7/6/25
“The practice of a seller destroying a product someone has already paid for represents a radical assault on consumer rights and even the concept of ownership itself.” The European “Stop Killing Games” petition challenges game publishers who revoke access to games that consumers have already bought. It has surged past 1.2 million signatures, approaching its goal of 1.4 million to account for invalid signatures.
A new study from the Video Game History Foundation has found that 87% of classic video games released in the United States are “critically endangered,” with only 13% still playable without piracy. This phenomenon resembles the silent film era’s catastrophic cultural heritage loss, when studios destroyed their films, creating permanent gaps in cinematic history.
Phil Salvador, a Video Game History Foundation preservation expert, warns about this game erasure crisis: “The entire early culture of Facebook games, Flash games, and even lots of early mobile gaming means there are entire swathes of game history that are likely gone.” Besides harming consumers’ digital rights, publishers erase decades of interactive art and collective digital memory when they abandon end-of-support games.
The campaign gained much momentum following recent high-profile events. For instance, Ubisoft’s decision last year to shut down The Crew servers rendered the game inaccessible, erasing thousands of hours of player dedication and real-money investments. The company cited “server infrastructure and licensing constraints” as the primary reason, but critics argue the game could have remained accessible through offline play.
On the other hand, some trade organizations and developers spoke against this initiative. Video Games Europe, the EU trade association, argues that the initiative poses significant engineering challenges and could hinder new game development. Independent developers like Jason “Thor” Hall also suggest the petition’s vague language harms the live-service gaming sector by making game maintenance expensive.
However, preservation advocates claim that these criticisms misunderstand the initiative’s goals and that technical challenges are overstated. The suggested technical fixes prioritize game continuity over endless server upkeep. Advocates suggest that publishers implement offline modes or publish server software to communities. These approaches allow games to survive the end of service without requiring endless corporate maintenance.
In response to game accessibility concerns, major publishers are adopting new preservation policies to ensure core gameplay accessibility upon discontinuing online services. In November 2024, GOG (Good Old Games) launched its GOG Preservation Program, aiming to preserve at least 500 classic PC games by the end of 2025. Ubisoft also plans to add offline modes to The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest.
Legislators show a limited response despite growing public pressure. While the European Parliament evaluated the Stop Killing Games initiative, it deferred action to individual member states. Similarly, governments in Australia, the USA, and Brazil have shown no response or have redirected them to other agencies. Consumer protection organizations in France, Germany, and Australia have escalated complaints, but have not resulted in concrete legislative action.
“We’re at a tipping point where digital ownership norms are being challenged. Public backlash like this can influence platform policies or push developers to include safeguards, such as offline modes or commitments to keep games alive,” Northeastern University Associate Professor of Game Design Bob de Schutter comments, “It will likely require sustained pressure and clearer consumer rights around digital goods to create real, lasting change.”
The Stop Killing Games petition continues to gather signatures while asking people to contact government agencies, but it is not currently seeking funding. The future remains unknown as this initiative can either reshape the game industry or end prematurely, like the UK petition last year, due to the dissolution of Parliament.