Why the Stop Killing Games Initiative Misses the Mark

Sergio Ferreira, a lawyer specializing in intellectual property, shares his perspective on the Stop Killing Games petition, highlighting the need for a nuanced approach to game preservation. The petition, started by YouTuber Ross Scott, aims to address the issue of games being taken offline, but it overlooks key aspects of IP law, contract obligations, and server infrastructure. Ferreira argues that not all games are created equal, with offline-first games differing significantly from online-server dependent games like Fortnite or Destiny. For online-server games, the server is integral to the game's operation, making it impossible for developers to simply make the game self-sufficient by flipping a switch. Rewriting the game logic to run locally would require extensive engineering work, with no commercial upside and considerable IP risk for developers. Furthermore, server codes often use licensed middleware, and releasing the server code could breach contractual obligations. The situation becomes more complex when licensed content is involved, such as music, skins, or likenesses in Fortnite. Retaining this content for offline use could require expensive re-licensing or force the removal of large portions of the game experience. Ferreira also notes that while Fortnite is free-to-play, The Crew, as a paid title, is not exempt from these issues, featuring real-world licensed vehicles and a licensed soundtrack. Expecting to play a live-service game indefinitely is unreasonable, as gaming is a unique industry with live services built around server-based architectures, ongoing content updates, and interactive systems requiring constant maintenance and third-party licensing. Preserving these experiences is not as simple as making files available on GitHub, but rather reconstructing an entire ecosystem. In the UK, consumers do not own most games in the way they think, as digital games are licensed under an End User Licence Agreement (EULA), limiting the scope of what users can do with the product. When a game is taken offline, it may be frustrating, but it's not unlawful, as the terms of service and IP licenses allow publishers to withdraw access. The real value of the Stop Killing Games initiative lies in the conversation it has sparked. Ferreira suggests two legally and commercially realistic approaches to move the conversation forward: requiring games to disclose whether they are 'server-dependent' at the point of sale, and introducing a tiered preservation framework. This framework would provide flexible options for how online games are ended, with three tiers reflecting different levels of preservation effort and resource commitment. Tier 1 would involve providing limited offline modes, Tier 2 would involve partnerships with preservation institutions, and Tier 3 would involve escrow arrangements or private server licenses with limitations. Crucially, whichever option a developer chooses must be communicated transparently and prominently to consumers at the point of sale. This approach balances developer flexibility, commercial realities, and consumer rights, encouraging the market to reward preservation practices without heavy-handed mandates. The Stop Killing Games campaign raises an important issue, but preservation shouldn't be mandated by misguided discourse. For real change to happen, proposals must reflect the realities of IP law, contract obligations, and server infrastructure.