What does it actually mean when you buy something online?
Do you own it? Are you renting it? Or are you just borrowing it for as long as someone else lets you?
This isn’t just a philosophical rabbit hole, it’s the core of a growing issue in gaming. Whether you’re a casual player or someone who’s been around since LAN parties and boxed PC games, you’ve probably noticed the landscape shifting.
Back in 2014, Ubisoft released The Crew, a racing game built around an always-online world. In 2024, they shut off the servers. That wasn’t just the end of updates, it was the end of the game. No offline mode. No fan servers. Nothing. People who bought it lost it. Period.
That moment kicked off the Stop Killing Games campaign, a movement trying to push back against the idea that what you pay for can just… vanish.
But to make sense of this debate, we have to back up and get real about what types of games we’re actually talking about.
Clarifying the Problem - Not all Games Face the Same Risks
Here’s where we hit the first major misunderstanding. Not every game is at risk of disappearing. A single-player game that runs on your PC, no internet needed? That’s not the issue here.
The problem lives in live service games, the ones that lean on central servers, online-only access, and constant backend systems. Once those servers go dark, the game dies with them. That’s where the concern comes in.
Players need to understand: unless a game is advertised as having private servers or offline modes, there’s no obligation for the studio to offer that. You can ask for it. You can want it. But assuming you’re owed it? That’s where expectations drift into fantasy.
Right now, Stop Killing Games is pushing for laws that would force devs to release server code or unlock these games at shutdown. That sounds noble, but it skips over reality. Developers are businesses. If a game had the demand to survive, it probably would.
There’s also a bigger risk. If studios get punished for shutting down a $60 product, they’ll stop selling $60 products. They’ll move to subscriptions. Three-month bundles. Access licenses. That’s not a better outcome.
The movement’s heart is in the right place. If it wants to actually protect players, it needs to be sharper. But here's the question, where does this idea end? Will players want developers penalized for server downtime? For maintenance? Those are also times when the product is unavailable, often directly caused by developer action. If we're not careful, the push for preservation turns into a push for perfection, something no live service game can deliver. More specific. Less about outrage, more about practical, fair change.
The Bigger Problem - License not Ownership
While server shutdowns are the visible problem, there’s a quieter, scarier one underneath: you don’t actually own most of your games. Not in any way that matters.
You might think that buying a game on Steam or Xbox means it’s yours. But what you’ve really bought is a license, one that can be revoked. That’s your entire library on the line. Not just The Crew, everything.
Break a term of service, trigger a ban, or get flagged by mistake? You could lose access to everything you’ve paid for. No court, no refund, no appeal. That’s not ownership. That’s a rental with fine print.
It’s easy to blame the devs here, but players need to own part of this too. How many of us actually read the EULAs we agree to? Companies know we won’t. So they hide sweeping control clauses inside walls of legalese.
That’s where the fight should be. Not just saving dead games. Fixing the entire digital ownership model.
We already have examples of how to do this better. Stores like GOG sell DRM-free games. No server checks. No license keys. Just games. You download them, you keep them.
If lawmakers want to help, that’s the direction they should push: reward good practices, don’t just punish bad ones. Build guardrails before we slide further into rented futures disguised as ownership.
Understanding the Industry's side - Developer and Publisher Concerns
Now, let’s not pretend this is a one-sided issue. Developers have valid concerns.
Servers aren’t free. Infrastructure is expensive. Maintaining online features for years after a game stops turning a profit isn’t always doable, especially for smaller studios.
Thor from Pirate Software made this point in his video. And he’s right. When games rely on licensed cars, real-world brands, or music, those licenses expire. Publishers can’t just keep them running without new deals.
But here’s where it gets harder to sympathize: when devs kill their own IP and refuse to release any form of community tool or offline option, even when they could. If it’s your code, your system, your product, and you still say no? That feels like control for control’s sake.
Nobody expects bankrupt indie studios to cough up server software they never built. If the team’s gone, it’s gone. But when a game is sunset by choice, not necessity, there’s room for a different conversation.
Be honest. If you plan to only support your game for five years, say so. Set expectations. Don’t pretend it’ll live forever and then pull the plug with zero warning.
Studios like Mojang and The Fun Pimps prove that games can thrive with both offline and server-hosted options. It’s not easy, but it is possible.
Make your money. But don’t sell permanence if you’re only offering a timed experience.
What the movement gets right and what needs fixing
Stop Killing Games is doing one thing very well: waking people up. For too long, games have been treated like disposable apps. No standards. No safety nets. Just buy, play, lose.
That needs to change. But the campaign’s messaging? It’s not helping.
Framing all server reliance as some kind of betrayal misses the point. That’s how these games were built. Acting like every shutdown is an attack on consumers makes it harder to have real conversations.
Take The Crew. Its peak player count was back in 2014. By 2019, it rarely had more than 300 players online. That doesn’t make the shutdown right, but it does make it understandable.
And this idea that one country’s law will magically force global change? Ask Belgium. They banned loot boxes. The industry shrugged and moved on.
The more aggressive the campaign gets, the easier it becomes for studios to justify subscription models and short-term access packs. That’s not a win. That’s a regression.
If the goal is to build trust, the movement needs to reframe. Focus on clear language. Push for honest sales models. Encourage transparency and sunset support. That’s how bridges get built.
The Role of Lawmakers. Stay out but stay informed
Here’s the part where things get dangerous: legislation.
Lawmakers have every right to care about digital rights. But when they don’t understand the space, and most don’t, they risk making things worse.
This is not the moment for sweeping laws. It’s the moment for observation. Watch. Listen. Learn.
Sometimes, a warning is enough. If regulators said to developers, “Be fair or we’ll step in,” you’d probably see changes without a single bill passed.
Blanket mandates about always-on support or server guarantees could kill small studios. That’s not consumer protection, that’s overreach.
Good law here means clarity. Force transparency at the point of sale. Make devs tell you if a game will vanish when servers go down. Then let the market sort itself out.
If people know what they’re buying, and developers are honest about what they’re selling, that’s half the battle right there.
What comes next (Balanced Solutions)
So where do we go from here?
In an ideal world, devs would build sunsetting plans into every live service game. A backup server. A patch. A plan. But most won’t. Because most can’t.
Some studios disappear. Others just don’t have the money. Releasing server code isn’t always safe, or even possible.
Push too hard, and the industry will shift. Games won’t be sold. They’ll be rented. Short-term passes. Limited access. No expectation of ownership, no room for outrage.
So what do we do? We get honest. Games should come with support windows, “five years of service,” “no offline mode,” whatever applies. That way, no one gets blindsided.
Platforms can help by labeling games with clear info about dependencies. Consumers can help by demanding better. Lawmakers can help by pointing toward standards instead of writing hasty rules.
This isn’t about keeping every game alive forever. It’s about making sure people know what they’re buying.
Summary - Why it matters to you
This isn’t just about a racing game from 2014. This is about what it means to spend money in a digital world.
Do you own it? Or are you just renting it until someone flips a switch?
Stop Killing Games may not have the perfect answers. But it’s asking the right questions. That alone makes it worth paying attention to.
If gamers, developers, and lawmakers can stop shouting and start listening, maybe we can find a middle ground, one where games are both fun to play and fair to buy.
Addendum
Today I got this comment on my video:
*"what an absolutely terrible video. even if you wanted a proposal for more transparency, you'd still end up going through the same motions as the movement to see if change could be possible in the first place!
and in the end, North America completely ignored/rejected the motion!
if it doesn't pass, the status quo continues as companies wouldn't consider a "low-effort solution" in the first place.
if it's really that dangerous to at least inquire about it FROM AN EU LEVEL (and not just limited to belgium), who should we ask those questions to? NA already doesn't care." * Interesting that you think its a terrible video. Let me address some of your concerns.
Let's start with the "NA already doesn't care." North America is a continent, not a country. It is made up of three major countries (United States, Canada, Mexico), 13 Caribbean Island Nations, and 7 Central American Nations which can be lumped into North America (which they normally are) or removed entirely and considered Central American (which happens, but more rarely)
I'm assuming your comment that "NA already doesn't care" is standard take that NA and USA are interchangeable.
What you see as not caring, isn't a lack of concern, it is that Ross Scott filed his complaint with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) who overseas the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
While the FTC is a regulatory body, however, the rules they create and enforce must comply with and within an applicable US law. In the United States, when you buy a video game, especially an online game, you are nearly always buying a license to the game, not a copy of the software itself. This license is limited, revocable, and governed by a End User License Agreement (EULA). This may be hard for some European people to understand, but in our country we have weak consumer protection laws at the Federal level and for us a EULA is a contract, so you can sign away your consumer protection rights by entering into a legally binding.
-> As a quick side jaunt, our courts do review lawsuits on matters like this, especially in video games, notably Van Fleet, et al vs Trion Worlds, INC, where the judge ruled that in a situation where a EULA and a TOS are not in agreement, then the one most favorable to the consumer is the one that is applicable.
Ross Scott filed a complaint with the FTC and the FTC didn't give him a response. The problem is under the current US Law, in conjunction with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and International Agreement (Madrid System) there is absolutely nothing the FTC can do in regards to what Stop Killing Games is trying to accomplish in Europe.
When the Stop Killing Games website reports the USA results as "No Response, but this was expected," that is a gross misrepresentation of the American System and Process.
Now, when I detail a process for how it works, that does not automatically mean I agree, concur, or endorse, how it works, it means I'm detailing how the process works. The FTC gave no response, because theirs is not the appropriate office to give a response. The FTC cannot force companies to do anything that is not already codified into law, only Congress can pass laws. If Congress did act than in conjoined effort with the USPTO, the FCT would be able to enforce whatever new law was crafted.
Now, does you said NA doesn't care and they rejected the motion. That is not true. The US is bound by law as I have detailed.
Stop Killing games dismissed what occurred as Canada as a loss. SKG stated "A dead end, it said the provinces will have to deal with the issue instead, which are likely too small to impact the industry." Let's look into this situation.
The largest provinces in Canada have the following populations: Ontario (15.6 million), Quebec (9.0 million), British Columbia (5.5 million) and Alberta (4.8 Million) for a total population of 34,900,000. To discount the Canadian provinces and say "which are likely too small to impact the industry" how much research was done?
For contrast, you could dedicate efforts to try and get Ontario to pass a province level law, or you could spend time in all these 14 European Countries: Albania, Andorra, Estonia, Iceland, Kosovo, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, San Marino, Slovenia. Ironically you could work in 14 different countries to get 13,872,000 people represented, or 1 Canadian provinces.
If you take the four biggest Canadian Provinces, you'd have to work for changes in all these countries: Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Iceland, Ireland, Kosovo, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia to reach the same number of represented people.
Trying to change laws in Mexico seemingly didn't even get explored even though 72 million out of the worlds 3.32 billion gamers reside in Mexico representing 2.17% of the population of international gamers. Mexico is the second largest market in Latin America after Brazil.
Keep that number in mind for a moment. There are more GAMERS in Mexico than there are TOTAL PEOPLE in any one country from this list: France, Italy Spain, or the United Kingdom. Think about that for moment. There are 72 million gamers in Mexico and only 68 million people in the entire United Kingdom, and yet Mexico wasn't even explored.
Next up, you said "if it's really that dangerous to at least inquire about it FROM AN EU LEVEL."
I have to ask, did you even read the European Citizen's Initiative from Stop Killing Games? This initiative is not an INQUIRY it is a call to action:
"This initiative calls to require publishers that sell or license videogames to consumers in the European Union (or related features and assets sold for videogames they operate) to leave said videogames in a functional (playable) state."
Official Link
The FAQ shapes the intention of the initiative:
"By having laws requiring the game to function, it would help their work and legacy endure. "
- This is not an inquiry, this is a quest to get a law passed.
Games like these would need to be either retired or grandfathered in before new law went into effect. For the European Citizens' Initiative in particular, even if passed, its effects would not be retroactive. So while it may not be possible to prevent some existing games from being destroyed, if the law were to change, future games could be designed with "end of life" plans and stop this trend.
- Also not an inquiry, this is a quest to get a specific law passed
You came to a video, which absolutely says the spirit and heart for the initiative is in the right place, but the method they are going for is going to be a monumental failure. I said that as written, that SKG is asking for will probably never pass, and even if it does pass it will end up circumvented by companies and then this initiative will have been for naught.
You said that is a terrible take, so in a sense you've said I'm wrong.
My alternatives are either to defend my position, or switch sides. If you know anything about psychology you'd know people are slow to admit they are wrong, and in this instance based on your argument I'm not even wrong. So I ask you, what was the goal of your toxic comment?
Was it to polarize someone against the SKG movement, because based on what you did that would not be a crazy outcome.