties enable publishers to ignore requirements if non-compliance is more profitable than compliance. The success of Stop Killing Games depends partly on establishing penalties that make non-compliance more expensive than preservation costs. The penalty structure will determine whether publishers view preservation as legal requirement or optional guideline they can ignore.
The scope limitations also mean Stop Killing Games addresses server-dependent games but doesn’t cover all digital ownership issues. Publishers can still remove games from storefronts preventing new purchases whilst preserving existing owner access. The distinction between preserving purchased games and ensuring ongoing availability means some preservation problems remain unsolved. Stop Killing Games is significant achievement but not comprehensive solution to all digital ownership challenges.
Does Stop Killing Games represent genuine consumer victory establishing ownership rights, or will publishers find loopholes enabling continued control over products consumers believed they purchased?
