The Misconceptions of the Stop Killing Games Initiative | Opinion

Sergio Ferreira, a UK-based intellectual property lawyer, shares his insights on the Stop Killing Games petition, highlighting the potential risks and unintended consequences of the initiative. The petition, started by YouTuber Ross Scott, has sparked a necessary conversation about game preservation, but its approach may not be entirely effective. Ferreira argues that not all games are created equal, with offline-first games differing significantly from online-server dependent games like Fortnite or Destiny. The latter rely on server-side systems for gameplay logic, progression, and anti-cheat systems, making it impossible for developers to simply switch to offline mode without extensive engineering work and significant IP risks. Furthermore, server codes often utilize licensed middleware, which developers cannot redistribute due to contractual obligations. The situation becomes even more complex when licensed content is involved, as seen in Fortnite, which licenses music, skins, and likenesses from various parties. Retaining this content for offline use could require expensive re-licensing or significant changes to the game experience. Ferreira emphasizes that consumers do not truly own digital games, as they are licensed under an End User Licence Agreement (EULA) that limits user rights. When a game is taken offline, it may be frustrating, but it is not unlawful, as the terms of service and IP licenses explicitly allow publishers to withdraw access. To move the conversation forward, Ferreira suggests two realistic approaches: requiring games to disclose their server dependence at the point of sale and implementing a tiered preservation framework. This framework would allow developers to choose from three tiers, each reflecting different levels of preservation effort and resource commitment. By providing transparency and flexibility, this approach balances developer needs, commercial realities, and consumer rights, encouraging the market to reward preservation practices without imposing heavy-handed mandates. Ultimately, the Stop Killing Games campaign raises an important issue, but its success depends on a nuanced understanding of the complex legal and technical landscape surrounding game preservation.