The Gamer-Rights Group Fighting to Make the Industry Stop Killing Games (Servers) (bbc.co.uk) 12
"Can a company take away something you've already paid for?" asks the BBC. "In the world of online video games, some already do."
Publishers can decide to switch off a game's servers, often leaving it effectively unplayable. Stop Killing Games, a growing consumer rights campaign started by American YouTuber Ross Scott in 2024, is challenging that practice. In January, the group submitted a petition featuring nearly 1.3 million signatures to the European Commission, triggering a public hearing in the European Parliament in April. What began as an online campaign is now awaiting a decision from one of the EU's most powerful institutions...
Scott's campaign began following an announcement from the major studio Ubisoft, saying it would shut down the online-only racing game The Crew in 2024... Ubisoft has already defended its position in court. Responding to a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by two The Crew players in California, the studio argued that customers had purchased a licence to use the game, not unlimited ownership rights, and that players had been warned online services would not be available forever. The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice in June 2025, after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the case. The wider games industry has also pushed back against the campaign. Video Games Europe, which represents many of the industry's largest publishers, said shutting down online services "must be an option" when games are no longer commercially viable. It also warned that some of the campaign's proposals could make online-only games significantly more expensive to develop.
"In no way are we asking companies to keep servers running or services going, they can end it any time they want," said Scott. Instead, he and his fellow campaigners argue that when a game is shut down it should be done "responsibly", with publishers considering "end-of-life plans" such as updating the game to work offline or releasing software that allows players to continue running it.
Two key points from the article:
Scott's campaign began following an announcement from the major studio Ubisoft, saying it would shut down the online-only racing game The Crew in 2024... Ubisoft has already defended its position in court. Responding to a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by two The Crew players in California, the studio argued that customers had purchased a licence to use the game, not unlimited ownership rights, and that players had been warned online services would not be available forever. The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice in June 2025, after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the case. The wider games industry has also pushed back against the campaign. Video Games Europe, which represents many of the industry's largest publishers, said shutting down online services "must be an option" when games are no longer commercially viable. It also warned that some of the campaign's proposals could make online-only games significantly more expensive to develop.
"In no way are we asking companies to keep servers running or services going, they can end it any time they want," said Scott. Instead, he and his fellow campaigners argue that when a game is shut down it should be done "responsibly", with publishers considering "end-of-life plans" such as updating the game to work offline or releasing software that allows players to continue running it.
Two key points from the article:
- "In March, French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir launched legal action against Ubisoft over the shutdown of The Crew, arguing that players were misled about the permanence of their purchase and that some of the company's contract terms were unfair."
- "The European Commission must respond to the European Citizens' Initiative — the petition brought by the group — by 27 July."
Thanks to Alain Williams — Slashdot reader #2,972 — for sharing the article.
Good. (Score:4)
I hope this succeeds in compelling game-makers to adopt "life after end-of-life" measures for their products as, once this precedent is set, we can do the same for hardware makers.
Open source it then (Score:2)
This is why I do not rent software, nor do I buy software that is server dependant.
FileMaker Pro 7 still runs fine on the machine I bought it for, it also runs fine in an emulator. It just works, it does exactly the same things it did when I bought it. It is not worn out, broken, or what ever. So I just keep using it
And you can keep you AI wank out of my computers too.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a few problems with "just open source it" though. For instance, they could rely on other licensed software that they paid for, and you can't necessarily just transition that to being open source. For example, EA open-sourced Command and Conquer Generals ( https://github.com/electronica... [github.com] ), but you can't really compile it without also obtaining other licensed software such as GameSpy.
Re: (Score:2)
The main aim of Stop Killing Games is to ensure the practice of rug-pulling eventually comes to an end. They are not trying to save MMOs, for example.
Moreover they don't demand that every game currently on the market comply with open-sourcing requirements: at a minimum, companies always have the option of simply providing customers with adequate notice before shutdown. Open-sourcing the server would be nice, but it's hardly the only way to protect consumers' interests. Scott has, for example, suggested game
Re: (Score:3)
If you do not want to run the servers, open source it.
Congrats, we now have a bunch of code which doesn't work and a client which can't connect. No there's more involved, and game companies often cite this as a pathetic excuse when questioned on why they don't open source it.
What we need is rules up front that games with netcode get designed with the ability to connect to custom servers, and matchmake to individuals in Steam.
Literally just the other day some friends were suggesting we play UT2004. I was behind CGNAT at the time, so I told someone else to host
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that, from Ubisoft's perspective, is that every moment you spend playing an "old" game is a moment not spent playing Ubisoft's latest game. They would probably argue that's stealing since they seem to feel entitled to customers continuously spending money on their new products. I guess I've "stolen" a lot from Ubisoft since I refuse to buy their products.
Re: (Score:2)
Got to have the latest clothes, watch, phone, shoes, car, etc etc etc as a fashion item
iPhone 11, and I don't see any need to change it, it does everything I need and and lot more I don't.
My world view is fix it if you can, get it fixed by someone if you can't, give it to someone else for parts, recycle it.
But then again I am mid 60's and believe in climate change.
EU ain't so bad after all (Score:2)
Funny how an American initiative is using the EU-body to make it happen. Wish more people are as open minded in this world.
Re: EU ain't so bad after all (Score:2)
Portugal is the new America.
Friendly Reminder (Score:4, Insightful)
If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing.