A Consumer-Led Revolution in Digital Distribution: The Stop Killing Games Movement | Opinion

Sam Crich, a partner at the Yorkshire-based law firm Eaton Smith Solicitors, examines potential regulations surrounding ongoing access to online video games, sparking a debate about the Stop Killing Games movement, which seeks to prevent developers and publishers from shutting down online-reliant games that players have purchased. The movement began with Ubisoft's decision to retire The Crew, an always-online game that relied on hosted servers to operate, even in single-player mode. As a gamer and lawyer, Crich agrees with the movement in some respects but notes the lack of nuance in the arguments on both sides. The debate may seem insignificant to non-gamers, but it raises important questions about modern digital consumerism. For instance, if you spent £1,000 on an AI system that was withdrawn and made unusable after a year, you would likely expect a refund or some form of compensation. The implications are clear: this is not just a video game issue. At the heart of the debate lies a simple question: when you buy a game, do you have the right to play it whenever you want? The question is often misframed as "do you own the game or not?" However, the real issue is whether your license to play the game depends on server availability. Games with always-online requirements fall into three categories: multiplayer-only titles, games with single-player and multiplayer modes, and single-player-only titles. For single-player-only games, it is essential to ask why they need to be online when they could be standalone titles. Planned obsolescence has been found to harm consumers in the mobile phone market, with French authorities fining Apple €25 million for slowing down older iPhones. France has since passed laws requiring manufacturers to include a "repairability rating," which could be applied to the video game industry to manage player expectations. For games that can be played in single-player modes and online modes, the situation is more complex. These games might be designed to rely on hosted aspects, which could be set up to enhance the multiplayer experience or ensure consistency between game modes. The development choices made by studios will affect whether a game can be played offline. If government regulation is the answer, these development choices must be considered. The main problem that regulation could address is related to money, not preservation. Currently, there is little legal protection for consumers who have invested hundreds of pounds in a game that is later pulled offline. Unless developers have guaranteed a specific period of availability, the law does not protect consumers from games being withdrawn. Clear, standardized sunset practices that protect revenue models without erasing playable history are necessary to provide certainty in an industry that lacks external regulation and consumer protection. The Stop Killing Games movement is not asking for eternal servers but rather honest design, marketing, and stewardship. Specific information requirements should be coupled with outcome-focused regulation, as seen in the EU's GDPR. In the context of Stop Killing Games, some guidelines could be followed: premium-priced video games should come with an expectation of playability for at least two years, games that do not benefit from being online should not be made to require online connectivity, and always-online games should provide benefits to players. Three key outcomes should be targeted: ensuring games that can be played offline are made without connectivity requirements, managing player expectations for always-online games, and providing pro-rata refunds for games that cannot be maintained for their minimum support period. Possible regulations or solutions could include shifting the commercial model to reflect SaaS, introducing minimum supported periods, implementing refund mechanisms, and requiring an end-of-life plan. The industry could also introduce reforms, such as certification or marks for "End of Life Support Plan included" or "Preservation Friendly," and third-party cloud/shared preservation networks. Ultimately, the games industry must take action to prevent unfair treatment of consumers and build lasting trust in its player base, or risk facing less nuanced regulations dictated by governments.