The Stop Killing Games movement has become the catalyst for a heated conversation about digital ownership rights in the video game industry. The initiative, which aims to ensure that consumers retain access to games they have purchased, is gathering momentum, especially following a successful petition to the European Union (EU). The change.org petition has grown exponentially from 454,000 signatures to over 1.3 million in a little more than two weeks. This wave represents not just the rights of gamers, but their growing attention to consumer protection rights as a whole.
Advocates highlight two key proposals: releasing updates that allow games to be played offline and permitting owners to host private servers. The movement argues that these measures could mitigate the risk of losing access to games when servers are shut down or services are discontinued. This initiative’s implications reach well beyond the world of gaming. It is a key indicator of an emerging shift in how we view and safeguard digital culture.
Global Support and the Rise of the Movement
The Stop Killing Games campaign has already gained the support of the hundreds of supporters. Influencers, streamers, and other game studios are joining the effort. Perhaps most noticeably, Owlcat Studios, the developer responsible for Warhammer 40,000’s successful Pathfinder CRPGs, has thrown its support behind the movement. This advocacy has moved the issue onto center stage. At the same time, consumer rights advocates have been working to raise awareness about gaming industry abuses.
In Australia, the initiative is really starting to take off. Critics claim that consumer rights are being eroded as developers can instantly delete their product from your library at any point they decide. The ironic pitfall of Ubisoft’s The Crew is a prime example of this fear. The multiplayer shooter released in 2014 suffered greatly due to its online-only launch. Players angered when Ubisoft decided to shut down the servers that made their game unplayable even though they had previously purchased it.
“The practice of a seller destroying a product someone has already paid for represents a radical assault on consumer rights and even the concept of ownership itself.” – Stop Killing Games organisers
Recent developments in consumer protection law have been helpful in building this movement’s momentum. In 2017, in an actual landmark case, Valve went to battle with Australia’s consumer authority. The court found that Valve’s deceptive statements regarding refund policies were unlawful business practices under consumer protection laws. Such precedents further emphasize the imperative of addressing ownership concerns with respect to digital content.
Implications Beyond Gaming
The Stop Killing Games movement also wants to make it clear that the effects of its advocacy go beyond video games. In a call to action, organizers are cautioning that if these practices are left unchallenged, they will establish harmful precedents across the public and private sectors. They assert that failing to uphold consumer rights now could lead to restrictions on ownership over various essential products in the future.
“If this practice does not stop, it may be codified into law and spread to other products of more importance over time, such as agricultural equipment, educational products, medical devices, etc.” – Stop Killing Games organisers
In the movement’s supporters, the advocates have alluded to keeping consumers fighting for and protecting basic rights to keep corporate power in check. They claim that the costs associated with creating equitable “end of life” plans for games are negligible. The possible return on investment from these new markets is enormous.
A Call for Change in Industry Practices
The Stop Killing Games campaign isn’t calling on game developers to ensure server support forever. It incentivizes console makers to produce a robust framework for game developers. This will at least guarantee consumers are able to play their purchased games after official support has stopped. We believe this approach will strike an effective balance between robust consumer protections and the other realities of game development.
Popular streamer Seán McLoughlin, a.k.a., “jacksepticeye,” argued developers should work on amending or producing alternatives instead of outright giving up on players. He stated, “It’s unreasonable to expect a developer to support a game forever. I don’t think anyone would expect that. If a developer wants to stop supporting a game … put stuff in place where you can hand it over to the consumers.”
Proponents of the movement say that digital is quickly becoming king in the entertainment space. They’ve long maintained that consumers should unmistakably know what their ownership rights are. The European Commission has interceded on behalf of consumer and advocacy complaints. Their campaigns spotlight the importance of maintaining quality and equitable standards.
“If consumers are impacted by a game developer changing the nature of the product or service they have purchased and believe they have been misled, they should contact the business in first instance to try to resolve the issue.” – European Commission spokesperson
