The Stop Killing Games initiative is a consumer movement launched in 2024 by YouTuber Ross Scott, known for his channel Accursed Farms, in response to the shutdown of the servers for The Crew, a Ubisoft video game that became unplayable due to its constant internet connection requirement, even in single-player mode. This sparked outrage, as the game, despite having multiplayer components, also included a single-player mode that did not inherently need an online connection. The initiative raises a crucial debate about digital ownership in an era where games are increasingly expensive (with prices reaching 80-100 euros) and rely on servers that can be shut down.
 |
| The Stop Killing Games Logo |
Ross Scott released a video introducing the initiative and created a website (stopkillinggames.com) to collect signatures and promote government petitions in countries such as France, the UK, Canada, Australia, and the European Union.
In response to cases like this, the initiative demands the preservation of video games after their official support ends, protecting consumer rights and preventing purchased games from becoming inaccessible due to publishers' decisions. Its argument is rooted in opposing publishers selling games as temporary licenses rather than permanent products. It defends players' rights to enjoy what they paid for without time restrictions. Additionally, it claims video games as cultural heritage, comparing them to films or books that do not vanish after commercialization.
To this end, the initiative seeks legal protections for players against sudden server shutdowns that render games unplayable. It demands that games always include an offline mode, with single-player campaigns, so they do not rely on active servers, or that games allow users to create private servers to keep them alive when companies cease support.Since its launch, the initiative has garnered support from over 1.4 million signatories, media outlets, and content creators like PewDiePie, MoistCr1TiKaL, and Jacksepticeye. Even one of the European Parliament’s vice-presidents, Nicolae "Nicu" Ştefănuță, publicly endorsed the initiative and added his signature. While not decisive, given the size of the European Parliament, this support signals a growing trend to curb certain abusive practices.
 |
| Nicolae "Nicu" Ştefănuță, a vice-president of the European Parliament, publicly supported the initiative. |
On the other side, major game developers, represented by the Video Games Europe lobby (including companies like EA, Ubisoft, and Activision), argue that the initiative’s proposals would make game development "prohibitively expensive" and maintain that players own revocable licenses, not the games themselves. Other voices in the gaming industry, such as streamer Pirate Software (Jason Thor Hall), have also criticized the initiative, claiming it is not viable for all games and could harm developers, leading to a public clash with Scott.
While publishers naturally defend their interests, some of their arguments have merit and deserve consideration to ensure well-intentioned initiatives do not harm indie studios or negatively impact the dynamic video game market.
For starters, the initiative oversimplifies by treating all video games the same, despite their diversity. A key distinction exists between games designed to run entirely on local resources (e.g., Half-Life: Alyx) and those reliant on online servers to manage game logic and player progress (e.g., Fortnite or World of Warcraft).
The initiative seems to overlook that redesigning a game built for online servers to work offline or on private servers is not always feasible. Online games often incorporate licensed elements on the server side (e.g., physics engines, matchmaking frameworks) that developers do not own and cannot redistribute without violating license terms. This is even clearer with audiovisual content, such as music licensed for use in Fortnite’s lobbies. If such content were redistributed to local game copies, the risk of uncontrolled distribution would skyrocket, prompting artists’ publishers to renegotiate rights. Alternatively, games could be distributed without licensed content, but this would contradict the initiative’s goal of preserving everything players paid for. Removing licensed functional elements could even render games inoperable. Additionally, computational power is a factor: maintaining the state and progression of an MMORPG requires significant processing, storage, and robust data networks, often relying on entire data centers. Replicating this in a user’s home is practically impossible.
 |
| Many online games run on complex data centers, impossible to replicate at home. |
Then there’s the issue of time. Unlike films, which only require a compatible player, server-dependent games need ongoing, expert maintenance beyond the average person’s skills. Expecting users to maintain complex game servers at home is highly unrealistic.
 |
| Maintaining such complex infrastructure is beyond the average citizen’s capabilities. |
While the initiative’s motivation is understandable, it overlooks practical challenges widely discussed in game development forums. However, this debate is healthy and may lead to a balanced solution. Some propose labeling games to warn consumers about external server dependency, enabling informed purchasing decisions.
 |
| Labeling as a Possible Solution |
Others suggest a voluntary framework for developers, committing to design games with long-term preservation guarantees. For example, a first category could include games with limited offline modes using bots, specific maps, or local multiplayer; a second could involve partnerships with nonprofits to preserve games with security measures; a third could allow players to host local servers. Like labeling, these categories would be disclosed at purchase, letting buyers assess risks.
 |
| Voluntary Categorization as a Solution |
While the initiative’s proposed regulations aim to protect consumers, they must be carefully crafted to avoid stifling the creativity and economic vitality of the video game industry. Conditions feasible for large studios could be prohibitive for small or indie developers, increasing costs and legal risks. Protecting consumers without harming small studios or limiting new game production is key. Legislators tackling this issue will need to navigate a delicate balance, requiring deep understanding of the complex and ever-changing video game market.
 |
| This initiative demands highly delicate legislative work. |
