It has been an unspoken fact for years that buying games can mean losing access to them permanently, even after paying the full price.
I’ve watched titles I enjoyed disappear just because a company decided it wasn’t worth keeping the servers up. The Stop Killing Games movement is the strongest and most coordinated response we've had to that situation, and honestly, it was overdue.
The campaign started when Ross Scott, a YouTuber known for Accursed Farms, could no longer play The Crew because Ubisoft shut down the servers, even though he legally owned the game.
Although The Crew included a single-player mode, it depended so much on always-online features that the game became unplayable once the servers shut down. More than an inconvenience, Scott viewed it as a serious violation of digital ownership. He was not alone in that.
What Is the Goal of the Initiative?
The campaign is based on a European Citizens’ Initiative asking lawmakers to protect consumers by making sure games still work after support ends, either through offline modes or private servers.
click to enlarge
+ 2The petition already passed the required 1 million signatures, with campaigners now aiming for 1.4 million to ensure enough valid entries after vetting. While the idea seems clear-cut on paper, it’s fast turned into one of the most controversial discussions among gamers.
Supporters argue that it’s about time players had legal protection against planned obsolescence. It’s unfair to sell games that can disappear without warning and, worse still, erase entire experiences from gaming history.
They note that, unlike online-only games, other media, such as books, music, and movies, aren’t permanently taken offline. When companies close servers without saving them, they’re not only stopping support but also erasing a piece of culture.
Are Developers on Board with Stop Killing Games?
Fixing it is not a consensus, and as expected, developers from technical and indie backgrounds have offered a mix of views.
Many say the goal is understandable, especially for single-player games masquerading as online-only. Still, they caution that enforcing such a law across the board could introduce major complications.
For smaller studios, creating backup servers or offline-compatible versions could be expensive, especially if the original game architecture wasn’t built with that in mind. Some developers shared how they'd have to rip out or rewrite huge chunks of code just to meet these requirements, and that’s not always feasible when you're working with third-party tools or proprietary engines.
The possibility of fan-made private servers monetizing opens up legal grey areas around copyright, safety, and market competition with newer titles based on the same intellectual property. It’s also possible to apply workable fixes like allowing limited licenses for community-run servers or sharing simplified server binaries after official support ends, as no one solution fits all.
What Are Publishers Saying in Their Defense?
Publishers have pushed back hard because groups like Video Games Europe say the initiative is unclear and could make some games, especially online ones, too expensive to make.
click to enlarge + 2They argue that preserving every game isn’t possible due to risks like player data exposure, copyright conflicts, or unsafe fan-run servers. According to Scott and his supporters, these excuses are exaggerated and serve to protect profits instead of the players. The petition has faced drama from internal fights and high-profile conflicts.
Scott criticized PirateSoftware for weakening the movement’s trustworthiness by misrepresenting its objectives in video content. Ironically, that controversy may have reignited interest in the petition, pushing it past the one-million mark and into EU-level consideration.
What Could Go Wrong If This Passes?
I won’t pretend otherwise that this isn’t going to be easy to solve. Some games are built in ways that make preservation incredibly hard.
Others depend on third-party tools or licenses that complicate everything. The initiative sometimes mixes up multiplayer and single-player games, which is a reasonable observation. It doesn’t always spell out how enforcement would work.
There’s anxiety that lawmakers, many of whom aren’t tech-savvy, might botch implementation. When the law is too rigid or ambiguous, it risks doing more harm than good by affecting developers negatively and causing studios to exit the European market.
Still, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. If we keep letting publishers use technical hurdles as an excuse, nothing will change. I’d rather push for laws that challenge them to build smarter from the start—even if that takes time. Gamers are tired of losing access to titles they paid for.
They’re tired of publishers using online checks as an invisible kill switch. They’re especially exhausted from watching their favorite games vanish while fans have no means to sustain them.
Because the truth is, Stop Killing Games isn’t just about one game or one publisher. It’s about pushing back against an entire system that’s gotten way too comfortable treating players like short-term profit.
Stick with us here at Gfinityesports.com: the best site for all gaming coverage.
For more articles like this, take a look at our Features page.