The Stop Killing Games movement has had a long journey with many obstacles. 5 months ago, the movement reached the UK Parliament, though they were unable to enact any immediate law changes. Things seemed to be looking gloom for Stop Killing Games, but the movement has recently reached a major milestone that might pull it back in its favor.
On April 16 2026, the movement was called into debate by the European Parliament. A hearing highlight video can be viewed here.
Ross Scott, the creator of the movement was invited to the European Parliament offices in Brussels to discuss the issue. His opening statement (at 1:18 in the video) compares disabling video games to destroying every copy of a book or a movie.
Quote From Ross Scott (at 1:18) It would be like removing every single copy of a book or film in existence, effectively erasing it from the culture.
Later, he goes on to acknowledge that there would be a massive controversial uproar if this same philosophy were used on book or insurance sales.
Quote From Ross Scott (at 2:36) They almost always contain terms stating they can end at any time for any reason. What this means is that customers have no real protections when they buy games like these. They are unable to keep them and they are not informed when they will end.
This behavior would be outrageous in other industries. If you bought a book in a store, the publisher cannot come into your home and take back your book at will. If you bought an insurance policy, you would be informed when that policy ends. Not that the seller could end it at any time for any reason, but still keep your money.
The games being sold this way are operating similar to scams. Publishers know customers expect video games to last, so they sell these in the same ways as ones that can work forever, as a one-time purchase with no expiry date and price them the same.
Despite Scott's occasional nervousness slipping through as he discussed his presentation, it received support from the Parliament over the course of the debate.
Moritz Katzner brings up that companies often try to offer solutions that aren't actually solutions.
Quote From Moritz Katzner (at 7:33) Next, I would like to address the honorable members on a huge issue that we faced during the campaign, especially the start of the campaign. The fact that the whole discussion is very unclear because the technical solutions are so difficult, and there's also a lot of pushback by the industry. So we'd like to raise to some proposals that we've seen from the industry to masquerade as proposals, but are simply unrelated to our issue wholly.
Some examples of these are clear labeling, minimum support times, and voluntary end of life plans. These are not solutions, nor are these even compromises. They do nothing to fix the problem of games being destroyed in its essence.
As far as labeling goes, most customers are aware of the problem, but each game is unique, creative work and technical work. There is no substitute for each one any more than a book or a piece of music can be substituted for another. The uniqueness is the entire appeal, so customers can feel carried into license agreements they would otherwise never agree to because they have no other option if they wish to experience the game. They are agreeing in absence of any alternative to playing games.
As for minimum support times, this in unrelated to our issue. The same goes for notices of when a game is being shut down. We have no problem with publishers ending support at all, any time they wish. We only ask that they do so in a responsible and reasonable way.
Finally, the option of voluntary end of life plans is quite literally the state where we're in now. While we appreciate when this starts happen, research shows it happens only about four to six percent of the time, and these conditions are exactly what lead us, or lead to getting of a million EU citizens to sign the initiative itself, requesting the EU government address the problem.
Later, Katzner goes on to describe this practice being taken by EA and Ubisoft in attempts to get players to play their newer games instead of the ones being shut down.
Quote From Moritz Katzner (at 9:51) There have been multiple attempts coordinating thousands of people to contact companies such as EA and Ubisoft, a European company from France now residing in Canada, some far as back as 2016. In every instance, there was a refusal by companies to allow customers to retain their purchase, in same cases even actively taking their games from their libraries.
A statement made by the European lobby group Video Games Europe, of which companies like EA, Ubisoft, Roblox, and others, so the really big players of the video game industry here in Brussels and globally, are part of, about the movement has said as much as they not only mischaracterized not what was being asked with endless support, something the movement has never sought, but also claimed one of the reasons for disabling customer purchases is that they represent competition to official versions.
I translate this, it is a business model to shut down the game to get players to play their next game. We're exclusively talking about games where official versions are disabled. In other words, the industry is claiming that customers playing old games could reduce sales for new games, thus they should be free to disable their purchase.
Not only do we disagree with this reasoning, but we find this entire stance extremely customer-hostile and unacceptable in regards to what the European Union outlines as its purpose and its track record of protecting its consumers and outlining clear market rules, so there's no uncertainty for companies which could also harm innovation, especially for smaller studios.
Their stance has been very consistent that customers are not entitled to keep their games purchases, nor be informed when they will be taken back from them. We're happy to work with publishers in solving this problem in any way that addresses their concerns, but there's been a flat refusal by the publishers, and I must press this, there is no monolithic industry. It is the big publishers in the most parts and even there from Poland, GOG, the creators of Cyberpunk, are an exception to this issue. A large exception to this issue.
We have exhausted all other avenues for trying to get this problem solved, hence why we're here today. It is our sincere hope that the honorable members and the commission are going to be able to find reasonable solutions for all parties involved.
Digital consumer law professor, Alberto Hidalgo, stated that the practice was unfair and didn't comply with European law, using the user agreement from Fallout 76 as an example, stating that the user agreement included the ability for the company to remove the game at any time.
Quote From Alberto Hidalgo (at 15:44) We believe in the end that this practice is unfair for European consumers and incompatible with the aforementioned articles from the primary EU law, therefore we are kindly asking your honors to stop this kind of unfair practices.
Catalina Vieira gave a speech about the issue, containing several video game references, hilariously followed by Anna Cavazzini stating that she felt old for not understanding the references:
Quote From Catalina Vieira (at 20:09) I'm not unusually in any of these committees, but I thought to come for the side quest. It is dangerous to go alone into the digital future without clear consumer protections, and I don't want to set the world on fire, but the truth is that the way we own media has shifted into something that's very sus. Too often, citizens buy a game only to find out that the cake is a lie.
You buy a game you hope to cherish for years, but then one day it's suddenly gone. You think "Shit, here we go again". When a publisher pulls a plug, we realize that our princess is in another castle. Our libraries are emptied. It's like we've died of dysentery.
As we've heard, currently players are forced to see the purchases that they made completely vanish. We should not have to endure and survive a marketplace where our purchases, which are often masterpieces and they bring so much joy, are treated as disposable. We cannot allow digital preservation to take an arrow to the knee. So, a petition was started to address all of these issues, and it is super effective.
Let us therefore congratulate over one million citizens who signed it with one clear message to the EU: Don't be sorry. Be better.
It's time to finish the fight. We must ensure that even when companies move on, the virtual worlds we paid for remains still alive. Let us praise the sun on a new era of digital rights so that the gamer of the future, it isn't simply game over.
In the end, nearly every person in the Parliament offices agreed that this was a huge problem that needed to be addressed. We currently have no knowledge of when this case will go into further action, but this is a huge step forward for Stop Killing Games.
Leave a Comment