Rethinking Dismissiveness Towards the Stop Killing Games Initiative

The Stop Killing Games initiative, aiming to regulate how game publishers handle the end-of-life phase for online games, has achieved significant milestones in both the UK and EU. In the UK, its petition garnered enough signatures to prompt a parliamentary debate, while in the EU, the Citizens' Initiative has nearly cleared the bar for examination by the European Commission. This milestone is crucial as European Citizens' Initiatives, requiring a million verified signatures, are taken seriously by the Commission. With over 1.4 million signatures, it is likely that Stop Killing Games has exceeded the requirements, despite potential invalid signatures. The Commission will conduct an investigation, including meetings with organizers and stakeholders, a public hearing, and a formal response. While there's no guarantee of action, the Commission must file a report and explain its reasoning if it opts not to act. The industry's response has been dismissive, with lip service to consumer satisfaction and claims of impossibility. However, with the Commission's involvement, the tone has shifted, incorporating more bad-faith mischaracterizations of the initiative's goals. At its core, Stop Killing Games seeks an end-of-life plan that clearly outlines which game aspects can continue without support and provides frameworks for continued enjoyment. This is not a demand for perpetual support but rather a reasonable request for transparency and post-shutdown functionality. The industry's misrepresentation of the initiative's goals is disingenuous and unlikely to fly with the Commission. The EU's regulatory history, particularly its pro-consumer stance, makes companies nervous. The Commission's track record in tech regulation, such as banning roaming fees and pushing for USB-C standardization, indicates a willingness to take on entrenched interests. While it's impossible to predict the outcome, the argument that consumers are being sold expensive digital products only to be made obsolete by publishers' voluntary actions could prompt the Commission to act. Given the Commission's current stance towards the tech industry, bad-faith arguments may not be the best strategy. Presenting the industry as responsible and pro-consumer, with a willingness to listen and improve, could mitigate the risk of heavy-handed regulation. Implementing industry codes and standards for end-of-life handling would be a good start. Many games have single-player or small-group multiplayer modes that could continue to function post-shutdown with minor tweaks. Stop Killing Games understands that some functionality will be degraded but seeks reasonable compromises, such as shutting down matchmaking while allowing direct invites. Other solutions, like providing server code for online titles, may not be realistic as regulations due to copyright and IP protection concerns. However, making source code available for old games was once common and seen as a social good. The industry could consider this in end-of-life planning to appear more consumer-friendly. It may be late for such maneuvering, but the industry will have a chance to represent itself during the Commission's investigation. Misrepresenting the initiative's positions would be a poor strategy; instead, the industry should show it shares the Commission's pro-consumer sentiments and takes concerns seriously to mitigate regulatory burdens.