All too often, publishers pull the plug on video games, whether that means delisting them from digital storefronts or shutting multiplayer servers off. The Stop Killing Games movement, spearheaded by YouTuber Ross Scott, is fighting against publishers killing their games, what it calls “a radical assault on consumer rights and even the concept of ownership itself.” Scott released an 11-minute video on Monday refuting arguments against the game preservation movement, and if you’re at all invested in games preservation, it’s well worth taking the time to watch.
The Stop Killing Games movement began last year after Ubisoft shut down servers for The Crew (which it was ultimately sued for doing), rendering the game no longer playable. The movement has steadily grown since, with its European citizens’ initiative recently crossing the threshold of 1 million signatures, the minimum amount required for it to get a response from the European Commission. The Stop Killing Games movement “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,” according to its initiative page. Essentially, it wants to prevent future games from being killed without offline modes, like how Anthem will no longer be playable after its servers get shut down in January 2026.
Video Games Europe, a lobbying group in the EU, recently responded to the moment in the exact way you’d expect: with bad faith arguments and corporate shilling. “In effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create,” part of its statement reads. The group also published a five-page paper detailing its position on why it’s OK to deprive players of games they’ve purchased.
Scott published a video on Monday breaking down and rebuking the lobby group’s bad faith argument. “They’re ideologically opposed to us being able to retain our games,” Scott says of Video Games Europe and the industry at large. He takes issue with Video Games Europe’s statement that “the industry ensures that players are given fair notice of the prospective changes in compliance with local consumer protection laws,” arguing that this is a legal gray area and the less than four months of notice Ubisoft gave The Crew may not be legal.
As the Stop Killing Games movement is forward-focused — it looks to ensure future games are preserved — Scott takes issue with Video Games Europe’s statement of “Private servers are not always a viable alternative option,” arguing that it’s unreasonable and obtuse to say future games can’t be developed with private servers for a game’s end-of-life stage. He offers a suggestion for how End-user license agreement (EULA) can be amended to ensure publishers aren’t liable for any issues that arise from players continuing to use a game once the publisher has ended support.
Scott’s whole rebuttal is worth watching as he continues to rebuke the industry trend of killing off online games. “Remember, everything [the lobby group is] saying here is their excuse for taking away your purchase with no timeframe given and destroying it forever,” he says.
The Stop Killing Games movement’s signature collection period ends on July 31. Stop Killing Games is aiming for at least 1.4 million to protect against any number of signatures potentially getting invalidated. Read the movement’s FAQ page for more details.
